Penguin is no longer the owner of the copyright to The Tao of Pooh | Hacker News Reader

Penguin is no longer the owner of the copyright to The Tao of Pooh

benjaminhoffauthor.com

155 pointsTomte78 comments

> His latest book, available December 7, 2021, is titled The Eternal Tao Te Ching, based on the meanings of the ancient Chinese characters in use when the Taoist classic was written. It is the first translation to employ the meanings of the pre-writing brush characters in use 2,400 years ago, when the classic was written, rather than relying on the often-different meanings of the more modern brush characters, as other translations have done.

Translating a thousands-of-years-old text as if the words of the time had their modern meanings is a ridiculous oversight that could not possibly have gone unnoticed until 2021. The written Chinese of 2,400 years ago has been studied thoroughly. What is this supposed to mean?

Yeah, that seems a bit hyperbolic. There are lots of the translations out there, varying from literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”) to classic-but-probably-wrong ("The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.”) to modern ("The Tao set forth as dogma is not the everlasting Tao.").

https://www.taosurfers.com/ideasandwellbeing/2020/4/21/whats...

> literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”)

For this to be a literal translation, wouldn't you need to translate 可 as "call"?

Why was I downvoted? The opening goes (classically):

道可道非常道 ["The Dao can be spoken; it is not the constant Dao"]

or, from Mawangdui:

道可道也非恆道也 ["The Dao can be spoken; it is not the constant Dao" - except that this version makes the division into sentences much clearer by using 也, and the use of a synonym for 常 really helps identify what sense of the character is meant.]

Dao 道 is of course the noun meaning "way" as well as the verb "say", explaining the traditional translation. But the character only appears three times. If the translation says "TAO called TAO is not TAO", that accounts for all three 道 characters. Where does "calling" show up?

'可道' can be translated to 'can be talked about' which is more general than 'called', though 'called' does not seem far off.

Yes, but that assumes that in 可道, 道 is a verb.

The proposed translation "TAO called TAO is not TAO" mentions 道 three times, and it's always unambiguously a noun. So 'called' has to be coming from somewhere else, and the only other word in that sentence is 可.

I only know English, but I am curious about your logic above.

How can you tell that the assumption you mentioned is incorrect? I.e. "that in 可道, 道 is a verb" is false? Is it something about the character itself or perhaps the syntax?

I do not believe that that assumption is false. I'm confident it's correct. I'm arguing against the translation "TAO called TAO is not TAO". I think "the Way can be [spoken (of) / discussed / whatever]" makes more sense, even if the goal is "as literal of a translation as possible".

Following 可 is strong evidence that 道 is a verb, though I don't know enough to call it conclusive evidence.

The character 道 is identical between the noun meaning "way" and the verb meaning "say". To tell the difference, you can look at context or rely on traditional commentaries (of which there are many). In this case, the context should be sufficient.

道 [noun] 可道 [verb]。非常道 [noun]。

'可' also had the meaning of something like 'cute' (like in '可人') but that's clearly not relevant here.

You're correct.

Yes, you're right. They can't all be nouns.

it seems to mean "this is not a pipe"

As far as I can see, it's about ineffability.

I tend to interpret it as "you can talk about the Way, but you[r words] will not capture its true nature".

> varying from literal but incomprehensible (“TAO called TAO is not TAO.”)

Having read numerous translations, that sounds perfectly comprehensible to me.

My favorite is D. T. Suzuki's translation: The Canon of Reason and Virtue:

> The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason.

He takes more poetic liberties than most translations.

The translation I read, by R. B. Blakney, was rather disgraceful, with spurious references to Plato and the Bible in its interleaved commentary. In my defense, it was an old copy that I had pilfered from my parents' bookshelves when I was in college.

In researching translations of the Lunyu of Kongzi (Analects of Confucius), I learned that such an approach is the norm for commentators on Chinese texts. They are having a conversation with the author and it may veer into other topics.

It's been many years, but my notes say that this paper was helpful:

Alice W. Cheng, "The Master's Voice: On Reading, Translating and Interpreting the Analects of Confucius", The Review of Politics, Notre Dame. Vol 62, Issue 03, Summer 2000; pp 563-582. DOI: S0034670500041693

There's a big difference between writing a translation of something or writing a commentary on it.

Often both are done, as with many translations of the Lunyu.

> Translating a thousands-of-years-old text as if the words of the time had their modern meanings

The text quoted from the OP doesn't appear to say that.

I did ask "what is this supposed to mean?". What do you think it says?

Rereading, I misunderstood you, sorry. I thought you were saying the OP interpreted the old characters by their newer meanings, but now I see you're saying that the OP's claim that everyone else has done it seems implausible (and I agree).

Even modern Chinese is ambiguous. Claiming to know the exact definitions of characters in Ancient Chinese is laughable.

I suppose the next step is to sue Penguin for Copyright infringement.

It is a testament to how twisted the copyright laws are that they result in this sort of situation.

Hoff having the power to take back his copyright from Penguin is not an example of laws twisted. That right was instituted specifically to enable creators to get back control of their work after whoever bought it have had (way more than) enough time to make up their investment.

And, no, Penguin will not now be sued for infringement unless they are now infringing.

But the original book included the quoted Milne text and Shepard illustrations, so now neither Hoff nor Penguin nor anyone else has the rights to publish it. Reproducing the Milne text might reasonably fall within the ambit of fair use, but the use of the Shepard illustrations would be much more difficult to defend legally.

Christopher Robin Milne himself died at age 75 a quarter-century ago, never ceasing to deplore the commercialization of his father's work ("climbing upon my infant shoulders"). His daughter Clare died in 02012. Disgracefully, I think that some of the Milne and Shepard work is still in copyright; The House at Pooh Corner wasn't published until 01928, and even Winnie-the-Pooh was published in 01926. The only Pooh material published early enough to be in the US public domain is the poem from When we Were Very Young. I think that in two and a half months Winnie-the-Pooh goes into the public domain in the US, but the other remains locked up until 02024. I'm not sure about, for example, the UK; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28926477 says in the UK it's locked up until 02027, which happens to be 15 years after Milne's last living descendant perished.

If Hoff is still alive in 02024, perhaps he will—by virtue of having outlived A.A. Milne by 68 years, almost four human generations—finally win the legal right to comment freely on the spiritual dimensions of Milne's work.

I'm confused about how 17 USC 203 works. Specifically (b)(1):

> (1) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.

The naïve way I read that is that Penguin can continue to sell any work they prepared under the previous grant. They just can't make any new editions. Is that the case?

That is true, if and only if what they prepared is considered a derivative work, which means it has sufficient originally to acquire a separate copyright.

When the relevant copyright act was written, the assumption was that this would be things like translations, screenplays and motion pictures created thereof, or similar major derivatives that are clearly distinct from the original.

Since then, jurisprudence has largely moved towards considering even smaller changes derivative works, but I'm not entirely sure if a book as laid out by a publisher with added illustrations is actually considered a "derivative work" of the original copyright in the manuscript. It is obviously derivative, as it is derived from the manuscript, but does it reach the level of a distinct "work"?

That's a weird one. Presumably both the two years of notice and this term are intended to ensure a publisher doesn't have to stop selling/throw away books it has printed in good faith under the existing copyright grant.

But I'd be curious whether it will allow Penguin to continue to print new books (provided they're identical to the ones they've previously printed) or just sell the existing print run. Presumably even if they had permission to sell it as an ebook, they would have issues continuing to sell it as an ebook as formats and standards inevitably change.

In this case he granted rights to the book itself, not to make derivative works of it, so I don't think this clause is relevant. I think it's saying that e.g. if Penguin had made a tv-series based on the book, they would not lose the rights to the tv-series when the grant of the book terminated.

So, is this a reversion along the lines that used to commonly occur when blues musicians were able to claw back their copyright from whoever they had transferred it to, after enough decades (spelled out in statute) had passed?

If so, Penguin does not owe him any royalties unless they continue publishing. It might also mean that he doesn't personally have rights to publish it himself, if it depends on copyrights somebody else holds and only licensed to Penguin, not him.

> It might also mean that he doesn't personally have rights to publish it himself, if it depends on copyrights somebody else holds and only licensed to Penguin, not him.

Unfortunately the page makes that pretty clear. The AA Milne estate still has a copyright on Winnie the Pooh for several more years and stated in one of the letters that they are "not in a position" to grant him a license (exclusive contract with Penguin?).

Assuming his copyright reversion was successful, he's probably looking at a decently-large sized actual damages from the publisher if they continue to publish.

Not to mention damages for every single copy sold in digital format which he allegedly never granted to the publisher under the agreement.

With Winnie the Pooh entering the public domain in the US next year (per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie-the-Pooh_(book)) Won't Mr. Hoff be free to publish again through whatever means he wishes?

In the U.S., yes, but not necessarily in other territories.

Presumably in other domains Pooh has been in the public domain for a long time.

Until 1978, copyrights in the US were for 28 years with a 28 year extension. In 1978 there was a new law that aligned things more with copyright in other countries which were generally 75 years or death of the author + 50 years, whichever came later. The US did not retroactively apply the death of the author term to pre-1978 works while other countries did (IIRC in some countries, works that had fallen into the public domain were returned to copyrighted status with the 1978 treaties). Terms have been extended since then so I think in most of Europe it's death + 70 years or 95 years for pre-1978 works while in the US, pre-1978 works are 95 years, but I'm doing all this from memory and probably have plenty of mistakes.

British copyright expires on 1 January 2027 (70 calendar years after Milne's death).

What I don’t understand is why Penguin held the copyright in any case. From my experience at looking at copyrights on the copyright pages of books, the copyrights are almost always held by the author or a trust controlled by the author, not the publisher.

I suspect that all of this is complicated because Hoff's books include passages and illustrations from the original Pooh ... and Penguin likely made getting permission to use them easier ...

Considering Hoff claims Penguin does not have permission for an ebook format, I suspect they held a perpetual license to publish the book rather than the copyright itself.

Bad contract, I'd wager. He clearly assigned the copyright in the early 80s in order to get published either due to bad advice or not proper legal counsel.

He was using IP that didn't belong to him. He probably did this as a concession.

see also, Harlan Ellison's Gopher Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB_hekYXWiw

Arrogant stupidity - that's food for thought. Slightly reminds a bit of Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord's classification of officer.

I am no historian of the spread of of Taoism, but "Both books brought the previously obscure philosophy of Taoism to the attention of mainstream America." seems overstated. And though I was around then, and perhaps even reading the NY Times best-seller list from time to time, I never before reading this item had heard of The Te of PIglet.

why would Benjamin Hoff create a website about himself and talk about himself in third person? ... seems weird to this commentator...

It's a common way to write an auto-biographical article.

I found myself talking about "myself" in third person when the discussion gets philosophical with respect to free-will, as it can help convey my beliefs better.

PartiallyTyped stops being the person directly opposite the other party, but instead becomes a commentator, one who explaining the thought processes of the person that sits opposite the other part; it just happens that the voice of the commentator is the same as that of the person, and the lips are synced, however, for all intents and purposes of that discussion, that person is a p-zombie, and the commentator somehow manifests into the head of the other party.

The commentator considers the case where the audience may be wondering why one would create such a scenario. PartiallyTyped uses that scenario to expresses her belief that free-will is an illusion. She believes that talking about her brain but referring to the p-zombie person enables the other party to understand her point of view; that is, that she is the person that arises or manifests out of the zombie, the person who experiences the world even though she is never in control.

so that it can be quoted, re-shared, copied, etc. without losing context.

Yes, but also it could be written and maintained by an assistant, publicist, etc. as it's often the case with authors.

Why bother with the overhead?

He's obviously older, pre-Internet age. He may not be computer-savvy and care to maintain a website.

Time has value. If it's not how you want to spent your time it may be well worth it.

This is very common with writers. You (usually) don't know who produces content for the website (it can be the author himself or a third party). Plus it makes copy/pasting of the bio way easier, and you don't want, for instance, your author bio at the end of your books or on Amazon to be written in first person (it sounds very amateurish).

"seems weird to this commentator..."

I see what you did there!

why not?

also, what is weird anywho?

Interesting.

For those who haven't read it - here's the WikiData page: <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4154961>

Click the OCLC control number for a local library copy via WorldCat, or see the Open Library.

"is one of only 55,000 individuals selected"

Quite a remarkable honor!

It's like that old joke about King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines: "He tells me I'm one in a thousand!"

I guess now I'll just have to fall back on my copy of "Killing the Gilligan Within: Watch Your Way to Wellness" for my pop-culture-based self-improvement needs.

The castaways wouldn’t have been rescued if it weren’t for Gilligan’s goofy exploits in Rescue From Gilligan’s Island. It would be suboptimal to kill him.

> It would be suboptimal to kill him.

Surely this claim requires balancing the frequency of "would not have been rescued, except for Gilligan" against "would have been rescued, except for Gilligan"?

It's an actual published book, but I believe the gist of the Gilligan part was mostly a lighthearted dig at self-destructive behaviors.

There is a longstanding observation that the rest of the crew would be better off if they killed Gilligan. I assume the title is a reference to that.

Electronic rights excluded, if Penguin is still selling previously printed books and delivering royalties as agreed, does the author have recourse?

Soooo, how do we buy his books now?

Secondhand market probably the only option. He can't publish directly since he doesn't own the IP (Pooh estate does and they only work with Penguin, I guess). Penguin can't publish new printings/editions as he revoked their license to.

He can publish his work, only not the quotations and illustrations from the original Pooh. And since his work AIUI is direct commentary on them the quotations may well be "fair use", so in the end perhaps the only thing he can't publish are the illlustrations. (IANAL, etc.)

So hilarious that the author of the Tao of Pooh is embroiled in an acrimonious copyright law spat.

Writing on the subject of exploring how to live doesn’t preclude setting and enforcing healthy boundaries. If anything, it seems to me he’s responding appropriately without being excessively inflammatory.

> Anyone purchasing [...] any e-book editions of these books is violating the author’s rights

seems inflammatory to me; someone selling an e-book edition is certainly violating his rights, the purchaser is probably not.

Not really. If the seller does not have the rights to sell something than someone who purchases from them are in effect receiving stolen goods. They may not be intentionally violating those rights but they are still participating in an action which does just that.

The copyright is the right to restrict reproduction; formally, the purchaser isn't doing anything wrong.

Since an e-book is copied at the moment of purchase, the purchaser is the direct cause of the copy being made, so if they knew it was unlicensed, and they consider copyright violation to be wrong, then I would think they were doing wrong to cause it.

Are they civily or crimimaly liable? Probably not, but IANAL. Bigger pockets would say sue the store and the publisher, not the clients.

yeah, but intent matters, and someone purchasing an ebook is probably making a good faith attempt to obtain the media in a way that compensates the author - hence my elision in the passage i quoted, which seems to mean well, but is badly phrased. a downloader pirating the book is directly violating the author's rights wheras the purchaser is really also a victim along with the author - they are being deprived of money for something the seller has no legal right to provide. ianal and all that applies, of course!

i think the humor is in the juxtaposition of the abstract nature of chinese philosophy against the abstract nature of copyright law, not that the author of one should be somehow immune to the effects of the other

Reply on news.ycombinator.com