Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by barryem

My sister's father in law, decades ago, had some property on which there was a lot of white stone. His best friend offered to lease it from him for a small sum, I think $18 a year if I remember the story correctly. The then began minging white gravel, a unique stuff that has been sold all over the USA at high prices in garden shops and such, making his friend millions.

He wanted to re-negotiate but the friend wasn't interested so he took him to court; and lost! The judge said the law says each side has to get something but it doesn't say how much and contract law doesn't prevent someone from making a bad deal. He appealed and he lost again.

Barry

Yes, contract law is basically common law, i.e. law set by judges. One judge might void a contract, while a different judge might uphold the contract. A third judge might just void part of the contract.

[darryl]

@pwalker8. I'm sorry to say so, but your posts display a fundamental misunderstanding of this area. For example:

17 U.S. Code § 201 - Ownership of copyright

(a)Initial Ownership.—
Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work.

17 U.S. Code § 205 - Recordation of transfers and other documents
(a)Conditions for Recordation.—
Any transfer of copyright ownership or other document pertaining to a copyright may be recorded in the Copyright Office if the document filed for recordation bears the actual signature of the person who executed it, or if it is accompanied by a sworn or official certification that it is a true copy of the original, signed document. A sworn or official certification may be submitted to the Copyright Office electronically, pursuant to regulations established by the Register of Copyrights.

Many of the surrounding sections in the Copyright Act in the US code make the situation very clear.

At least in the US as provided by the Constitution and discussed previously, Copyright is clearly not a legal construct between the owners and the government. So far as books are concerned, it is designed to promote the writing of more books by giving the author a statutory monopoly for a limited period. Any benefit to the author is incidental to this.

So far as contract law being mainly common law, this is simply not true. The basics of contract law derive from the Common law, but much of contract law is governed by legislation, particularly in the US which extensively codifies many of its laws. Even if you were correct, common law is not a free for all as you imply. Judges are bound by precedent which ensures some consistency, particularly given there is an appeals process, and few judges like to be overruled by a higher court.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker8. ....... common law is not a free for all as you imply. Judges are bound by precedent which ensures some consistency, particularly given there is an appeals process, and few judges like to be overruled by a higher court.

To add to what Darryl said:-

If I remember correctly Common Law was developed in England by judges to bring about consistency. When William the Conqueror became king in 1066 the judges he appointed found that every county, every town and nearly very village had its own laws and customs which locally had the force of law. As William's judges were the judge over a largish area and traveled from town to village to town they had big problems They therefore decided among themselves to override these local laws and customs with a "Common Law". If the King did not like a law the judges had made, he changed it by issuing a statute.

In England today if there is no legislation covering an issue and a matter comes to court what the judge decides can still become the law. It happens rarely but it still happens.

[John F]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Since copyright is entirely a legal construct of rights, is hard to see what else might be transferred. The copyright is the rights.

Except, as I said, you can't extend copyright on something by transferring the copyright to a younger person.

Be that as it may ...

17 U.S. Code § 205 - Recordation of transfers and other documents

(a)Conditions for Recordation.—
Any transfer of copyright ownership ...

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by John F

Be that as it may ...

Any transfer of copyright ownership

transfer of copyright ownership
A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.

17 USC § 101

The copyright itself (in terms of how long it lasts) continues to reside in the person of the author.

[John F]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

transfer of copyright ownership
A “transfer of copyright ownership” is an assignment, mortgage, exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.

17 USC § 101

The copyright itself (in terms of how long it lasts) continues to reside in the person of the author.

The copyright itself can be transferred.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by John F

The copyright itself can be transferred.

What do you consider the "copyright itself"?

What do you think is transferred when the "copyright itself" is transferred which is not transferred by transferring all rights in the copyright?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker8. I'm sorry to say so, but your posts display a fundamental misunderstanding of this area. For example:






Many of the surrounding sections in the Copyright Act in the US code make the situation very clear.

At least in the US as provided by the Constitution and discussed previously, Copyright is clearly not a legal construct between the owners and the government. So far as books are concerned, it is designed to promote the writing of more books by giving the author a statutory monopoly for a limited period. Any benefit to the author is incidental to this.

So far as contract law being mainly common law, this is simply not true. The basics of contract law derive from the Common law, but much of contract law is governed by legislation, particularly in the US which extensively codifies many of its laws. Even if you were correct, common law is not a free for all as you imply. Judges are bound by precedent which ensures some consistency, particularly given there is an appeals process, and few judges like to be overruled by a higher court.

I didn't get a notice but I would bet when Reiman sold out to Reader's Digest, all copyright went with them.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker8. I'm sorry to say so, but your posts display a fundamental misunderstanding of this area. For example:






Many of the surrounding sections in the Copyright Act in the US code make the situation very clear.

At least in the US as provided by the Constitution and discussed previously, Copyright is clearly not a legal construct between the owners and the government. So far as books are concerned, it is designed to promote the writing of more books by giving the author a statutory monopoly for a limited period. Any benefit to the author is incidental to this.

So far as contract law being mainly common law, this is simply not true. The basics of contract law derive from the Common law, but much of contract law is governed by legislation, particularly in the US which extensively codifies many of its laws. Even if you were correct, common law is not a free for all as you imply. Judges are bound by precedent which ensures some consistency, particularly given there is an appeals process, and few judges like to be overruled by a higher court.

No I don't misunderstand. Once again, open the book cover and see who the copyright holder is. Most of the time it isn't the publisher but rather the author or a company that the author set up. It's certainly possible to sign over the copyright, but it's rarely done. Let's put it this way. Authors normally sign a contract with the publishing company which is very much like the publisher leasing the copyright from the author, i.e. like you leasing a car. Sometimes the lease is for a set period of time, sometimes it's for as long as certain criteria is met (such as selling a certain number of books a year or not being out of print for more than 5 years), sometimes it's open ended, but it's still a lease rather than an outright sell.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker8. I'm sorry to say so, but your posts display a fundamental misunderstanding of this area. For example:






Many of the surrounding sections in the Copyright Act in the US code make the situation very clear.

At least in the US as provided by the Constitution and discussed previously, Copyright is clearly not a legal construct between the owners and the government. So far as books are concerned, it is designed to promote the writing of more books by giving the author a statutory monopoly for a limited period. Any benefit to the author is incidental to this.

So far as contract law being mainly common law, this is simply not true. The basics of contract law derive from the Common law, but much of contract law is governed by legislation, particularly in the US which extensively codifies many of its laws. Even if you were correct, common law is not a free for all as you imply. Judges are bound by precedent which ensures some consistency, particularly given there is an appeals process, and few judges like to be overruled by a higher court.

Well, it is true. The thing that you are missing is that there are many contradictory rulings in precedent, so for all practical purposes, the judge decides which precedents apply to a specific case. If it were as cut and dry as you seem to think, people would rarely go to court. The whole art of being a lawyer is finding precedents that support your client's case and persuading the judge that your precedents are more valid than the precedents that the other side's lawyer is citing. When I took introduction to contract law, many years ago, most of the discussion was on how to find and cite precedents to your clients advantage. I think you will find that for the most part, contracts are only covered by legislation in the broadest sense. Contracts tend to be very individualized though there is a lot of standardized boiler plate as well.

[darryl]

The copyright is not the length of the copyright. But, of course the length is determined by reference to the life of the original author. It is neither a right nor an obligation. It simply determines how long the copyright lasts. When an author or other owner transfers all of their rights pursuant to the copyright it effectively transfers the copyright itself. They have no interest left, though the duration of copyright still depends upon the length of their lives.

@pwalker8. Of course there is sometimes doubt in precedents, just as there is in interpreting legislation. I would suggest that you read some basic legal textbooks covering the doctrine of precedent. Lawyers of course seek to "distinguish" their client's case from an unfavourable precedent, just as they seek to argue that unfavourable legislation does not apply or does not operate in that way. A huge amount of legislation applied to contracts. In the US the various commercial codes alone make huge changes. Common law and precedent does of course continue to play a role. But interpretation of precedent in general is no more uncertain or inconsistent than interpreting legislation. In fact, the rules for interpreting legislation are arguably a good deal more complex than the doctrine of precedent. An appeal to authority based on your memory of sn unspecified introductory contract case or in fact any introductory contract class is of no value.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

The copyright is not the length of the copyright. But, of course the length is determined by reference to the life of the original author. It is neither a right nor an obligation. It simply determines how long the copyright lasts. When an author or other owner transfers all of their rights pursuant to the copyright it effectively transfers the copyright itself. They have no interest left, though the duration of copyright still depends upon the length of their lives.

@pwalker8. Of course there is sometimes doubt in precedents, just as there is in interpreting legislation. I would suggest that you read some basic legal textbooks covering the doctrine of precedent. Lawyers of course seek to "distinguish" their client's case from an unfavourable precedent, just as they seek to argue that unfavourable legislation does not apply or does not operate in that way. A huge amount of legislation applied to contracts. In the US the various commercial codes alone make huge changes. Common law and precedent does of course continue to play a role. But interpretation of precedent in general is no more uncertain or inconsistent than interpreting legislation. In fact, the rules for interpreting legislation are arguably a good deal more complex than the doctrine of precedent. An appeal to authority based on your memory of sn unspecified introductory contract case or in fact any introductory contract class is of no value.

Sigh. Whatever. There is a lot of difference between reality and what you read on the internet. I'm a lot more willing to believe what my sister, the trial lawyer tells me and what I was taught in class by lawyers practicing in the US than what you tell me you think that US law ought to be.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh. Whatever. There is a lot of difference between reality and what you read on the internet. I'm a lot more willing to believe what my sister, the trial lawyer tells me and what I was taught in class by lawyers practicing in the US than what you tell me you think that US law ought to be.

A very dubious appeal to authority indeed. I would be most surprised if your sister "the trial lawyer" shares your view of the doctrine of precedent. I'm going to stop beating my head against the wall of your ignorance of this topic.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

A very dubious appeal to authority indeed. I would be most surprised if your sister "the trial lawyer" shares your view of the doctrine of precedent. I'm going to stop beating my head against the wall of your ignorance of this topic.

Yeah. What exactly is your expertise in this field? Are you a practicing attorney in the US, or is it mostly Google searches?

I don't think you understand what the appeal to authority fallacy actually is.

Here is the definition for the logically fallacious web site

Description: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

Referencing practicing lawyers and law classes about matters of law is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Referencing my high school teacher on the matter when he had not training on the law would be. One of the more common appeal to authority fallacy that one sees is citing a specific scientist on a matter that is not in his or her area of expertise.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yeah. What exactly is your expertise in this field? Are you a practicing attorney in the US, or is it mostly Google searches?

I don't think you understand what the appeal to authority fallacy actually is.

Here is the definition for the logically fallacious web site

Description: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.

Referencing practicing lawyers and law classes about matters of law is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Referencing my high school teacher on the matter when he had not training on the law would be. One of the more common appeal to authority fallacy that one sees is citing a specific scientist on a matter that is not in his or her area of expertise.

Ok real life scenario : I sold all the rights to a short story years ago. The company I sold it to has since sold out. What are the chances I can get my rights back without a long legal battle?