This
is not new, people have complained about copyright laws for a long
time. Many customers coming into Silverfish asking for books published
in the country in the 60s and 70s, which are now out of print. We would
apologise and point them in the direction of antiquarian bookstores in
London, and feel thoroughly stupid about it. These are Malaysian books,
good books, and should be in print, even if only POD, and should be in
the country."Why don't you republish it," they would ask. The reply to that, in a word, is 'copyright'. The publishers have disappeared and no one knows where the author is. Still, the work remains protected! Not unlike the dog in the manger story that we heard when we were children.
Copyright registration?
The copyright regime is a weird. Unlike patents, you do not have to register it, you do not have to prove it is yours, yet no one else can touch.
We understand that copyright laws are about allowing the author to exploit the full commercial potential of a book. But happens though if the author and his publisher are no longer interested in it, or even dead? Out of hundreds of thousands of books published every year, only a tiny fraction remains in print after five years. And, after ten years, next to none. Only the very famous will still sell their books in any numbers to make it commercially exploitable. So, imagine the situation after 30, 40 or 50 years. The tragedy is that thousands of very important mid-level works go unread and unpublished for generations, and are hence forgotten.
In the US and Europe a work is currently copyright protected for 70 years after the death of the author, and they are working on extending it. In Malaysia, the copyright remains with the author's estate for 50 years after the death of the author. (If there is anyone out there with better knowledge of Malaysian copyright laws, please butt in.)
If copyright were treated like private property, it would be a leasehold house, where the owner would be allowed in as long as he is alive. Then his heir(s) would inherit it, but only for the remaining duration of the lease. The heir might subsequently want to apply to renew the lease, subject to approval by the state. Under copyright laws, a new lease is automatically granted, even if he (or she) is not interested. Firstly, why do the heirs deserve this hand-me-down? What did they do? Secondly, does such work not belong to the people? Is it not the cultural heritage of a nation? (Am I beginning to sound like a communist here? Have to be careful these days.)
Life would be so much simpler if copyright had to be registered and renewed at regular intervals for a fee to the state (or other body) if any party still wants to keep his interest alive. If the Library of Congress can register every damned book ever published, why not copyright? For scholars, researchers and the public, this would be a gold mine, even if the majority of the works might be nothing more than paper lama.
Censorship by other means
We are such a young country, and yet we have already lost so much. We do not know where many authors or the publishers are, let alone their next of kin, and the works cannot be reprinted because it is still protected. Some people in the government would prefer many works to disappear because of inconvenient truths they might reveal. Since book-burning would be frowned upon (although many have no problems with openly advocating it) for reasons of politics, and, not to mention, haze mitigation, wilful benign neglect (by not allocating funds, for example) and incompetence (having civil servants look after priceless old manuscripts, or sell as kacang puteh wrapper) have almost become the accepted modus operandi.
In any context, this would be censorship by other means. (Does anyone know where the original Jawi manuscripts of Hikayat Hang Tuah and Merong Mahawangsa are?)
In a recent study by Professor Paul J. Heald (picture), of the University of Illinois College of Law, and visiting professor at the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) at Britain’s Bournemouth University, it was reported that, “A random sample of new books for sale on Amazon.com shows three times more books initially published in the 1850’s are for sale than new books from the 1950’s."
So, not surprisingly, copyright makes books disappear. And also music. (Read the full text of the paper here.) Powerful copyright lobbyists advocate ever longer terms of copyright protection for fear that when copyright expires, the work loses its owner, and it falls into the public domain. Er, so? Isn't that where it belongs? Anyway, even if copyright protection is extended, what's the problem with registering and renewing it so everyone knows? The monopolists would benefit too.
We have heard this many times before: if you love it, set it free. This should include copyright.
