Random House being sued for not paying royalties

[barryem]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think the morals of the case are further obscured by the fact that in Germany during WWII what Dr Goebbels did wasn't against the law there.

After WW2 the Nuremberg war crimes trials determined that what many of the Nazis did was against the law, even though they were the law at the time. Goebels died and was never part of that but I think there's little doubt he'd have been convicted had he lived.

I'm not sure this argues against your point, at least not in any direct way. But it's worth taking into consideration.

Barry

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by barryem

After WW2 the Nuremberg war crimes trials determined that what many of the Nazis did was against the law, even though they were the law at the time. Goebels died and was never part of that but I think there's little doubt he'd have been convicted had he lived.

I'm not sure this argues against your point, at least not in any direct way. But it's worth taking into consideration.

Barry

Hmmm.

If you consider that his suicide near the end of the European Theater war prevented his being tried a Nuremberg, then US Law would not apply to someone like Goebbles because we generally don't do posthumous trials and he wasn't convicted of his crimes.

It's a convoluted issue.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by barryem

After WW2 the Nuremberg war crimes trials determined that what many of the Nazis did was against the law, even though they were the law at the time. Goebels died and was never part of that but I think there's little doubt he'd have been convicted had he lived.

I'm not sure this argues against your point, at least not in any direct way. But it's worth taking into consideration.

Barry

I didn't mean to imply that his actions weren't criminal, only that under the Nazi regime what he did was considered ok. Of course the rest of the world (thankfully) didn't agree with them.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

If it is offensive to public policy for Goebbel's estate to receive royalties, the solution is not to unjustly enrich a publisher by allowing them to use these materials royalty free, particularly when they had already agreed to pay royalties.

The idea that Random House is going to enrich itself by publishing an academic biography of Joseph Goebbels seems to me something out of Mel Brooks.

Perhaps already mentioned, this is from Germany's state broadcaster:

Cordula Schacht reportedly refused an offer of royalties from the biography on condition they be paid to a Holocaust charity.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The idea that Random House is going to enrich itself by publishing an academic biography of Joseph Goebbels seems to me something out of Mel Brooks.

Perhaps already mentioned, this is from Germany's state broadcaster:

Cordula Schacht reportedly refused an offer of royalties from the biography on condition they be paid to a Holocaust charity.

If Random House refuses to pay the Royalties they agreed to pay and in effect pockets them, they will of course be better off than they would have been if they honoured the agreement they made. If only Random House chose to follow Cordula Schacht's good example to the extent of at least undertaking to pay the Royalties to a charity, Holocaust or other.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The idea that Random House is going to enrich itself by publishing an academic biography of Joseph Goebbels seems to me something out of Mel Brooks.

Academic or not, I'm sure they wouldn't be publishing it unless they think it'll be profitable.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by barryem

After WW2 the Nuremberg war crimes trials determined that what many of the Nazis did was against the law, even though they were the law at the time. Goebels died and was never part of that but I think there's little doubt he'd have been convicted had he lived.

I'm not sure this argues against your point, at least not in any direct way. But it's worth taking into consideration.

Barry

Although all that means is that he was never tried, therefore, not guilty of any war crimes.
The fact that he would have been convicted if he lived is irrelevant

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by alanHd

Here's the full story from the bbc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32363846

So, let me get this straight ... it's not morally wrong to publish these journals, but it's morally wrong to pay royalties on them because of who wrote them? Sounds like a a very self-serving argument ... one a lying thief would gladly use to try to break his contract.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So, let me get this straight ... it's not morally wrong to publish these journals, but it's morally wrong to pay royalties on them because of who wrote them? Sounds like a a very self-serving argument ... one a lying thief would gladly use to try to break his contract.

Correct. It's OK to negotiate an agreement with the estate. It's OK to publish the book. It's OK for the publisher and retailers to make a profit from the book. It's just that there is a moral objection to actually honouring the agreement by paying the estate. We all have to draw a line somewhere.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Barcey

We all have to draw a line somewhere.

Usually in the place most advantageous to us, to judge from Random House's example.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Academic or not, I'm sure they wouldn't be publishing it unless they think it'll be profitable.

I think their expectation is that most of their titles will lose money.

Now, it also is their expectation that a few unexpected bestsellers will make up for that. So I guess that what you write above is true in spirit, even if not literally.

But that still doesn't mean they think a freedom-to-quote legal battle will be profitable.

Random House parent Bertelsmann is mostly owned by the non-profit Bertelsmann Foundation. When, in a previous thread, I described Bertelsmann itself as non-profit, one of our German posters wrote something to the effect of this just being a tax dodge. I can't refute that. But, in this case, it seems to me that they are probably about to pay legal bills for which there is little chance of getting the money back.

Suppose the editor and author were to cave in, cutting the direct quotation of copyrighted materials. Would this really lower sales of the book? Probably a bit, as the reviews could be a little less glowing. But such an effect would be small.

Someone could speculate that their real concern is to discourage the heirs of other political figures -- say, American presidents -- from following the Goebbels family example, causing artistic damage to biographies with higher potential sales. If so, this is a wonderful example of enlightened self-interest.

Random House could instead pay off people who sue to stop fair use. This isn't likely to be true for smaller publishers and self-publishers, to whom a Random House standing up for freedom to read principles is a gift.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I think their expectation is that most of their titles will lose money.

Now, it also is their expectation that a few unexpected bestsellers will make up for that. So I guess that what you write above is true in spirit, even if not literally.

But that still doesn't mean they think a freedom-to-quote legal battle will be profitable.

Random House parent Bertelsmann is mostly owned by the non-profit Bertelsmann Foundation. When, in a previous thread, I described Bertelsmann itself as non-profit, one of our German posters wrote something to the effect of this just being a tax dodge. I can't refute that. But, in this case, it seems to me that they are probably about to pay legal bills for which there is little chance of getting the money back.

Suppose the editor and author were to cave in, cutting the direct quotation of copyrighted materials. Would this really lower sales of the book? Probably a bit, as the reviews could be a little less glowing. But such an effect would be small.

Someone could speculate that their real concern is to discourage the heirs of other political figures -- say, American presidents -- from following the Goebbels family example, causing artistic damage to biographies with higher potential sales. If so, this is a wonderful example of enlightened self-interest.

Random House could instead pay off people who sue to stop fair use. This isn't likely to be true for smaller publishers and self-publishers, to whom a Random House standing up for freedom to read principles is a gift.

So there is a cockamamie theory that they are nobly refusing to pay royalties because paying royalties causes artist damage...somehow.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I think their expectation is that most of their titles will lose money.

Now, it also is their expectation that a few unexpected bestsellers will make up for that. So I guess that what you write above is true in spirit, even if not literally.

But that still doesn't mean they think a freedom-to-quote legal battle will be profitable.

Random House parent Bertelsmann is mostly owned by the non-profit Bertelsmann Foundation. When, in a previous thread, I described Bertelsmann itself as non-profit, one of our German posters wrote something to the effect of this just being a tax dodge. I can't refute that. But, in this case, it seems to me that they are probably about to pay legal bills for which there is little chance of getting the money back.

Suppose the editor and author were to cave in, cutting the direct quotation of copyrighted materials. Would this really lower sales of the book? Probably a bit, as the reviews could be a little less glowing. But such an effect would be small.

Someone could speculate that their real concern is to discourage the heirs of other political figures -- say, American presidents -- from following the Goebbels family example, causing artistic damage to biographies with higher potential sales. If so, this is a wonderful example of enlightened self-interest.

Random House could instead pay off people who sue to stop fair use. This isn't likely to be true for smaller publishers and self-publishers, to whom a Random House standing up for freedom to read principles is a gift.

Why is this about fair use? Random House contractually agreed to pay, then decided not to. This has nothing to do with fair use, and everything to do with breach of contract.

Shari

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I think their expectation is that most of their titles will lose money.

I don't think so. They may well expect most of their titles not to 'earn out' their advance, but that's very different to expecting to lose money on a title.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by shalym

Why is this about fair use? Random House contractually agreed to pay, then decided not to. This has nothing to do with fair use, and everything to do with breach of contract.

According to the BBC and PBS (but not the longer newspaper reports), Random House first said they would pay the estate, but changed their mind. People can change their mind. Corporations can also reverse decisions. Googling, I can't find a claim that Random House entered into a contract with the Goebbels family anywhere, except in this thread.

If Random House Germany did reverse a bad decision, the likely impetus was author Phillip Longerich. Here's how he sees it:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...s-in-biography

If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels’ diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research.

Control of the rights could have included an inspection of the manuscript before publication, which did not happen in this case. But generally speaking we cannot allow such control from private persons, whatever their interests are.

In this case, we are dealing with the daughter of a cabinet colleague of Mr Goebbels. This is an absolutely unacceptable situation. It’s a question not only of morality, but of professionalism for a historian.

As to whether it is about fair use, well, literally, I'm not sure, since fair use is an American legal phrase. But it is about that concept. If the subjects of biographies, or their heirs, get to shake down publishers (or, if self-published, authors) for cash, or force them to cut out quotations, that is a big freedom to read issue for readers of biographies.