On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Karjala, Dennis wrote:
>
> Moreover, it is not the failure of the United States to extend
> our copyright terms that cause U.S. copyright owners to "suffer" in
> Europe. It is Europe's discriminatory action in adopting a mandatory
> rule of the shorter term. Berne does not require the rule of the
> shorter term, and the United States has never adopted it.
Proceed with caution. This is not the first time you paint this picture intended to make us feel really sorry with all the poor Americans being discriminated against so cruelly by European regimes.
I feel offended by your passage about "Europe's discriminatory action". Here is why: Yes, Berne does not require the rule of the shorter term, but it sets certain minimum standards in its art.7. However, if you read on you will find art.20 RBC which allows RBC member states to sign special bilateral treaties (without a most favoured nation effect as in interna- tional trade under GATT). Do you know which special bilateral U.S. treaty falls within art.20 RBC ?
Well, as it happens Germany was friendly enough to sign such a treaty with the U.S. - not very recently, but on January 15, 1892 !!!! Its art.1 says that citizens of the U.S. will be granted the same copyright protection as German citizens. This treaty still governs U.S.-German copyright relations today. Works by American authors that were still protected in both the U.S. and Germany on March 1, 1989 (when the U.S. joined the RBC) have since enjoyed full copyright protection of life +70 in Germany under art.20 RBC and the German-American treaty of 1892. Works by German authors, however, are only protected for life +50 in the U.S., of course (works created after January 1, 1978).
So your term "Europe's discriminatory action" certainly does not apply to Germany, which BTW is not one of the smallest EU member states (and has about 25 % of the EU's population). The fact of the matter is that American authors receive preferential treatment in Germany !!
> Consequently, many works have remained protected in the U.S. after
> falling into the public domain elsewhere.
Can you give any examples for that, please (recent ones - after March 1, 1989) ?
> Those interested in trade fairness should be petitioning Europe to
> stop its discriminatory policy
Again.... See above.
> against foreign works rather than distorting our intellectual
> property principles
This is also something that comes up again and again. And it always sounds like the American superpower being knocked over by David (Europe) with regard to intellectual property issues. I dislike this view. No European nation tries to distort American intellectual property principles. I have talked about Germany above. Other EU members only apply current international treaties which countries signed freely.
I believe that this is not what you mean, but it sounds as if you wanted to say: The Europeans should take over our intellectual property principles. This won't happen. In international intellectual property the U.S. is just one country - with no veto power (unlike in the UN - ...).
> If Europe adopted a direct
> welfare measure that discriminated against Americans in Europe by
> denying payments to any foreign resident in Europe unless the
> foreigner's home country provided reciprocal benefits to Europeans,
> would "unfairness" to Americans resident in Europe be accepted as a
> basis for our adopting such a welfare measure without evaluating its
> domestic costs and benefits? Very doubtful. Well, copyright welfare
> in the form of the extended terms on existing works is no different.
For the situation in Germany, see above. Full welfare for Americans... But I believe that treating foreign nationals the way domestic citizens are treated abroad is a common practice under international law and nothing to be surprised or angry about.
> Finally, extending our copyright terms to insure that U.S.
> copyright owners join their European counterparts in European
> royalties means that we here in the United States must continue paying
> them royalties, too (not to mention the royalties we must continue
> paying to European copyright owners on works that otherwise would have
> entered the public domain). It stands to reason that the United
> States is a greater user of U.S. works than is Europe. No one, to
> my knowledge, has hard data on the question (which one would think
> Congress would demand before leaping into action on this special-
> interest legislation), but if, for example, we make four times the
> use of U.S. works as Europeans make of U.S. works, it means that
> Americans must pay an extra $4 for every $1 of increased royalties
> U.S. copyright owners will get from Europe,
If this hypo is correct it would only be $3 for every $1 - you get German royalties for free (see above) -, but the ratio might even be $ 2 for every $ 1 because Germany seems to be the main user of U.S. works at least in continental Europe.
> So-called "harmonization," too, is a complete red herring.
> The bills would NOT harmonize even our terms with those of Europe,
> let alone any of the other major differences between our copyright
> law and that of Europe (like fair use).
You have pointed that out before and I agree with you.
> [Re: The bills:] They will be back in the next Congress.
Do you have any information about whether this will soon be the case (early 1997) ?
Regards,
Alexander Klett
aklett[_at_]blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:23 GMT