Alexander Klett writes:
>
> 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 !!
I was arguing solely against extension of the U.S. copyright terms, and my "discrimination" argument was intended to refute the claim that we "need" to extend our terms in order to insure "fair treatment" of U.S. copyright owners in Europe. My point was only that the rule of the shorter term, to the extent it is applied in Europe, is the source of this "unfairness," so the remedy should not be extension of our terms but encouraging Europe to abandon its rule of the shorter term. I knew that a number of countries in Europe had not adopted the rule of the shorter term prior to the recent Directive mandating it for EU members, and I concede that I was unaware of any specific Art. 20 treaties, such as the one with Germany mentioned by Mr. Klett. I wonder whether these treaty provisions survive the mandate of the Directive to adopt the rule of the shorter term. More basically, if and to the extent Europe does NOT follow the rule of the shorter term, whether for Art. 20 treaty reasons or any other, the argument on which supporters of the extension in the U.S.have most heavily relied--that U.S. copyright owners are protected in Europe for a shorter period than European copyright owners-- is invalid. So, I would be pleased to learn that Germany has not recognized the rule of the shorter term and that Germany will continue not to recognize the rule of the shorter term in the future. To that extent the "unfairness in Europe" argument for adopting the extension here in the U.S. is out the window.
>> Consequently, many works have remained protected in the U.S. after >> falling into the public domain elsewhere.
Consider the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who died in 1930 and whose works were in the public domain in England and Europe since 1981, although the European extensions apparently have revivified the copyrights until 2001. Works first published before 1978 have a 75-year period of protection rather than the current life + 50 term, so those works of Conan Doyle published in the 1920s remain under U.S. copyright, while those published before 1921 are in the public domain. Because his last work was apparently published in 1927, it is scheduled to go into the public domain in the United States at the end of the year 2002, about the same time as the revived European copyrights on his entire oeuvre. The extension would reintroduce "disharmony" for his later works until the year 2022.
> [I]t 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 - ...).
I personally do not care a whit what intellectual property principles Europe adopts. The argument for the extension HERE in the U.S. has been, essentially, "Europe has extended and so we must do it, too." It is THAT argument I am trying to refute. Our basic copyright policy requires a public benefit in return for the recognition of new rights. If the cost/benefit analysis required by our copyright tradition does not justify changing the social policy balances we have drawn, we need not follow a decision in Europe that was made without consideration of the factors we have always deemed crucial to the analysis. I personally think the Europeans have made a big mistake-- one that they will come to regret sorely when they realize how much of their cultural heritage is tied up in copyright knots, and especially when they see how much more creative we continue to be if we don't make the same mistake. But that is a problem I relegate to our colleagues in Europe. I am not trying to Europe what to do, as long as policy in Europe does not dictate policy here in the U.S. We would all be better off, of course, if Europe had not extended, because then current authors both in Europe and the U.S. would have a wider range of building blocks with which to create new works. But we will get along just fine--in fact much better--if we do NOT follow Europe in extending the periods of protection.
>> [Re: The bills:] They will be back in the next Congress.
I do not have specific information on what or when bills will be introduced in the next Congress. Nothing would please me more than to see these extension proposals just go away. However, given the special interests involved, even a naive academic like me knows that that is wishful thinking. They will be back.
Dennis S. Karjala
Professor of Law
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85287
602-965-4010
602-965-2427 (fax)
dennis.karjala[_at_]asu.edu
Received on Mon Dec 02 1996 - 18:49:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:23 GMT