On 17 Feb 2006 at 1:10, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 16.02.2006 Ken Moore wrote:
In Europe this is already the case, there is nothing new about it.
Yes, but it's new to the UK.
I was still under the impression that the UK was part of Europe, but I
might be wrong. :-o
This is one of the issues that confuses me in the whole discussion.
How is it that there's so much variation in copyright law when
everyone has supposedly all signed the same international treaty on
the subject (Berne Convention)? What's the point of harmonizing
copyright in 1978 and then having everybody write their own
variations into law?
In the US, Sawkins would get no copyright protection in the work
conveyed (only in the printed edition; i.e., no one could photocopy
it, but anybody could perform it or record it without being required
to pay royalties to the editor).
In Germany, he would have it as a matter of course, without needing
to sue.
In the UK, before his lawsuit, the situation was like the US is now,
but the Sawkins case has changed the situation to be more like
Germany.
Then, of course, there's the US's ridiculously extended copyright
terms (the Mickey Mouse Protection law, i.e., the Sony Bono Copyright
Act).
What's the point of an international convention if everybody then
goes off in all sorts of directions 20 years after it's singed? Am I
misinterpreting what's in the Berne Convention? Is it merely an
agreement to honor other country's copyright laws? I thought it was
more than that, but if that's all it is, then that would explain all
the variability.
--
David W. Fentonhttp://dfenton.com
David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
