Re: Conversion filters; intellecutal property

[Leslie Bialler lb136@xxxxxxxx]

Norman Bauman wrote:

"Let's change the hypothetical. Suppose there is no Nephew Max. Suppose
Norman"

Let me apologize for having used the name Norman in my example. I did not realize,
although I should have, that I was replying to someone named Norman. I meant no
mockery.

"dies with no heirs, and the ownership of Norman's book passes to the
State, they auction off his car, his estate winds up in a file in the
Attorney General's office, and they have no provision for negotiating with
publishers or giving reprint permission. Or suppose Nephew Max becomes a
busy businessman and doesn't want to bother with an apparently unprofitable
publishing venture. The great novel is lost to the world. Norman's last
wish is foiled to at least have the recognition after his death that he was
denied during his life.

"So Professor Plum could never publish this great novel."

Actually it is not nearly that bad. One need only make a "good faith effort" to
secure permission. This is a real example. Columbia University Press was
publishing a book in which illustrations of old magazine covers were used. While
some of the illustrations were within the 95-year limits I mentioned in my prior
post, the magazines in some cases had gone out of business. The author made
several attempts to contact somebody who might own the copyrights, but w/o
success. We therefore published the illustrations anyway, duly cited the original
source, and placed a disclaimer on the copyright page that stated this fact, and
stated also that the Press and the author would be interested in hearing from
anyone who claimed to own the copyrights in question.

To the best of my knowledge, we received no replies.

And then, there was the case of the author who wanted to quote a stanza of a song
lyric. The lyric was registered with ASCAP. The author called them, and they gave
him the name of the copyright owner. He wrote three letters to the person ASCAP
had cited, and received no replies. He then wrote this note:

"This is the fourth letter I have sent requesting permission to quote . . . . As
the law states I need only make a good faith effort to secure permission, I can
assume only that you have no objection to my printing this lyric and wish no
payment." That got their attention.

Then Norman posits:

"Suppose I wanted to rewrite XyDOS in Linux. Would there be anything wrong
with that?

If you had permission, nothing whatsoever.

"And besides, didn't XyQuest write the original software as a copy of the
Atex system, in violation of the copyright laws which Atex retrospectively
decided to overlook?"

Tim Behr would be the guy to answer that one. My understanding was that Atex
granted the permission freely, but perhaps not.


and Norman writes In conclusion:

>
> I say yea. That's why they have horse races. I don't think it's *unethical*
> to copy an abandoned work. I think the laws should change to reflect that.
>

Fortunately or unfortunately, this is not the way things are. I deal with things
as they are.

And again, my apologies for using the name Norman improperly in my example of
earlier.


--
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