The history of copyright is a history of change. Remember that for thousands of years, there was no copyright, yet people wrote books.
There's actually one quite ancient case of adjudication on the matter.. I'll have to look it up to get you the exact data... in which one monastic order loaned a manuscript to another monastic order. The second order copied it all, without permission, before returning the manuscript. So, the lending order complained to the monarch of the land who forced the offenders to pony up the manuscript copy.
I've actually been very lucky, as half of my income for several years was royalties. Yet when my books were remaindered, it went to zero very fast, and I have no right to put out a new edition since I had to give up my ownership in order to get published. I don't own my own work and neither do most writers and artists!!! [This really burns me, that ownership doesn't revert back when the publisher is no longer marketing the work.]
Erk! I've known a number of writers who suffered this indignity. Their answer was to write a new book on the subject with a whole new title and lots of new material without any reference whatever to the old book and take it to a different publisher. That always works. Worse, in some cases, is when a publisher hires editors right out of college who have no knowledge of the subject matter but who insist on editing it to the point of meaningless gibberish.
Some authors of my acquaintance are looking seriously at on-demand publishing. The trouble they all have with that is how to market, effectively.
I, myself, really appreciate the Gutenberg Project. I like having access to searchable text of the classics via my laptop. That said, being the study in contradictions that I am, I must also say I am a die-hard. I will *never* give up cloth bound books. I just love the feel of curling up with a good, solid book, my book light, and a cup of good tea.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Starving artists?
Date: 2005-06-03 01:19 pm (UTC)There's actually one quite ancient case of adjudication on the matter.. I'll have to look it up to get you the exact data... in which one monastic order loaned a manuscript to another monastic order. The second order copied it all, without permission, before returning the manuscript. So, the lending order complained to the monarch of the land who forced the offenders to pony up the manuscript copy.
I've actually been very lucky, as half of my income for several years was royalties. Yet when my books were remaindered, it went to zero very fast, and I have no right to put out a new edition since I had to give up my ownership in order to get published. I don't own my own work and neither do most writers and artists!!! [This really burns me, that ownership doesn't revert back when the publisher is no longer marketing the work.]
Erk! I've known a number of writers who suffered this indignity. Their answer was to write a new book on the subject with a whole new title and lots of new material without any reference whatever to the old book and take it to a different publisher. That always works. Worse, in some cases, is when a publisher hires editors right out of college who have no knowledge of the subject matter but who insist on editing it to the point of meaningless gibberish.
Some authors of my acquaintance are looking seriously at on-demand publishing. The trouble they all have with that is how to market, effectively.
I, myself, really appreciate the Gutenberg Project. I like having access to searchable text of the classics via my laptop. That said, being the study in contradictions that I am, I must also say I am a die-hard. I will *never* give up cloth bound books. I just love the feel of curling up with a good, solid book, my book light, and a cup of good tea.