Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Steve, section 18.10 of the document states:
. . .
That seems to me to explicitly state that what's in the public domain will stay there. How do you interpret it as saying the opposite?
|
Harry, I focused on Article 18.63 and missed that. I believe you are correct. And that makes the use of the word "retroactive" in the following web pages also mistaken:
http://boingboing.net/2015/10/06/nz-...on-tpp-co.html
http://www.cnet.com/news/spotlight-o...c-partnership/
Can you, or another poster, explain this from Article 18.83 Paragraph 4:
Quote:
With regard to obligations subject to a transition period, a Party shall fully implement its obligations under the provisions of this Chapter no later than the expiration of the relevant time period specified below, which begins on the date of entry into force of the Agreement for that Party . . .
In the case of New Zealand, with respect to Article 18.63 (Term of Protection for Copyright and Related Rights), eight years. Except that from the date of entry into force of the Agreement for New Zealand, New Zealand shall provide that the term of protection for a work, performance or phonogram that would, during that eight years, have expired under the term that was provided in New Zealand law before the entry into force of this Agreement, instead expires 60 years from the relevant date in Article 18.63 that is the basis for calculating the term of protection under this Agreement.
|
I can think of a way of interpreting the above that makes no sense. This is the idea that during the eight years after coming into effect, New Zealand is life + 60 for books newly coming into the public domain. But all those books are already New Zealand public domain due to the life + 50 standard. It would take 11 years, not 8, for Life + 60 to bring something into the public domain in a previously Life + 50 country like New Zealand. Life + 60, for 8 years, therefore seems meaningless.
On the theory that they don't put in meaningless paragraphs, what alternate construction is possible?
This next part of 18.83 also confuses me because it seemingly gives to New Zealand, alone, the same right given, in 18.10, to all six countries that are having their copyright term increased:
Quote:
|
The Parties understand that, in applying Article 18.10 (Application of Chapter to Existing Subject Matter and Prior Acts), New Zealand shall not be required to restore or extend the term of protection to the works, performances and phonograms with a term provided pursuant to the previous sentence, once these works, performances and phonograms fall into the public domain in its territory.
|
Again, my question is: What construction would make this paragraph meaningful?