Re: Re: will everyone concerned about copyright please read this

On 23/09/2011 02:06, Lee Passey wrote:
> On Thu, September 22, 2011 4:34 am, joseph harris wrote:
>
>   >  On 22/09/2011 04:29, Lee Passey wrote:
>
> [snip]
<snip>
> You are factually wrong. Until 1978 U.S. copyright laws have been
> greatly at odds with the demands of the Berne convention. (I say 1978
> because that was the effective date of the 1976 act.) The two most
> glaring examples are in the area of formalities and term.
>    
The big jump was needed because the catching up was so slow.
<snip>
>
> I don't believe that the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act of 1998
> can be significantly attributed to the "spirit" of the Berne convention
> (it certainly cannot be attributed to the letter of the Berne
> convention, as that only requires a copyright term of life + 50).
Life plus fifty is a minimum requirement.
<snip>
>> US law already accepts the fundamental of Queen Anne and Berne -
>> automatic copyright to the creator; that was a major change.
>>      
> Factually wrong again. In the 16th century the Stationers' Company was
> given the power to require all lawfully printed books to be entered into
> its register. The Statute of Anne (1709) left in place that system of
> registration,
>    
<snip>
The long title was '  "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by 
vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such 
Copies, during the Times therein mentioned". ^ <#cite_note-Rimmer-4>' 
[Wikipedia] Its importance was in giving the author the rights, or 
control of the rights.
' Those infringing copyright had to pay a fine of one penny for every 
sheet of the book, one moiety of which went to the author, the other to 
the Crown. In today's terms this was a considerable fine'
'The statute was the first to recognise the legal right of authorship'

^<snip>
>> Your contempt for other countries is alarming. But again you are wrong;
>> the copyright law of other countries, for works covered by those laws,
>> is recognised in the United States.
>>      
> I have no contempt for the laws of other countries in general; my
> contempt is restricted to this law in particular -- not because it is
> the law of some other country, but simply because it is a bad law. And I
> see no need for the United States to adopt bad law simply because it is
> common in foreign countries.
>    
So bad that it has fulfilled its purpose in encouraging ever-greater 
numbers of works to public view via the publishing industry. Post WW2 
figures illustrate this well, with surges as each technological advance 
has has cheapened or eased the process.

<snip>
>    
>> I think in the past couple of years registration became no longer necessary
>> in order to sue for breach for non-US works.
>>      
>    
<snip>
> The 1988 Act provided for the assessment of statutory damages as an
> alternative to actual damages in those cases where actual damages were
> speculative or difficult to prove. Registration is no longer a
> prerequisite to a lawsuit, but it /is/ a prerequisite to the award of
> statutory damages. In fact, neither statutory damages nor attorneys'
> fees are not available for any infringement which occurs prior to the
> effective date of the registration.
>    
You may be familiar with the law and regulation; the effect is, however, 
to continue to undermine the purpose of Berne. The severe financial 
penalties [or unavailable remedies] is akin to a tax on authorship 
protection.
<snip>
>    
>> And, are any conventions or treaties 'self-implementing'? They all have
>> to be subjected to the normal legislative processes of a nation. The
>> minimum terms of Berne have been more than met.
>>      
Your <blockquotes> describe perfectly the legislative processes. So what 
are you arguing against?
<snip>
>>>> I agree that a sequel would hardly be a derivative work if it was the
>>>> product of the same author. Fan fiction is, however, breach of
>>>> copyright;
<snip>
>> Er... If it hasn't been to court there can be no court decision. If, in
>> twenty odd years, and in a litigious country, it has not been challenged
>> that may be because it is open and shut.
>>      
> Maybe there is such a case, and I'm simply unaware of it...... The only case I'm aware of that is close to this is Suntrust v. Houghton
> Mifflin, 268 F.3d 1257, in which the estate of Magaret Mitchell sued
> Alice Randall over _The Wind Done Gone_, a retelling of the story of
> _Gone With the Wind_ through the eyes of the slave Cynara. The Eleventh
> Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an injunction against its publication,
> after which the case was settled by an unspecified donation by Houghton
> Mifflin to Morehouse College. The 11th Circuit Court relied on the U.S.
> Supreme Court's decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc, 510 U.S.
> 569, and it appears likely that Ms. Randall would have also prevailed in
> the Supreme Court.
>    
  [Wikipedia again] 'This case arguably stands for the principle that 
the creation and publication of a carefully written parody 
</wiki/Parody> novel in the United States counts as fair use 
</wiki/Fair_use>'

Parody and satire have been part of the mix in Europe for a long time. 
But the assessment of where breach and derivative end and these begin 
are sometimes contentious. Note the term 'carefully written'.
<snip>
>> ER... The US has not given up registration; were you intending something
>> different?
>>      
> Registration in the U.S. is not a prerequisite to the establishment of a
> copyright, neither is it a prerequisite to recovering damages for
> infringement,
>    
According to Americans in the business it is; they tell me that the 
advice they receive is that they cannot sue for breach without registering.
<snip>
>> And not all works are registered; it is a very fallible
>> system, and restrictive of free trading.
>>      
> Yes, a registration system does not work well if a substantial portion
> of copyright holders fail to take advantage of the system; that's why a
> registration system should be mandatory. And a mandatory registration
> system would foster more free trading as it would add certainty in
> determining exactly what you're trading for.
>
>
>    
Copyright is about the author and the author's right and the 
encouragement of the author through legislation to spend productive time 
and effort in the production and marketing of works. Authors, agents 
andpublishers have a pretty good idea of their market and what they are 
marketing for. Are you suggesting that third parties that do not 
contribute to this process should be the ones to be rewarded? Do you 
apply this idea to any other business area?
<snip>
>> You quote the US Constitution, not the laws.
>>      
> OK, the law says:
>    
And makes exactly my point. Why are you showing that? I've said you 
quoted constitution, and laws put flesh on constitutions in timely fashion.
<snip>

> Actually, the U.S. Constitution is not about principle at all, it is
> about the limitation of governmental powers. The philosophical
> underpinnings of the constitution is not due nearly so much to the Magna
> Carta as it is to the charter of Hudson's Bay Company -- but now we're
> getting /really/ far off topic :-).
>    
As interpretted certainly one principle seeks the limitation of Federal 
government.
<snip>
>> That's a mish-mash Lee! As an attempt at bypassing past discussions to
>> early foot-stamping it works :-) . Restate it in unemotional and
>> reasonably logical terms and I'll respond.
>>      
> It is indeed a mish mash :-).
>    
<snip>
> ... At least for a few months until another clueless individual comes
> along to claim "my story is my God-given property, and copyright
> infringement is theft." Sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut, even
> when I should.
Because I try to ensure all those in writing and publishing have as much 
idea as possible about copyright and its protections and limitations and 
the threats to it I have responded to some of  your points above. 
However, this paragraph is inexcusable. We disagree and interpret 
differently because we stand on different sides of one argument; that 
argument is the balance point for IP legislations.

Let me make a final point aimed at your underlying case; the case which 
claims loss to the public good and loss of accessibility. If  the object 
of copyright law is to encourage output then it succeeds admirably and 
with growing success. Accessibility carries a cost however it is done. 
Sometimes costs are met indirectly; sometimes an appearance of freedom 
of access is a bait to the development of costly access.

Each thing must be assessed for its immediate *and* for its future 
meanings. Your arguments tend to parallel those for the Google 
Pheonix-risen Library of Alexandria. As so many of my American 
correspondents say: Be careful what you wish for.

Joseph Harris


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/