Random House being sued for not paying royalties

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by Phogg

The position has always been that piracy isn't piracy when the big publishing houses do it.

Not quite always. It was used originally by authors complaining about publishers stiffing them on royalties. (Although I concede that publishers then were tiny in comparison to those today.)

[fjtorres]

The term "piracy" has a long history in publishing:

http://eduscapes.com/bookhistory/int...property/3.htm

Piracy has been a problem since the beginning of book production. In Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates, Adrian Johns (2010) states that during the 17th century, the term piracy became associated with "intellectual purloining".

According to Johns (1998, 32), the term piracy was coined by John Fell, bishop of Oxford

"to describe the rapacious practices of London printers and booksellers. It had a technical meaning: a pirate was someone who indulged in the unauthorized reprinting of a title recognized to belong to someone else by the formal conventions of the printing and bookselling community. But it soon came to stand for a wide range of perceived transgressions of civility emanating from print's practitioners."

Johns notes that by the end of the century the word is prominent in the writings of Addison, Congreve, Defore, Gay, Ward, and Pope begin used to describe someone who unjustly copies another's work. Johns pinpoints the use as beginning around 1660-1680 during the English Revolution. According to Adrian Johns (1998, 5),

"if an early modern reader pick up a printed book - De Natura Libri, perhaps - then he or she could not be immediately certain that it was what it claimed to be, and its proper use might not be so self-evident. Piracy was again one reason: illicit uses of the press threatened the credibility of all printed products. More broadly, ideas about the correct ways to make and use books varied markedly from place to place and time to time. But whatever the cause, it is not easy for us to imagine such as realm, in which printed records were not necessarily authorized or faithful."

Although most people are aware of the economic loss from piracy, Johns (1988) noted that allegations of piracy also threatened the reputations of authors and the credibility of their ideas.

"Piracy and plagiarism occupied readers' minds just as prominently as fixity and enlightenment. Unauthorized translations, epitomes, imitations, and other varieties of "impropriety" were, they believed, routine hazards. Very few noteworthy publications seemed to escape altogether from such practices, and none at all could safely be regarded as immune a priori. It was regarded as extremely unusual for a book professing knowledge - from lowly almanacs to costly folios - to be published in the relatively unproblematic manner we now assume... If piracy was as widespread as commonly feared, then trusting any printed report without knowledge of those processes could be rash. Profound problems of credit thus attended printed materials of all kinds. Without solutions there could be few meaningful uses for books - and perhaps no durable reasoning from them" (Johns, 1998, 30).

If you're interested in learning more about the idea of literary piracy, skim Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates by Adrian Johns.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Plus ça change...

[murg]

Originally Posted by barryem

They say the rights are owned by the Goebels estate. I wonder who they are and how they got control.

They're the Boys from Brazil...

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Phogg

The position has always been that piracy isn't piracy when the big publishing houses do it.

Cites, please. If your statement is true, it should be easy to find multiple examples where any of the big five or, formerly, six said that it was OK if they did it, but not OK when other biography publishers do it.

Here is another case you could read up on:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyrigh...811_F2d_90.htm

Actually, the position of big publishing houses on this issue with biographies is exactly the same as small publishers, except that small and non-profit publishers don't have the money to pay for quotations or fight in court.

One example consists of the several small and university press biographies of Irving Berlin, none of which I have read because they are, according to reviewers, weakened by inability to quote from Berlin's songs:

http://www.pitt.edu/~atteberr/jazz/a.../BERGREEN.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/05/bo...er-979590.html

Originally Posted by barryem

There isn't really enough information in that article to know what to think about this.

By itself, yes.

If you read a lot of biographies, you would know that attempts to control what we read, concerning public figures, mars our reading experience.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Quite. Clearly the publisher has no moral qualms about making money from the biography of Dr Goebbels.

Harry, I usually agree with you, but not here.

A way to think about this:

In other threads here, I've seen the big publishers attacked on grounds they only buy book proposals and manuscripts that they think will be blockbusters. Here we can see how untrue that it. They are putting resources into a trouble-making book, by an acclaimed non-best-selling author. that has little sales potential.

Contrast with this non-profit decision not to publish:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easte...2014/04/russia

[rkomar]

I for one am okay with the works of Goebbels or Hitler being published. On the down side, it encourages those of like mind. On the up side, it gives everyone else a good idea of what it sounds like to think like that. So, next time you hear similar messages, you'll know what the end game is. Forewarned is forearmed.

[eschwartz]

Err... that doesn't appear to be the issue here...

[rkomar]

It may not be the issue, but was it used as a smokescreen? It wouldn't be if the smoke wasn't blinding.

[darryl]

The issue here is a very simple one. 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 solution is for the state to appropriate the royalties through proceeds of crime type legislation. Ideally, the funds should then be directed to an appropriate charity, though most governments no doubt simply then route it to consolidated revenue. The second point about important historical documents does need some consideration. SteveEisenberg's example of Irving Berlin's biographers being unable to quote from Berlin's songs is, to my mind, an example of where copyright has obviously gone a step too far. Perhaps there should be a copyright exception for this type of situation, or at the very least a rand-type licensing scheme with minimal royalties for this type of material.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by darryl

The issue here is a very simple one. 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 solution is for the state to appropriate the royalties through proceeds of crime type legislation. Ideally, the funds should then be directed to an appropriate charity, though most governments no doubt simply then route it to consolidated revenue. The second point about important historical documents does need some consideration. SteveEisenberg's example of Irving Berlin's biographers being unable to quote from Berlin's songs is, to my mind, an example of where copyright has obviously gone a step too far. Perhaps there should be a copyright exception for this type of situation, or at the very least a rand-type licensing scheme with minimal royalties for this type of material.

Maybe if something is all that offensive in and of itself the publisher should have the integrity not to put it in print.

I mean, if ethics are part of the decision in any way, shape, or form.

Regarding American laws prohibiting criminals from profiting from their crimes...in the case of Goebbles one cannot claim that Goebbles' memoirs are valuable only because of his crimes. So application would be problematic. He was a brilliant public relations strategist and he orchestrated continued support for the war in spite of devastating casualties on the eastern front. So this isn't some murderer who would be uninteresting were it not for his crimes, this is a talented man who had an interesting career...that included included some horrifying crimes against mankind in the midst of it all.

Even if Germany passes laws like those in the US which would prevent the estate from profiting due to Goebbles part in the Holocaust (not that a third party holding the memoirs is the same as heirs or an estate) his other duties and achievements would not be covered by such strictures, because his part in the Holocaust was not the only thing that causes people to read about him.

Somehow Godwin's law should have prevented this thread entirely.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by darryl

... The solution is for the state to appropriate the royalties through proceeds of crime type legislation. Ideally, the funds should then be directed to an appropriate charity, though most governments no doubt simply then route it to consolidated revenue.

I'm wondering about limitations of time with respect to proceeds going to an estate? (In whatever country the estate is in, and I guess in whatever country the deal was made in if it's a different country.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

I'm wondering about limitations of time with respect to proceeds going to an estate? (In whatever country the estate is in, and I guess in whatever country the deal was made in if it's a different country.

That's precisely what copyright law specifies.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

I'm wondering about limitations of time with respect to proceeds going to an estate? (In whatever country the estate is in, and I guess in whatever country the deal was made in if it's a different country.

The very nature of copyright, which continues in effect for some period after the death of the author, ensures that royalties continue to go to an estate. The limiting time is the time of the copyright. The estate can never be fully wound-up while it is still entitled to income, though I suppose the entitlement to the particular copyright or the income from particular copyrights could be given to a particular person under the will or by agreement amongst the beneficiaries. But the rights attaching to the copyright will still belong to the estate or someone inheriting until it expires.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by darryl

The very nature of copyright, which continues in effect for some period after the death of the author, ensures that royalties continue to go to an estate. The limiting time is the time of the copyright. The estate can never be fully wound-up while it is still entitled to income, though I suppose the entitlement to the particular copyright or the income from particular copyrights could be given to a particular person under the will or by agreement amongst the beneficiaries. But the rights attaching to the copyright will still belong to the estate or someone inheriting until it expires.

The copyright in Germany (and in all other countries with a "life+70" copyright term) on Goebbel's works expires on 1st Jan 2016 (because he died in 1945), but because US copyright law does not implement the "rule of the shorter term" (the consideration that if a work is out of copyright in the country of its initial publication, it's also considered to be out of copyright in another country), it will continue to be protected by US copyright for many more years.

[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. I mean the rest of the world I'm sure found it so, but when the person doing the perceived criminal activity is part of the government of that country it's hard to say how the son of sam law would apply. Granted what the Nazi's as a whole did was horrifying the Son of Sam wasn't doing things that the government approved of like Dr. Goebbels was either. Nor was he part of the government. The Nazi's actions were found to be criminal after the war, but at the time they were doing them they were the Government in charge. Not that anyone can condone what they did though.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The copyright in Germany (and in all other countries with a "life+70" copyright term) on Goebbel's works expires on 1st Jan 2016 (because he died in 1945), but because US copyright law does not implement the "rule of the shorter term" (the consideration that if a work is out of copyright in the country of its initial publication, it's also considered to be out of copyright in another country), it will continue to be protected by US copyright for many more years.

US Intellectual Property Law has little to commend it. Powerful lobby groups are wonderful things.