Re: Conversion filters; intellecutal property

[Leslie Bialler lb136@xxxxxxxx]

Norman Bauman wrote:

> Patents last (I think) 17 years. I can buy generic vise-grips in the
> hardware store. My editor.exe file is from 1989, so if it were covered by a
> patent, and we had the original patent term, it would enter public domain
> in 2006.
>

Nice, but the software is copyright. As the Xy4 Dos splash screen sayeth,
copyright (c) 1993-1994 by the Technology Group, inc. Software is apparently
legally considered to be intellectual property, not technological advancement.

>
> I think a corporate copyright lasts for 70 years or 100 years, which
> gradually increased from the original 17 years in the Constitution, most
> recently as a result of lobbying and campaign contributions from companies
> like Disney.
>

Copyright now extends for the life of the author plus 70 years. Although this
law may help Disney, its main purpose was to be in harmony with the laws in
Europe, which are precisely that, and the intention of which is to protect the
author and the next generation. The problem arises with intellectual property
that was copyright under prior laws and renewed under the new one. This can in
some cases extend copyright production for 95 years. As a result, Columbia
University Press advises its authors to seek permission to reprint copyrighted
material published more recently than 1905.

The first copyright law was enacted in 1714 and is called "The Statute of 8
Anne." (I.e., a statue enacted by Parliament in the eighth year of the reign of
the last of the Stuarts, Good Queen Anne (1664-1714, r. 1707-1714). Let us hope
it was not the enactment of this legislation that caused her death. It granted
protection for seven (count 'em 7) years only.

But I digress. Let us return to the statutes as they exist today. Some of the
list members want, in effect, to engage in piracy of intellectual property. The
copyright law protects software developers against such plundering. You wish to
establish a different standard for books, and software, apparently. Would any
of you, even the most devoted of corporate-bashers, applaud this scenario?

Let us say Norman Bartleby has decided to privately print the novel that he has
long "had in him." He does so at his own expense and duly registers it with the
copyright office. Let us say he does this today, October 25, 2001. Let us say
he is now 68 years old, and has recently retired from the Bureau of Angels and
Insects and has moved to St. Petersburg, Florida. His book sells 43 copies,
mostly to his former colleagues in the Bureau of Angels and Insects, a few old
friends, and his nephew, Max.

Now imagine it is 2021. Norman has just passed on at age 88, and nephew Max,
his sole surviving heir, is executor of his estate.

Now imagine this: Professor Plum, prowling through the archives of the
University of Florida, has discovered a copy of old Norm's novel, as one of the
43 purchasers of the book found it of interest and donated it to the Gators.
The good Professor contracts with a university press to reprint the volume,
with his introduction and scholarly annotations.

Certainly the University Press in question would not think of proceeding w/o
written permission from Nephew Max!! I'm sure we would all agree that anything
else would be a violation of the law. And yet, and yet, when it comes to
XyWrite some of you have no such compunctions--even though, as has been
explained, the product is licensed to a third party--a third party that has, in
fact, as has also been explained, now hired one of the original creators of the
XyWrite software!

I say nay.

--
Leslie Bialler, Columbia University Press
lb136@xxxxxxxx
61 W. 62 St, NYC 10023
212-459-0600 X7109 (phone) 212-459-3677 (fax)
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup