December 2004 - PGCanada - lists.pglaf.org

Re: [Fwd: Re: !@!Re: PG Canada]
by Darryl Moore 18 Jan '05

18 Jan '05

Great, and here is a test of the list. Let's clear some of the cobwebs and see if we can get others involved! Russell McOrmond wrote: > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Darryl Moore wrote: > > >>Yea that's the right list. There just is no archive of past discussions. >>However from what Wallace says that may be because there haven't been >>any. :-) > > > There are only two months that had any, with Wallace being who tried to > raise the dead in August. > > http://projectgutenberg.ca/ > > > "Coming soon". > > Great to know that this is already started, and Darryl won't be starting > from scratch.. > >

5 8

Lessig: The corporate welfare called copyright extension
by Michael Hart 30 Dec '04

30 Dec '04

They're Not Worthy Why extend the copyright on works that no longer have commercial value? By Lawrence Lessig Wired . Issue 13.01 - January 2005 This New Year's Day, a wonderful thing will happen in Europe that won't occur again in the US until 2019: Copyrights on music and television recordings will expire. After a half century of monopoly protection granted artists in exchange for their creative work, the public will get its justly earned free access to an extraordinary range of both famous and forgotten creativity. Libraries, archives, and even other creators can spread and build upon this creativity without asking permission first. Songs from 1953 that seniors across Europe wooed their first loves to can be streamed across the Net for free. Such a yearly event doesn't happen in the US anymore because Congress repeatedly extends the term of existing copyrights. The last extension in 1998 - the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act - was the 11th for existing works in 40 years, delaying any copyrighted song from entering the public domain for another 20 years. This practice is now inspiring copycats in Europe to similar plunder. Sir Cliff Richard - the most successful singles artist in British history - has launched a campaign in the EU to extend the term of copyright for sound recordings from 50 years to 95. Billions will be wiped from the books of European record companies, Richard warns, if governments don't act immediately. If you know anything about this debate, you might wonder why this question has come up again. (And, for that matter, if you know anything about accounting, you might be puzzled why EU record labels get to book value for assets set by law to expire.) When Congress passed the Sonny Bono Act, we were told its purpose was to "harmonize" US law with European law. Turns out - surprise! - that in the most important categories of copyright, the act made US terms longer than those of the EU. Thus the pirates of the public domain are back, arguing that the EU must lengthen its copyrights to harmonize with those of the US. And as Mexico is about to extend its terms beyond those in Europe and the US, no doubt soon we'll be hearing calls to extend our terms to match those of Mexico. This spiral will not end until governments recall a simple lesson: Monopolies are evil, even if they are a necessary evil. We rightfully grant the monopoly called copyright to inspire new creative work. But once that work has been created, there is no public justification for extending its term. The public has already paid. Term extension is just double billing. Any wealth it creates for copyright holders is swamped by the wealth the public loses in lower costs and wider access. The urge to extend terms for commercially valuable work is understandable, albeit from the public's perspective, senseless. But the way that governments extend these terms is even more senseless. Rather than limiting this corporate welfare to those works that are commercially exploited (leaving the forgotten to pass into the public domain so libraries and archives can make them available cheaply), governments uniformly extend the duration of copyrights indiscriminately. The Sonny Bono Act, for example, extended terms for works from as far back as 1923, even though, as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer estimated in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 98 percent of the oldest works are no longer commercially available. It would be easy for governments to narrow term extension to those who want it by requiring copyright holders to pay a small fee. Even a very small fee would filter out the vast majority of works from automatic term extension. Most would enter the public domain immediately. Yet even this idea is ignored. Who can hear reason when billions are about to be wiped from the books? Governments should end this game by tinkering with copyright terms for future works only. But if they're not strong enough to stick to this simple principle, they should at least limit their damage by restricting extensions to those works from which someone might actually benefit. That someone, no doubt, won't be the public. But there's no reason to extend terms when no one - not even record companies - could possibly benefit. Filter the forgotten from term extension, and we might forgive the senselessness that inspires Sir Cliff to sing again. Email Lawrence Lessig at lawrence_lessig(a)wiredmag.com.

1 0

Re: copyright happenings in China (fwd)
by Michael Hart 27 Dec '04

27 Dec '04

Thought that you would be interested in this as we have Peter Rabbit books in the PG library. Court stops sales of Peter Rabbit books Despite two separate appeals, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Press will not be allowed to continue publishing Peter Rabbit books. Officials from the publisher said the decision that it will keep its books of the famous character off the shelf was contradictory. Court ruling The Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court ruled yesterday that the press did not violate nine of 11 trademarks owned by British Frederick Warne & Company Ltd, which owns Petter Rabitt. Still, the court did not rule on whether the Chinese press had violated the other two trademarks. Instead, it referred to a previous judgment last week which upheld the administrative decision to pull the books off the market. The case started last year when Warne & Company complained the Chinese press violated its trademarks. In April 2003, the Chinese press published 19 stories created by American writer Beatrix Potter. Books seized The local bureau of industry and commerce seized more than 20,000 Peter Rabbit books and fined the publisher 358,000 yuan (US$43,000) in August 2003. But the publisher hit back, suing both the bureau and Warne & Company. Last week, the court upheld the decision of the Xicheng Branch of the Beijing Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce. In effect, the court said the Chinese publisher violated copyright. Late American writer Beatrix Potter, who died in 1943, created Peter Rabbit. Between 1994 and 1997, the British company registered the 11 trademarks on Potter's creation, two of which are on Peter Rabbit and another nine on related characters. According to the Chinese law, copyright ends five decades after the death of the author. Source: China Daily

2 1

!@!Re: [BP] Australian Copyright changes clear parliament
by Michael Hart 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Tony Kline wrote: > Steve Thomas <stephen.thomas(a)adelaide.edu.au> wrote: >> THE final element of the Australia-US free trade agreement (FTA) has >> passed through federal parliament. > > >> The term of protection for copyright material was extended by 20 years. > > > > > I like the way they call it a FREE Trade Agreement Steve, and then extend > the copyrights. Nice one, mate! FREE trade means THEY can trade, and WE can't. Just as when the Age of Exploration was for THEM, but not for US. Not to mention the Age of Reason. . . .

1 0

Re: [BP] Australian Copyright changes clear parliament
by Michael Hart 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Tony Kline wrote: > Steve Thomas <stephen.thomas(a)adelaide.edu.au> wrote: >> THE final element of the Australia-US free trade agreement (FTA) has >> passed through federal parliament. > > >> The term of protection for copyright material was extended by 20 years. > > > > > I like the way they call it a FREE Trade Agreement Steve, and then extend > the copyrights. Nice one, mate! Freedom Is Slavery! Ignorance Is Strength! Economic War Is Peace! Copyright = National Security

1 0

Re: [PGCanada] !@!Re: [Upd-discuss] New report recommends tough action to tackle piractes
by Wallace J.McLean 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Hart <hart(a)pglaf.org> Date: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:28 am Subject: [PGCanada] !@!Re: [Upd-discuss] New report recommends tough action to tackle piractes > > What WE need to do is introduce "copyright reform" to > enourage the preservation of culture / the public domain. > > Without copyright reform nothing in the future will go > into the public domain. Then this is a political battle, and we need allies and foot-soldiers. The foot-soldiers should and could be the people who have an interest in preserving and promoting public-domain works. For this reason -- among many others -- we really need to set up a worldwide network of PG-50, PG-60, and PG-70 libraries, and SOON. Like, five years ago soon.

1 0

!@!Re: [Upd-discuss] New report recommends tough action to tackle piractes
by Michael Hart 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, James Davis wrote: > I won't particularly go into detail this press release from the British > Film Council, that's a bit off topic here. For the full press release > visit. > > http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/news/ > > What's of note, is the recommendation of the report... > > "Increasing co-operation with the EU and international trade organisations > to encourage better intellectual property rights across the world." > > I can imagine that in the near future we'll see the UK Film Council > pushing for the extension of copyright. "Better" copyright ALWAYS equals "LONGER" copyright in contexts written by WIPO and the publishing industry. What WE need to do is introduce "copyright reform" to enourage the preservation of culture / the public domain. Without copyright reform nothing in the future will go into the public domain.

1 0

!@!Re: [Upd-discuss] New report recommends tough action to tackle piractes [sic]
by Michael Hart 13 Dec '04

13 Dec '04

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, James Davis wrote: > I won't particularly go into detail this press release from the British > Film Council, that's a bit off topic here. For the full press release > visit. > > http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/news/ > > What's of note, is the recommendation of the report... > > "Increasing co-operation with the EU and international trade organisations > to encourage better intellectual property rights across the world." > > I can imagine that in the near future we'll see the UK Film Council > pushing for the extension of copyright. "Better" copyright ALWAYS equals "LONGER" copyright in contexts written by WIPO and the publishing industry. What WE need to do is introduce "copyright reform" to enourage the preservation of culture / the public domain. Without copyright reform nothing in the future will go into the public domain.

1 0

(no subject)
by Michael Hart 10 Dec '04

10 Dec '04

volume book scanning "in-library" project at the University of Toronto. http://www.archive.org/texts/collection.php?collection=toronto

1 0

Re: [PGCanada] Movement?
by Wallace J.McLean 10 Dec '04

10 Dec '04

> I think there are nearly 75 countries doing +50, I can send a list, > that is probably outdated already, if you like. I have just over 75; my list (culled from the web) is, like you suggest, probably outdated, and I've been trying to supplement it with research at the WIPO and UNESCO web sites.

1 0