Book People Archive

Re: Copyright Term Extensions (was Re: RIP Jim Baen) (fwd)

This is a continuation of my reply to Michael Hart's August 3rd BP post.

Michael Hart wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Jose Menendez wrote:
> 
>> Besides 1829 - 1790 = 39, another big problem with that statement is 
>> that the public domain was *not* "just starting to form" in 1831. 
>> There was a public domain in the United States from the very 
>> beginning. First, as I've pointed out before, the U.S. didn't 
>> recognize any foreign copyrights until the International Copyright Act 
>> of 1891, so every existing foreign work was already in the public 
>> domain here. Second, as you said above, "not many US copyrights were 
>> issued in the first 10 years." Indeed, according to this 2002 paper 
>> written by William J. Maher, University Archivist and Professor of 
>> Library Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:
> 
> I am referring to the public domain of expired US copyrights, 
> something I thought I made clear, but perhaps in messages never 
> received.
> 
> I am NOT referring to other countries' copyrights.
> 
> The whole thing about the US ignoring other countries' copyrights 
> is a separate issue to me, and not part of what I am talking about.


You can pretend it's a separate issue, Michael, but it isn't. The 
public domain is the public domain. Whether the PD works originated in 
the U.S. or in other countries, they were just as free for any 
publisher to print or reprint. And the "US ignoring other countries' 
copyrights" was just as much a part of U.S. copyright law from 1790 to 
1891 as the length of the copyright terms.


> The 1830 high speed steam press WAS invented to take advantage of 
> the newly expired US copyrights. . .whether it was ALSO advantage 
> to reprint books from other countries is certainly a possibility, 
> and perhaps not a small portion of the potential profits of going 
> to such a new technology, but this was your point, not mine.


Tell me, Michael, did you look over Robert Hoe's book, "A Short 
History of The Printing Press," that I linked to in my July 27th post? 
If you did, you would have seen that the 1830 press was not the first 
steam-powered printing press in the U.S. The following excerpt begins 
at the last paragraph on page 10 (and continues on page 11):

http://books.google.com/books?id=1ip2bRHw9u4C&pg=PA10


     "The bed and platen system of printing was, up to the middle of 
the nineteenth century, the favorite method of printing fine books and 
cuts. The first 'power' or steam press upon this principle was made by 
Daniel Treadwell, of Boston, in 1822. The frames were of wood, and it 
does not appear that more than three or four of these were ever 
constructed. The best machines of this description were those devised 
and patented by Isaac Adams, of Boston, in 1830 and 1836, and by Otis 
Tufts, of the same place, in 1834. They were first made with wooden 
and afterward with iron frames. In 1858 Adams's business became the 
property of Hoe & Co., who continued to manufacture the machines with 
added improvements. In all more than a thousand, in no less than 
fifty-seven sizes, were sold for use in the United States, some being 
sent to other countries...."


(There's even an illustration of Treadwell's Power Press on page 11.)


So, Michael, would you say that Daniel Treadwell's 1822 steam-powered 
press was also "invented to take advantage of the newly expired US 
copyrights"? There wouldn't have been many expirations at that time. 
Right? And what about Otis Tufts' 1834 press and Isaac Adams' 1836 
press? By the time they were invented, U.S. copyright terms had 
already been extended by the 1831 Act.

Wait, there's more. On page 160 of this book, published in 1917,

"History of American Journalism"
http://books.google.com/books?id=UAGo3xzYn2EC&pg=PA160

you'll see this:


                "PRINTING-PRESSES OF PERIOD

     "During 1822 steam was first used in America as the motive
power to run a printing-press: this was seven years before steam
turned the wheel of the first locomotive in England. Daniel
Treadwell of Boston built the pioneer power press: its frame was
constructed of wood and its mechanism was clumsy--but it
worked. Another Yankee, Isaac Adams, perfected the press
and made it more practical. Called to New York in 1827 to
repair a Treadwell press, he soon saw the possibilities of
improvement and in 1830 he successfully put his own press on the
market. Later, the demand was so great that he took his brother,
Seth Adams, into partnership...."


So that 1830 steam press wasn't an entirely independent invention. 
Adams had the opportunity to study and work on one of Treadwell's 
steam presses three years earlier and realize its potential.

Well, Michael, do you still think that 1830 press was invented simply 
"to take advantage of the newly expired US copyrights"? Remember that 
Adams kept working on it even after the 1831 copyright extension and 
patented a new press in 1836. Note also how successful Adams' presses 
were--even after and despite the 1831 copyright extension. Who do you 
suppose was buying all those presses? Didn't it ever occur to you that 
steam-powered printing presses would have revolutionized the printing 
of new American books and foreign books without copyrights too--not 
just U.S. books with expired copyrights? Why would you assume that 
Adams was motivated only by such a limited part of the potential 
market for his press?


> US copyright law and US patent law have been very closely working 
> to first create new publishing technologies and then to prevent a 
> mass usage of such technologies by extending copyrights.


Really? Did ARPA provide the funds to develop the ARPANET, which 
eventually led to the development of the Internet, because of U.S. 
copyright and patent laws? And how have copyright extensions prevented 
"mass usage" of the Internet to distribute public domain works (or 
even works still under copyright with the permission of the copyright 
holders)? Haven't you just been telling us on this List about millions 
of downloads from the World eBook Fair? And haven't you put out 
schedules for future Fairs, predicting that you'll have vastly more 
ebooks available in the next few years?

Copyright term extensions delay when additional works will fall into 
the public domain, but they DON'T do a thing to prevent people from 
copying and distributing works that are already in the public domain 
by whatever technologies they want to use, e.g. the Internet, 
photocopiers, printing presses, DVDs, videotapes, audiotapes, 
mimeograph machines, typewriters, pen and paper, etc.

(Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not trying to defend how long 
copyright terms are these days. I wish they were much shorter.)


> That is the only point I was trying to make.


No, it isn't. You made assertions about historical events, and you 
haven't provided any evidence to support them.


Well, once again, to avoid making this post too long, I'm going to 
stop here, and reply to the rest of Michael's post in another message.


Jose Menendez


P.S. Before anyone tells me I made a mistake in my last post, I admit 
I was a little careless when I wrote this:

"Let's see now, to summarize, in three out of the four versions of 
your copyright history that we just looked at, you stated quite 
clearly that the first U.S. copyrights started expiring around the 
same time as that 1830 patent was issued ..."

The excerpt I quoted from Michael's interview with Sam Vaknin didn't 
actually mention the word "patent." :)

And to clarify, when I wrote at the end of that post, "For new works, 
Congress used a life + 50 years term," I was referring to the general 
term for a work by one author who wasn't working for hire.