How long is copyright?

[pcCoder]

I just purchased a copy of Origin of Species from my local Goodwill for less than 2 dollars. Upon opening the cover and reading the inside, I get this:

Originally published in 1859. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manor whatsoever without prior written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

So, what exactly gives here? Doesn't copyright expire and works enter public domain 70 years after the authors death? Or does assigning a work to a publisher mean it has to be 70 years after the publishers death (which may never happen as it doesn't depend on the death of the people)? I'm just curious about how a work more than 150 years old can still be copyrighted.

[ronmcd]

It's free on kindle, and it's listed as out of copyright in US. Perhaps there's a sneaky foreword or similar which is copyrighted, rather than the text?

[klr]

I just purchased a copy of Origin of Species from my local Goodwill for less than 2 dollars. Upon opening the cover and reading the inside, I get this:

Originally published in 1859. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manor whatsoever without prior written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

So, what exactly gives here? Doesn't copyright expire and works enter public domain 70 years after the authors death? Or does assigning a work to a publisher mean it has to be 70 years after the publishers death (which may never happen as it doesn't depend on the death of the people)? I'm just curious about how a work more than 150 years old can still be copyrighted.

The original text may be long since out of copyright, but ...

The book (being a derivative work) may not be
and/or
That notice might only be in force until the copyright expires

Will need to check some more.

[JimC]

It may have been true when that edition of the book was published...

[Tyrannical]

It may have been true when that edition of the book was published...

Most likely true. But why should copyright that most often is used to protect art be so much longer than patents that protect scientific discoveries. Why should artists be able to live off their past work for so much longer? It's not like construction workers get paid rent for what they build.

[Svartalf]

Because Disney. Now, if we could just nuke every disney site and snipe every exec of that company and decree its stock and owned IP worthless, the world would be a cleaner place.

[piscator]

It may have been true when that edition of the book was published...

Most likely true. But why should copyright that most often is used to protect art be so much longer than patents that protect scientific discoveries. Why should artists be able to live off their past work for so much longer? It's not like construction workers get paid rent for what they build.

Because the entire concept of copyright was created by publishers and their attorneys to protect the publisher's stock in trade.
It's not like artists have any power to create a system like that.

[Warren Dew]

It may have been true when that edition of the book was published...

Most likely true. But why should copyright that most often is used to protect art be so much longer than patents that protect scientific discoveries. Why should artists be able to live off their past work for so much longer? It's not like construction workers get paid rent for what they build.

Because copyright doesn't protect ideas. Put the same idea into your own words, and you're free to publish it, as it doesn't violate copyright. You're unlikely to have come up with the exact same wording as the copyrighted original, anyway. For that reason, copyright does not inhibit creation of new works.

Patents, in contrast, protect ideas even if someone else comes up with them independently, which often happens. They have a much greater negative effect on new invention.

[Warren Dew]

Because Disney. Now, if we could just nuke every disney site and snipe every exec of that company and decree its stock and owned IP worthless, the world would be a cleaner place.

Doubtful. Disney movies are about as clean as they come. Without Disney, they'd be replaced with inferior junk.