Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!s09-10.readnews.com!not-for-mail
From: Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Reasonably priced C11 standard?
References: <4F2AF093.1000108@verizon.net> <32ea44ee2154f0794941c9d72f0fcff6@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> <jgo95e$eod$1@dont-email.me> <jgocqt$k5$1@dont-email.me> <jgogl6$k76$1@dont-email.me> <jgojv6$4pd$1@dont-email.me> <jgonio$oft$1@dont-email.me> <4F2FF6D9.AC9D99DD@bytecraft.com> <jgothn$nka$1@speranza.aioe.org> <6281j7hdotij3jljl9vbodlvm9d1bhpckq@4ax.com> <86r4y7mf64.fsf@zipcon.net> <6bq609-dm3.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com> <86ty325lnm.fsf@zipcon.net> <ves809-cgn.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:35:46 -0800
Message-ID: <86ty32yp2l.fsf@zipcon.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (berkeley-unix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:doYk5pSj5lXuUmwWJbvvLbVNGwE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lines: 75
Organization: The Zip Connection (zipcon.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7bf4e1b4.news.zipcon.net
X-Trace: DXC=Olh^3^A_^E7fgC=d<>K8V>U>Dm5d6:E6=>I?lnAl3EC0KUIV\6HP8X7_A>1gcoFWo=Lg7k@hC8A29
X-Complaints-To: abuse@zipcon.net
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.c:16910

William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes:

> Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:
>> William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> writes:
> <snip>
>> > There's a short cut for such early works. Just check the Copyright
>> > Office for a renewal. If there was no renewal, the copyright lapsed. End
>> > of story.
>>
>> Go to your university library, ask them to pull the Catalog of Copyright
>> Entries out of storage, search through annual volumes from
>> when the book was published in the 1920s until 1978.  Some shortcut.
>
> There was only a 1 year window for renewals, so a search could be
> considerably optimized.

Are you certain that no copyright holder ever renewed early?  I'm pretty
sure that they have.  Possibly when copyright is transfered from one
holder to another.  Some publishers used to renew very frequently, at
least so they said on the copyright pages, and I'm not sure what their
motivation was.

Also, the Copyright Office cautions that the notices of renewal were
sometimes published up to a year later than when they actually renewed.
I think to be sure you have to search them all.

> Although the short cut is quite onerous by today's standard of almost
> instant retrieval of information, it's still quite doable for particular
> works.

>> Note that if the work was registered after 1964, renewals have been
>> automatic so the copyright is known to still be in effect, but it will
>> probably not be much help locating the copyright holder to ask
>> permission.
>
> Right. There are all kinds of wrinkles, especially the newer the work. Which
> is why it couldn't hurt to buy an hour or two of a copyright lawyer's time
> for general advice.

Right, but consulting a lawyer would only be worth it if you knew of a
moneymaking opportunity connected with that particular work.  A library
that is scanning a brittle book for preservation is not going to consult
a lawyer or copyright search expert about every such title.  They will
see "after 1923" and just scan it, print one copy, and then destroy the scans,
as libraries are allowed to do under the act.

>> Some information regarding copyright is only recorded in the Copyright
>> Office card file in Washington.  Go there, or pay the Copyright Office
>> staff to search it.
>
> Actually, paying the copyright office is an excellent idea. What do they
> charge these days, ~$100/hr? There's a minimum amount of research time, too,
> I think. That sounds like a lot, but in the region where I work the average
> salary is nearly $100k/yr, or roughly $50/working hour, or $11/hr. Consider
> how much money has been spent just complaining about copyright!
>
> Though I certainly am not trying to defend existing law (or copyright in
> general), it's worth point out that technically the labour and fees need
> only be expended once. The knowledge gained can then be shared with others.
> Not ideal, but it's better than just whining. (Not saying that you're
> whining, BTW... I mean, any more than the rest of us ;)

I'm sure the individuals involved are worth their pay.  But the point is
it should be easy to determine whether a work is in copyright.  It's not
1965 anymore.

At that price point, an individual who borrows a book through
interlibrary loan and wants to study it for more than a few weeks has no
legal way to do so, people preserving brittle books are extremely
limited in how they can share their work.  The majority of pre-1964
works are copyright expired, but it's just too expensive to determine
that for any particular work.  Institutions like libraries can't afford
to take a chance.

-- Patrick