Re: Copyright Term Extensions (was Re: RIP Jim Baen) (fwd)
- From: Jose Menendez <ebooks@[redacted]>
- Subject: Re: Copyright Term Extensions (was Re: RIP Jim Baen) (fwd)
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:49:23 -0400
[Moderator: As noted earlier, this is the last post here on this particular
thread. Michael Hart, to whom this post was cc'd, also sent along a note
saying that he would respond via his blog (unless someone who wasn't already
in the thread preferred that the conversation continue as it had been,
though given the previous history I think it's time to end it here.)
I'm assuming his blog is the collection of online writings he has at
http://hart.pglaf.org/ but if it's somewhere else, I'll be glad to
post a corrected location.
There's also some continution of other aspects of the thread on
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bpsuper/ , some of which is referred to
in the post below.
Thanks to all who participated. - JMO]
Sorry for the late reply.
On August 13, Michael Hart wrote:
> I have voiced my surprise to Mr. Ockerbloom that he is allowing messages
> of this nature while holding and/or withholding my own messages.
Messages of what "nature"? The kind that provide evidence and
references to support their points? :)
> I note that I received the list copy of this message even before Jose's
> direct email to me arrived, meaning that there was no delay in messages
> coming to me, while I perceive a major delay in my own via the list.
That's amazing, Michael, because I sent that message, which was CC'ed
to you, at 3:16 PM EDT, and a check of the headers on the "list copy"
I received shows that John Ockerbloom didn't send it out to the BP
List until 4:53 PM EDT, more than an hour and a half later.
> In this particular case, I think it should appear obvious to call that
> no additional information has been provided by Mr. Menendez, who takes
> not his own advice to simply stop repeating himself.
"No additional information"? Could you point out the message in which
I had previously quoted those same excerpts? As for my "advice," what
I told you was, "Also, how about providing some evidence for your
claims instead of just repeating them yet again." And so far, despite
my prodding, you haven't provided a scrap of evidence. I think what's
"obvious to call [sic]," Michael, isn't what you're hoping.
By the way, do you intentionally insert (or omit) letters like that,
e.g. "obvious to call," in order to keep your lines the same length?
It happens several times in your post.
> Therefore I am taking this opportunity on myself to slow things down.
It's often not a bad idea to retreat when you don't have any
ammunition, i.e. evidence to back up your claims. :)
> My parting comments are for further research as there is plenty from
> many reliable and valid sources ...
And of course you didn't list any of them. :)
> ... to conclusively demonstrate that the
> copyright laws of the world, including the earliest and latest in US
> copyright history, dating back to The Statute of Anne precendent and
> even before that to the aforementioned "Statute of Mary [1557] to an
> assortment of Disney and WIPO driven copyright laws during the spans
> of my own involvement in publishing.
"Conclusively demonstrate that the copyright laws of the world" what?
All the phrases after that point don't complete the sentence.
As for the Statute of Anne, have you ever actually read it? I doubt
it, considering the things you've said about it. For example, in this
interview with Sam Vaknin:
"The Second Gutenberg"
http://samvak.tripod.com/busiweb29.html
you said:
"Each such phase has been stifled by making it illegal to use new
technologies to copy texts. In 1710, the Statute of Anne copyright
made it illegal for any but members of the ancient Stationers' Guild
to use a Gutenberg Press. Then, in 1909, the US doubled the term of
all copyrights to eliminate 'reprint houses' who were using the new
steam and electric powered presses to compete with the old boy
publishing network."
Here are links to three copies of the Statute of Anne:
From the University of Chicago Press
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s2.html
From the Pierce Law Center
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/copyrights/Statute%20of%20Anne%20_1710_.pdf
From the History of Copyright website (includes page images)
http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html
And since I know you prefer plain text, I made a plain text version
for you that matches the pagination of those page images:
http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Stat_Anne.txt
Not only did the Statute of Anne say nothing about who could use a
Gutenberg Press, but the word "press" didn't occur a single time in it.
(By the way, in that interview with Sam, note how you jumped from that
claim about the Statute of Anne to the erroneous claim that the U.S.
"doubled the term of all copyrights" in 1909. Apparently, you hadn't
even heard of the 1831 copyright extension at the time.)
As for your "aforementioned 'Statute of Mary," that was the first time
you've mentioned it in this discussion. You also seem to be virtually
alone in using that name in connection with copyright history; I've
never seen any scholars use it. Are you referring to the charter Mary
Tudor granted to the Stationers Company?
> No one seems to be denying that the copyright law as mentioned above
> were generated by the publishing industries of their times.
>
> Thus it seems accepted that the earliest copyright laws, successful,
> failed, and in between, were the work of The Stationers Guild or Co.
You need to read more, apparently. For starters, I'd recommend the
first chapter (which is available for free online) of Professor
William Patry's book, "Copyright Law and Practice."
http://digital-law-online.info/patry/index.html
In particular, you might want to read the section on "England and the
Statute of Anne":
http://digital-law-online.info/patry/patry2.html
Here's an excerpt:
"The printing press, with its ability to make multiple copies of a
work easily, is frequently cited as the impetus for efforts to secure
a more formal type of protection for books. These early efforts were
sometimes made by printers and sometimes by authors, and took the form
of royal printing licenses. Venice, Italy, predated England both in
the introduction of printing and in the granting of printing licenses.
In 1469, the Venetian Senate granted a German printer, Johannes de
Spira, a five-year monopoly on the printing of the letters of Cicero
and Pliny.9 On September 1, 1486, author Antonio Sabellico, the
historian to the republic, was given the sole right to publish his
Decade of Venetian Affairs, with a fine for infringement set at 500
ducats, and no term set for the duration of the right....
"Beginning in 1517, Venice adopted a series of general regulations
governing printing and printing licenses. Of these, perhaps the most
interesting is the 1545 decree of the Council of Ten, which prohibited
publication of an author's work without proof of the author's
permission...."
Note those rights granted to authors, Michael. Do you think they "were
generated by the publishing industries of their times"? Did you also
notice the sentence: "These early efforts were sometimes made by
printers and sometimes by authors ..."? Here's another excerpt:
"Domestic control over printing was further tightened by use of the
Privy Council. On November 16, 1538, Henry VIII decreed that all new
books had to be approved by the Council before publication, a
requirement that remained in effect in some form until 1694. Use of
governmental bodies for censorship had its obvious disadvantages in an
age that was becoming increasingly resentful of royal control. The
solution was simple: exercise indirect control through the grant of an
exclusive charter to the printing and book trade, which would carry
out royal wishes in order to benefit from monopoly status. Thus, on
May 4, 1557, to check the spread of the Protestant Reformation, the
Catholic Queen Mary and King Philip granted a royal charter to the
Worshipful Company of Stationers of London, thereby concentrating the
entire printing business in the hands of the members of the Stationers
Company.14 The Stationers Company charter was confirmed two years
later by Queen Elizabeth, but this time with the goal of suppressing
Catholicism.15
"Because the Court of the Star Chamber had jurisdiction over the
enforcement of royal decrees, the government and the Church could
thereby exercise effective censorship and prevent the printing of
seditious or heretical works through the Stationers Company ..."
The Stationers Company was granted power, i.e. given a charter, which
I presume is what you meant by the "Statute of Mary," in order to make
it a tool of the Crown and the Church. Patry goes on to discuss
various Star Chamber decrees, licensing acts, and the decline of the
Stationers' power, culminating in the expiration of the last licensing
act. The Stationers Company then started petitioning Parliament for
new laws, but when Parliament finally passed the Statute of Anne, as
Patry explains, "The Stationers Company ended up getting far less than
it had petitioned for ..."
And if you had read the Amicus Curiae brief from Eldred v Ashcroft
that I linked to many posts back:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/supct/amici/historians.pdf
you would have seen this on pages 6 and 7 (16 and 17 of the PDF file):
"In 1695, the Licensing Act of 1662 expired, throwing
the book trade into disarray. The Stationers at first sought
the revival of licensing,17 but when that attempt failed,18
they petitioned Parliament for an act that would reinstitute
their traditional guild system by confirming the
Stationers' Company copyrights.19 As introduced, the
proposed legislation did not limit the duration of the
Stationers' copyrights.20
"Parliament was sympathetic to the booksellers' claims
about disorders in the trade, but it was not sympathetic to
the monopolizing practices whereby the booksellers had
turned the literary classics into perpetual private estates.
Accordingly, the Statute of Anne acted in two ways to
break the booksellers' monopolies. First, the Act established
authors as the original proprietors of copyrights.
Thus, for the first time, one no longer had to be a member
of the Stationers' Company to own copyrights.21 Second,
the proposed legislation was amended to impose term
limits modeled on those in the Statute of Monopolies.22 ..."
So you see, Michael, the Stationers Company wanted a law, but the law
Parliament passed (the Statute of Anne) wasn't the one they wanted. :)
> It also seems equally well accepted that the US copyright acts 1976,
> 1998, etc., were the work of Disney, WIPO, and supporting cast.
Didn't you previously claim that Congress passed the 1976 Act because
of the Xerox machine? Was Disney afraid that people were going to
start Xeroxing Mickey Mouse cartoons? :)
> Why anyone would presuppose that the elimination of public domain as
> source material for the first high speed steam powered press of 1830
> patent registration by the US Copyright Act of 1831 was coincidence,
> while accepting that the origin an recent history of our copyrights,
> such as they were, were NOT concidence is beyond the pale.
Why would anyone "presuppose" that? There was no "elimination of
public domain" by the 1831 copyright act. There was a huge number of
works in the public domain, as I've already shown, with new ones
continuing to come in from Great Britain and other countries.
If you still don't understand the relative unimportance of U.S. books
to U.S. publishers back then, perhaps James Fenimore Cooper can
convince you. Here's an excerpt from pages 106 and 107 of vol. 2 of
his book, "Notions of the Americans: Picked up by a Travelling
Bachelor," which was first published in 1828. (This is from an 1833
printing.)
http://books.google.com/books?id=cZV_baSEhEMC&pg=RA1-PA106
"The literature of the United States has, indeed, too [sic]
powerful obstacles to conquer before (to use a
mercantile expression) it can ever enter the markets of
its own country on terms of perfect equality with
that of England.... The fact, that an American
publisher can get an English work without money,
must, for a few years longer, (unless legislative
protection shall be extended to their own authors,) have
a tendency to repress a national literature. No man
will pay a writer for an epic, a tragedy, a sonnet, a
history, or a romance, when he can get a work of
equal merit for nothing. I have conversed with
those who are conversant on the subject, and, I
confess, I have been astonished at the information they
imparted.
"A capital American publisher has assured me that
there are not a dozen writers in this country, whose
works he should feel confidence in publishing at all,
while he reprints hundreds of English books without
the least hesitation. This preference is by no means
so much owing to any difference in merit, as to the
fact that, when the price of the original author is to
be added to the uniform hazard which accompanies
all literary speculations, the risk becomes too great...."
You may also want to look at this 19th century biography of someone
who did want longer copyright terms, Noah Webster. It quotes at length
from his own account of his copyright-related efforts. This excerpt
from pages 56 and 57, is the beginning of Webster's story of his
lobbying for what would be the 1831 copyright act:
http://books.google.com/books?id=C29hfOcW32kC&pg=PA56
"'When I was in England in 1825 I
learned that the British Parliament had, a
few years before, enacted a new law on
copyrights, by which the rights of authors
were much extended. This led me to
attempt to procure a new law in the United
States, giving a like extension to the rights
of authors. My first attempt appears in
the following letter [to the Hon. Daniel
Webster, dated September 30, 1826]:--'"
Note the date, Michael. It was well before that 1830 patent you make
so much of. And note the reason Webster gave for wanting "to procure a
new law." Why don't you read the rest of Webster's account to see if
he ever mentioned "high-speed steam powered printing presses" as a
reason for wanting longer copyright terms? Webster was there, Michael.
You weren't.
You might also want to look at the "Statutory Revision" section of
Professor Patry's book. In one of the notes, he gives some interesting
information about Noah Webster's son-in-law, William Ellsworth, who
played an important part on the House Judiciary Committee in getting
the 1831 copyright law passed.
http://digital-law-online.info/patry/patry6.html#114
"Ellsworth was the son of Oliver Ellsworth, the third Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court. He was also Noah Webster's son-in-law and later
wrote a treatise on copyright law. See W. Ellsworth, A Copy-Right
Manual (Boston 1862). In his treatise, Ellsworth stated that the
extension of the term from 14 to 28 years in the 1831 Act was done at
Webster's request, id. at 21-22."
So, Michael, are you going to keep repeating your debunked claim that
the 1831 term extension was lobbied for by "ye olde boy network of
entrenched publishing houses" in order to prevent competition from a
"new breed of publishers" using "high speed steam powered printing
presses"? :)
> Personally, I don't believe in coincidence, either in copyrights, or
> in email deliveries.
You also don't seem to believe in facts that contradict your
preconceived notions. Here's an excellent piece of advice that
Sherlock Holmes gave to Dr. Watson in "A Scandal in Bohemia":
"It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly
one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to
suit facts."
> I leave it to you to decide for yourselves, as it should be, hoping,
> and hoping aqgain that you will not let the sand thrown in the gears
> stop you from what should be quite clear contemplation.
So articles written by respected scholars, etc. are only "sand thrown
in the gears" to you? Well, it's obvious how much you were really
interested in learning about copyright.
Jose Menendez
> [Moderator: The message being referred to by Michael above is the one
> that's archived at
> http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive/?year=2006&post=2006-08-11,3
[snip]
> At this point, then, I'll let Jose have
> one more post to rebut any remaining on-topic points if he wishes;
> but after that, unless other folks want to jump in with more
> topical points or questions, I'll be closing this exchange. - JMO]
Since Michael kept denying the facts about the 1831 extension, I
didn't get to the ones in 1909, 1976, and 1998. However, as you
pointed out, there seems to be little interest from other list members
in this debate, so I'll spare them any more. Perhaps I'll write an
article about the other extensions and post it on my website.
Jose Menendez
P.S. Here's something more to think about, Michael. In 1870, Congress
passed a second general revision of the copyright laws. (The first was
in 1831.) The maximum term possible under the 1831 act was 42 years
(28+14). 1831 + 42 = 1873. Now, if "ye olde boy network" was as eager
to keep books from falling into the public domain as you believe, why
didn't it get Congress to include a term extension in 1870? After all,
Congress was already revising the copyright laws at the time. :)
P.P.S. For those of you who aren't members of Bowerbird's bpsuper
List, I posted a reply there to Michael's recent message, which
claimed incorrectly that "the 1998 US copyright extension was passed
in the same 24 hours when the headlines were all about President
Clinton's Impeachment passing."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bpsuper/message/17