Google and Italy deal

[beppe]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

...I wish that more people understood that modern Italian language came about after the "Italian Wars" (1494 to 1559) and the conquest and occupation of Italy by Napoleon. Even in Mussolini's time there were (and to some degree or another still are) many well defined dialects.

The first well known use of Italian as we can understand it to day is from the 13 century with the poets of the Dolce Stil Novo among whom Dante.

The same source you mention reports that Only 2.5% of Italy’s population could speak standard Italian when the nation unified in 1861.

In spite of TV, dialects are still quite alive in Italy. In the house, often we use Lombard in the Milanese variant when we want to express familiarity and intimate feelings. We also have a patrimony of proverbs and ways of saying that apply to everyday life. Sifulot de menta (flute of mint) when one (a child usually) is telling lyes. The dialect takes away the sting from a reprimand. It brings in the ingredients of the tradition so that the culprit finds himself in good company. It inspires complicity, understanding and always affection. It is really the language of the heart and of the hearth.

Thank you to doreenjoy and HorridRedDog, for bringing up this.

[HorridRedDog]

My father spoke English, Spanish, Arabic, and Fārsi very well. He spoke Italian, French, and German well enough to get around. In spite of taking French in high school I now remember almost none of it.

The year I entered high school I had wanted to take Latin. That was the year that they discontinued Latin. Spanish and Italian classes were full.

Unlike my farther I have no ear for languages or music.

It's a pleasure to have you here beppe.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

I don't think that 10 years is realistic. Beneficial to us, yes. Not, however, to the authors.

10 years was merely an example I gave as that was what had been mentioned before in the thread. I think 20 years would be fine though.

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

I could be wrong. But for a book to return to PD it first must have been in the PD. And if it was in the PD in the first place then it can't be withdrawn from PD.

CORRECTION: If a book is illegally or mistakenly placed in PD it would be "removed" from PD.

Semantics, however.....

I am no lawyer but many on these boards who claim a greater knowledge than I with regards to copyright certainly argue that all works are automatically part of the PD, that once an idea is presented to the world it is by it's very nature part of the PD, and that copyright is only a time limited monopoly on the right to sell copies of said work.

When I stated that a work should "return" to the PD I simply meant that the work would lose any copyright status.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright can be assigned to a third party, but publishing isn't (in my knowledge, at least) done that way; the copyright holder simply signs a contract with a publisher, giving that publisher exclusive or non-exclusive rights to the work for a specified period of time. The copyright, however, remains with the author.

If you're asking if a book has a copyright that is distinct from that of the original work, the answer is no. Not unless it's something like a translation, which has its own separate copyright, or unless there's some particular and non-trivial skill involved in the particular presentation of the material, in which case it can have what's called a "typographical copyright", which lasts for 25 years.

This is correct. When authors contract with a publisher to print the author's work, the author is granting a license of the print rights to the publishers. This is very, very different from assigning the copyright to the publisher.

For the record, I'm both a published author and a publisher, and I know a bit about IP law.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by HorridRedDog

You're wonderfully correct. I wish that more people understood that modern Italian language came about after the "Italian Wars" (1494 to 1559) and the conquest and occupation of Italy by Napoleon. Even in Mussolini's time there were (and to some degree or another still are) many well defined dialects.

Oh, the dialects are still spoken, and taught to children, in every region of Italy. beppe quotes a good statistic about how long it took for the "standard" Italian to be adopted. My grandparents left Italy as late as 1904, and not one of them spoke the "national" Italian. Which made family life interesting, as they were unable to speak to each other in their native dialects (piedmontese, bergamese, and abruzzessa (SP).

What's being lost is the literature written in those dialects.

beppe, I live in the USA but I am an Italian citizen. I hope to move to Bergamo after my husband is granted citizenship via naturalization.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Oh, the dialects are still spoken, and taught to children, in every region of Italy. My grandparents left Italy as late as 1904, and not one of them spoke the "national" Italian. Which made family life interesting, as they were unable to speak to each other in their native dialects (piedmontese, bergamese, and abruzzessa (SP).

It's interesting to note that, in the First World War, the "official" language of the Italian army was English because most of the army could not speak or understand Italian, but all the officers could speak English.

[elena]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's interesting to note that, in the First World War, the "official" language of the Italian army was English because most of the army could not speak or understand Italian, but all the officers could speak English.

well, that's weird.
If illiterate peasants knew very little Tuscan, they certainly cuould not understand Engilsh, while officers who could speak English certainly knew Italian.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by elena

well, that's weird.
If illiterate peasants knew very little Tuscan, they certainly cuould not understand Engilsh, while officers who could speak English certainly knew Italian.

Like in pre-october Russia, the aristocracy spoke French.

[elena]

Originally Posted by beppe

Like in pre-october Russia, the aristocracy spoke French.

yes, and French was also the only other officially acknowledged language, so I can't see why the army would have used English.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Oh, the dialects are still spoken, and taught to children, in every region of Italy.

Maybe this is true for all languages, Italian dialects are quite different from each other.

Some years ago I was skying in a fancy resort in the Dolomites. The fancy enters in the story because people came from all over Italy. To pass the time on the chairlifts, I started to ask my occasional companions where they were from. From all over. Then I asked them how "let's go" came out in their dialect.

This was a lucky trick, among other things I made friend with a pretty girl (the friendship lasted for years and her husband became the sky instructor of my little daughter) and we skied together many times. My wife was lazy and coldish, her husband was busy instructing and we were skiwise compatible.

So in the North from West to East and from North to South, in steps of hundreds of miles, roughly this is what I got for "let's go".
Which is "andiamo", "alons nous", "vamonos" und "laß uns gehen" (dictionary.com translator).

andùma, andèm, vem, nèm, ndèm, ndum, ndom, andèmo, i, nin,
annamo, iamme, iam, iamo, iamoncènne, iammuninne, siàme, sciàmane, sciamuncìnne, imunìnni.

From Celtic to Arab.

P.S. The dialect of Bergamo is the more cryptic by far. Very practically, they use "i" (pronounced "e") for "wine".

[beppe]

Originally Posted by elena

yes, and French was also the only other officially acknowledged language, so I can't see why the army would have used English.

Buongiorno Elena,

this can be best solved by the most distinguished HarryT who threw this stone in the pond.

I imagine that it has to do with War Schools, or by the passion for playing poker or by excessive drinking (see Hemingway).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by beppe

Buongiorno Elena,

this can be best solved by the most distinguished HarryT who threw this stone in the pond.

I imagine that it has to do with War Schools, or by the passion for playing poker or by excessive drinking (see Hemingway).

Or perhaps it was simply because Italy was on the Allied side in WWI, and the "High Command" was primarily English-speaking. I don't know - that's just a guess, but it seems plausible.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Or perhaps it was simply because Italy was on the Allied side in WWI, and the "High Command" was primarily English-speaking. I don't know - that's just a guess, but it seems plausible.

Vale. optime quaestionem respondes asperam.

[HorridRedDog]

Originally Posted by elena

well, that's weird.
If illiterate peasants knew very little Tuscan, they certainly cuould not understand Engilsh, while officers who could speak English certainly knew Italian.

English (British, probably) was probably the most common "foreign language". Once the officers understood the battle plan they could direct the people under them in whatever dialects were spoken in that particular area.

Just guessing.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Not that there is an abundance of facts in this thread, but I feel compelled to point out that publishers don't own the copyright (in 99.9% of cases, at any rate). Authors own the copyright. That's why copyright is tied to the life of the author, not to whether or not a book is in print.

Eh - It's because company-held copyright (where possible) is typically 50-70 years, whereas a person's copyright, which can and typically is exclusively licensed, is typically life+50 to life+70 years.

Also, the badly flawed* Digital Economy Bill which the government is rushing through in the UK introduces an orphan right.

(*That's the polite version. Stating what I actually think of it would get me banned)