Random House being sued for not paying royalties

[alanHd]

Here's the full story from the bbc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32363846

[fjtorres]

No shock.
Their AUTHOR SOLUTIONS scam empire has two class action suits ongoing.
Their priorities have long been clear, especially on the Penguin Side.

Of course this discussion is headed into Godwin territory real fast...

[HarryT]

It boils down to the question of whether moral objections justify breaking copyright law. I'm pretty sure that the courts will decide that they don't.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It boils down to the question of whether moral objections justify breaking copyright law. I'm pretty sure that the courts will decide that they don't.

But... but... Nazis!

[alanHd]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

But... but... Nazis!

If they objected that much they shouldn't have used them in the first place, is my opinion.

[HarryT]

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

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

No moral qualms about making money any way they can.
Period.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No moral qualms about making money any way they can.
Period.

It's a major publisher. Only three words were needed.

No moral qualms.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Phogg

It's a major publisher. Only three words were needed.

No moral qualms.

Well...
Give them *some* credit: most of the inhouse backstabbing is figurative, not literal. And when they conspire it is against suppliers or consumers, not their own employees. Which other companies have done.

There actually are less scrupulous executives than BPH execs.
Few, true, but they do exist.

[murg]

I'm waiting for the PBHs to start having moral qualms about authors that exhibit any of the following opinions: sexism, homophobic, and/or racism.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It boils down to the question of whether moral objections justify breaking copyright law. I'm pretty sure that the courts will decide that they don't.

I don't think Random House has really thought this one through. They should hope they lose or there could be a lot of moral objections to paying "criminal" publishing houses money. It sounds like someone thought that paying Goebbels' estate money wouldn't look good (and heh we can save money).

I thought this quote was interesting too:

The biographer, Peter Longerich, a professor of German history, has argued that a private person should not be given control of important historical documents.

If you're going to take that stand, why limit it to "a private person"?

So in summary:

• If you violate criminal law you should lose all copyright holdings
• Nobody can have a copyright on important historical documents

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Barcey

• If you violate criminal law you should lose all copyright holdings
• Nobody can have a copyright on important historical documents

In the US there is a law addressing the first by dunning any proceeds from the copyright.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime—if the criminal was convicted after the date lawmakers passed the law in the states where the crime was committed.

In the second case, diaries and memoirs are not documents but rather manuscripts and have long been published commercially.

http://www.annefrank.ch/234/items/th...e-decades.html

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

Morals shmorals. Isn't piracy illegal?

[barryem]

I have to agree that they're weak on their morals objection. They made an agreement and that's that.

Not that I disagree with the moral objection. I think our Son of Sam law is a good thing and if that was the law there it should apply. But apparently it isn't and it doesn't apply and courts have to deal with laws and contracts as they are, not with how we feel about things. When that stops being true we're really in trouble.

The biographer's objection that no private individual should be able to control important historical documents needs a closer look. It might be different if it was in the hands of Goebel's children but it isn't. They say the rights are owned by the Goebels estate. I wonder who they are and how they got control. There isn't really enough information in that article to know what to think about this.

Barry

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Morals shmorals. Isn't piracy illegal?

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