Re: Registration & Berne (was: French copyright)

I wrote:
> >
> > The whole point of Berne is that the author need do nothing beyond the
> > creation of the work to get the full benefit of protection. I'm afraid
> > I'll have to disagree here and maintain that the US really only went
> > halfway here.
 

Larry Ubanski <larryu[_at_]moviecraft.com> replied:
>
> The issue of registration to benefit in full remedies for copyright
> holders is the most sensible way to handle copyright.

That wasn't my argument. If USA wants to be part of Berne they have to accept Berne's basis for protection which is "no formalities" period. They have not done this. That was the extent of my comment.

This is the paradigm that authors in the rest of the world are used to. That authors of derivative works in the US are used to being able to simply check at a central registration office is certainly better for the authors. But by adopting the Berne model, the US is abandoning this advantage in return for other advantages (namely international harmonization). Except they aren't really playing the game-they get the benefit of mutual coverage without harmonizing their law to agree with everybody else.

> By adding full remedies here without registration will stifle
> creativity of new authors.

That is not the only basis for a copyright law in the rest of the world. Just under the US constitution. Other legislatures can consider a multitude of other factors including interests of natural justice and community expectations (and of course lobbying pressure from large publishers with considerable holdings of old copyrights).  

> Speaking as a creator of IP in the United States the "point of Berne"
> has been a mystery to me. The author <underline>should</underline> do
> something to get the benefit of protection.

They do. They create a work. That is the Berne model. Oh and they sue if somebody breaches their copyright and they find out about it.

> I am not trying to get into a discussion of formalities here, which due
> to Berne have been eliminated.

Neither am I.

My whole point is that they have not been eliminated in the spirit of Berne as Terry was claiming. In a large number of cases, failure to register leads to no adequate remedy where one might have been available if the author had registered. Thats strikes me as removing the formalities without really removing them.

I fail to see how a fair justice system can exist if costs don't follow the case. That doesn't mean I force the US to conform but if they want to harmonize procedurally as well as substantially then costs should follow the case regardless of registration.

> It would be nicer if the whole world adapted a shorter term to
> stimulate new authorship.

I couldn't agree more. Sadly the current trend is to lengthen the term, retrospectively with no perceivable benefit to the community by that retrospective effect and considerable disadvantage. The perceivable benefit even for future works is pretty questionable also as any actuary can quickly demonstrate.

Tim Arnold-Moore, LL.B. (Melb)        | Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT  |
tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au  B.Sc.(Hons Melb) | 723 Swanston St    -----------------
Tel: +61 3 9282 2487   Fax: ..2490    | Carlton 3053       |  simul iustus 
    http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/People/Tja/tja.html         |   et peccator