Konrath challenges the Authors Guild

[hardcastle]

I vastly prefer Konrath's articles where he takes a more serious tone. His jokes and humor fall flat for me, and the whole article ends up feeling mean. It doesn't help that his sense of humor can be mistaken for logical fallacies; to people less aware of his writing, the perceived ad hominem and strawmen only undermine the thesis statements.

I'd like to send his articles around to my friends but I'm not sure they'd get it, and the tone of the article would probably set them off from the points being made more so than they do for me. It's just not necessary, or really in the slightest bit entertaining.

That said, it's once again a good argument made exceedingly thoroughly, once the copious dressing has been removed from the dish. I'm glad someone does it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Interesting point, and quite valid, IMPO. The question would be does the US signing the copyright treaty change how the US legal system views copyrights, i.e. does the Berne Convention override how the US treats fair use? While I might think that what Google is doing is well worth doing, and ought to be allowed (the idea of having all books digitized and available for purchase greatly appeals to me (and yes, I know that Google Books doesn't make all books available for purchase), whither or not it falls under fair use is very much new ground.

Inasmuch as the US does not follow Berne (other than on paper), why should we follow Berne on fair use?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Inasmuch as the US does not follow Berne (other than on paper), why should we follow Berne on fair use?

Not sure what you mean. The US signed the convention and it went into effect in 1988 with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The US signed the convention and it went into effect in 1988 with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.

Question:

Consider this book published in 1923, in both the UK and US, by an author who died in 1975:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inimitable_Jeeves

US copyright formalities were complied with (registration in 1923 and renewal in 1950):

https://collections.stanford.edu/cop...eID=380619164X

Per the Cornell US copyright rule specification, this book will be in the public domain on January 1, 2019. That's because it has these characteristics limiting copyright to the end of calendar year that is 95 years after publication date:

-- First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad

-- Date of publication 1923 through 1977

-- Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal)

I doubt Cornell's Copyright Information Center is wrong. And yet, if the US complies with Berne's Life + 50 requirement, Jeeves can't pass into the US public domain until January 1, 2026.

One possible explanation is this provision in Title 17 of the United States Code: The obligations of the United States under the Berne Convention may be performed only pursuant to appropriate domestic law. Since US law doesn't provide for "Life +" copyright for books published before 1978 (afterwards, Life + 70), there isn't any circumstance under which Berne's Life + 50 applies in the US. But, if that's true, how is it that the US can claim to abide by Berne?

I can think of some easy answers that may be suggested (US law could change before 2019; Cornell criteria are worthless; US hyper-power (please forgive word choice here) trumps international law. But I'm thinking there may be a better answer. Does anyone have one?

[Cinisajoy]

Steve,
The only answer I can come up with is we will find out in 4 years.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Not sure what you mean. The US signed the convention and it went into effect in 1988 with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.

I'll spell it out. . .

The Berne Convention defined certain lengths for copyright. The most commonly known one was Life + 50 for individual authors. (There were separate lengths defined for Posthumous works, Anonymous works, Works for hire, Collaborative works, ect.)

The US has never followed any of them.

It never followed Life + 50.
It never followed the Posthumous lengths.
It never followed the Anonymous lengths.
It never followed the Works for Hire lengths.
It never followed the Collaborative lengths.
It never followed any Berne length.

Not before it signed the Convention, not after it "signed" the Convention. . .

It seems to me that if you are not going to follow the terms of the Convention, having "signed" it is simply an empty bag, a claimant with no reality backing it up.

(As to life + 50. Berne defines copyright as Life + 50. Not Copyright + X years, as the US has done both before and after it "signed" the Berne Convention. (it's currently Copyright + 95 years), Not copyright + 70 years, Berne never specified that length. To have Berne become Life + 70 would require a formal renegotiation among its signees, This has never been done.

Complying with Life + 50, or even Life +70, would require treating all copyright works in the same manner, and scrapping Copyright + x years. Example, the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle should have gone into the Public Domain in the US in 1981, under the terms of the Berne Convention - died in 1930 + 50 years, plus the next Jan 1. His works from 1923 to his death are still under copyright in the US, and will be to a minimum of 2019, which would equate to Life + 89 years. Assuming there is no further Copyright + X years extension. . ..)

Is that clear enough?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Steve,
The only answer I can come up with is we will find out in 4 years.

Or possibly sooner, depending on the text of the TPP Treaty...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Question:

Consider this book published in 1923, in both the UK and US, by an author who died in 1975:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inimitable_Jeeves

US copyright formalities were complied with (registration in 1923 and renewal in 1950):

https://collections.stanford.edu/cop...eID=380619164X

Per the Cornell US copyright rule specification, this book will be in the public domain on January 1, 2019. That's because it has these characteristics limiting copyright to the end of calendar year that is 95 years after publication date:

-- First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad

-- Date of publication 1923 through 1977

-- Published in compliance with all US formalities (i.e., notice, renewal)

I doubt Cornell's Copyright Information Center is wrong. And yet, if the US complies with Berne's Life + 50 requirement, Jeeves can't pass into the US public domain until January 1, 2026.

One possible explanation is this provision in Title 17 of the United States Code: The obligations of the United States under the Berne Convention may be performed only pursuant to appropriate domestic law. Since US law doesn't provide for "Life +" copyright for books published before 1978 (afterwards, Life + 70), there isn't any circumstance under which Berne's Life + 50 applies in the US. But, if that's true, how is it that the US can claim to abide by Berne?

I can think of some easy answers that may be suggested (US law could change before 2019; Cornell criteria are worthless; US hyper-power (please forgive word choice here) trumps international law. But I'm thinking there may be a better answer. Does anyone have one?

The clear one - the US does not abide by Berne. (If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, paddles like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck!)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

As to life + 50. Berne defines copyright as Life + 50.

No, the Berne Convention says that it must be at least life+50, but that signatories are free to adopt longer terms.

Specifically, from Article 7 of the convention:

(1) The term of protection granted by this Convention shall be the life of the author and fifty years after his death.
...
(6) The countries of the Union may grant a term of protection in excess of those provided by the preceding paragraphs.

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text...698#P127_22000

[kennyc]

They really should convene a quorum and adopt a new name "The Traditional Publishers Guild"

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

They really should convene a quorum and adopt a new name "The Traditional Publishers Guild"

Funny thing is, a good chunk of their members would still support them and send in dues.

The term "Stockholm Syndrome" pops up from time to time vis-a-vis the AG slavish support of toxic BPH practices. It's as if they've been so used to the abuse they can't imagine life (or their business) any other way.

They don't even process that other tradpubs can and do flourish without toxic contracts.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, the Berne Convention says that it must be at least life+50, but that signatories are free to adopt longer terms.

Specifically, from Article 7 of the convention:



http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text...698#P127_22000

Berne does not require any addition length. Countries following Life + 50 are perfectly valid under Berne, and should have no need (or pressure) to lengthen...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Berne does not require any addition length. Countries following Life + 50 are perfectly valid under Berne, and should have no need (or pressure) to lengthen...

I didn't say that it requires an additional length, I said that it allows an additional length, therefore it may be erroneous to say that the US isn't following Berne because it has a longer length. And yes, you're right in saying that a life+50 term is all that Berne requires.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The clear one - the US does not abide by Berne. (If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, paddles like a duck, quacks like a duck...it's a duck!)

Having slept on it for several days, I'm thinking you are correct. Under current law, my country is, and will remain, totally in violation of Berne, for published books, until January 1, 2049. Then the first group of books pass into US public domain under a Life + formula. These would be the books published, in 1978, by authors who died the same year, and the Life + formula would be Life + 70.

The US wouldn't become totally Berne-compliant until the end of the 50th year after the death of the last author published before 1978. I'm wishing Dorothy Straight a long healthy life. And there surely are pre-1978 authors even younger.

Someone could say that, by pointing out the limited ways in which US copyright can be shorter, for particular works, than that in Europe, I'm making the arguments of the next Sonny Bono for him. But the way I look at it, despite his TV act, Sonny was an intelligent fellow, as will be his successors. They'll know this.

When you win that bet (the one about copyright term extension being pushed in the US Congress), I want to be ready with the facts. What goes on here this year is just practice

In the past, I posted that the US should go to Life + 50. But now I realize it is against international law because of multiple Free Trade Agreements with this terrible language:

Each Party shall provide that where the term of protection of a work (including a photographic work), performance, or phonogram is to be calculated:
(a) on the basis of the life of a natural person, the term shall be not less than the life of the author and 70 years after the author's death

We thus agreed with Singapore (or forced on Singapore) that if we switch from the 95 year rule applying here until at least 2049, to a Life + something rule, the something has to be at least 70. But, hey, we got this in exchange:

Singapore shall allow the importation of chewing gum with therapeutic value

The best thing for the US public domain, at least in the realm of the politically possible, is to keep to current law.

[Greg Anos]

That is, assuming the TPP Treaty is Ratified. No Guarantees, Mr. Bond...

Until then, it is not in force.

Plus, we don't know what is in the treaty. Based on the "lame duck" scenario, it could be passed by Congress before the US Citizens ever got a chance to read it...(The most likely scenario... The President starts the 90 day timer at the start of the "lame duck" session, and the Congress votes in the first 30 days of a "lame duck" session. (After all, you only have the window of the first Wednesday in November, until the January 3rd. That's only 60 days or so...with no requirement to use all 60 days...) The public does not get to read it until the last 60 days of the 90 day timer...)

Our best hope is some other country publishes the text...