A modest proposal for Copyright Revision

I just had an idea concerning copyright. I don't know if anyone would be happy with it, but here goes.

So long as the holder of the intellectual property rights keeps the item in print in a current format at a price such that it is accessable to the general public, they maintain their copyright. Forever. Hardcopy always counts as a current format. However, if they are not prepared to produce a quality digital version, or whatever is the current technological standard, and someone who is prepared to do so contacts them, they are required to negotiate a fair price for the format specific rights to the item concerned. If the entity producing the format specific edition ceases to provide it, the format specific rights, including the master copies for those versions, revert to the current intellectual property rights owner for the source item, unless said entity has, through failure to keep the item in print as specified below, lost their copyright, in which case the format specific edition becomes public domain; it does not become public domain so long as the holder of the rights to the format specific edition keeps it in print as specified below, even if the intellectual property rights holder losses their copyright through failure to maintain in print status. Similer clauses hold true in regard to foreign language editions, and adaptations into other formats not specifically mentioned or existant at this time. In short, so long as the intellectual property rights holder actively seeks to make a return on their investment, it remains theirs, provided they make arrangements with those prepared to transform the item into other formats that the intellectual property rights holder is not themselves interested in marketing the item in. If it remains available to the public, at a price that is considered fair given production costs and the need for a reasonable profit, and that they are making available general purpose editions, not just collectors editions, they retain copyright.

If they allow a five year period to pass with it out of print, they lose their copyright, permanently and irrevocably. It's gone, not theirs anymore, no saving throw, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00. It's now in the public domain. Permanently. That it is available in a format that they have contracted the rights away does not count as their keeping it in print, they have to be actively involved in keeping it before the public for sale. Actions taken on their behalf by their legal representatives if they are no longer functioning well enough to be actively involved do count towards their active participation.

Once in the public domain, anyone is permitted to produce it for sale, provided that a certain quality level is maintained; public domain does not mean trash is acceptable. Quality has to, at a minimum, match that of the general purpose editions produced by the intellectual property rights holder, in regards to formatting, legibility, viewability, listenability, etc., as appropriate depending upon the type of item. In other words, uncorrected ocr scans are not acceptable, they have to be proofed and formatted to match the original as closely as required to fulfill the purpose the original was created to meet. If illustrated in the original, the new version must be illustrated in a functionally identical fashion; functionally identical does not preclude different illustrations, but they must be identifiably the same subject matter, and where intended to convey instructional information, must be consistent with the original, with the exception that if the item is being updated to reflect changes in practice in the field involved, the illustrations must be updated to match the other revisions where the original illustrations would now provide misinformation concerning current practice; clearly, a facsimile reproduction is not a revision to current proactice, and any changes to illustrations should reflect the content of the original.

The five year period for allowing lapses of in print status is, in my mind, very reasonable; if they can't scrape up the funds to keep it in print after that long a break, they aren't going to. The major problem with current copyright is a) items just not being produced at all, yet still having copyright protection preventing anyone else from making them available, and 2) the demand for the item in formats compatable with the original in other media types not being met. Followed very closely by 3) being accessable to the general public at a reasonable price; I've had it up to here with items only being available in proprietary versions accessable only to those within Academia or a particular trade, or items where the publisher and author are both down for the count, no one has a clue who the current intellectual rights holder is or how to contact them, or where they just haven't bothered to keep the item in print yet refuse to license it to others at a reasonable price. If you want to maintain copyright, you have to make it available to anyone who requests access at a reasonable price; if you don't, your copyright is void, but so long as you do, you retain copyright; if Walt Disney, Inc., wants to maintain their copyright, they have to keep the item available, if they do that, they keep their copyright. If an informational database, such as EEBO 2, charging a per item access fee, provided it is within reason, is acceptable, so long as it is within the economic reach of those interested in the item; if this necesitates a sliding scale of access fees, so be it, provided the scale used passes review. If an article is cited in a source which is legally available, then access to that article by those reading the citing item is mandated. Since the reason for copyright is to insure the intellectual property rights holder a return on their investment, charging to access their intellectual property is not only allowed, but strongly encouraged; allowing free access declares it to be public domain, thank you for your donation to society; an exception would be granted to this if there is free access granted based upon a set criteria, such as being a current student, or retired on fixed or limited income, or a net income less than x. Making a stripped down or older version free does not void your copyright on the most recent complete version, as they are not functionally the same.

There is no minimum number of copies to be sold in any given time period; so long as it is available for purchase/access, at a reasonable price, you retain copyright; so long as there is no unmeet demand for the item, to make it clear, you retain copyright if it is kept available for any demand that may develop; if you keep it in print, but no one is buying, and it's not because you have priced it out of their range, demand has clearly been met, so you maintain copyright; clearly, if this goes on for a while, and you can't foresee demand picking back up within a certain period of time, you might want to consider allowing your copyright to lapse so you don't have to maintain access no one is using; again, copyright is to insure a return on your investment, when it costs more to maintain copyright than you actually recieve via access charges, why maintain your copyright?

If you initially make the item available for free, thus putting it in the public domain, but at a later date produce a "value added" edition, copyright is established for the value added edition only. So, yes, if you come out with a collector's edition, the collector's edition will be copyright to you, even if the geneal edition's copyright has lapsed or been willingly released. Just for so long as you keep it in print, of course.

Obviously, this would have some tricky implementation stuff. Defining what was a reasonable price for the access granted to the item would be a source of much contention, but since the idea of copyright is to insure a return on your investment, while at the same time making the item available to those who have a use for it, a compromise between maximizing the return on your investment and access to all who have need of your creation is mandated; no price gouging, while at the same time, a non-negligable amount over your costs of production and marketting/distribution. But I really think something like this would make a reasonable compromise between the current system of copyright covering items that have been out of print for decades, and the desire on the part of intellectual rights holders to maintain copyright for as long as possible; those who exercise those rights, keep them, those who don't, loose them; exercising the rights means making the item available to those interested in it at a price they can afford; it's arguable that whem debating what someone can afford, their spending habits should be reviewed to see if they are being good stewards of their resources; if they are not, why should the intellectual property rights holder be made to suffer? And yes, intellectual property rights can be sold, or inherited, or otherwise transfered, so long as access is maintained to any who have an interest in the item.

Kinda radical, kinda conservative. That's me, in a nutshell.