[pp.int.general] copyright vs. "droit d'auteur"

[Anton Tamminen]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> This inherently criminalizes all products of non-commercial third 
>> party translation done for any at all purpose. For eg. a lot of 
>> japanese pop culture (manga,anime) would not have reached the west 
>> have it not been for the diligent scanlators and fansubbers. Are we 
>> to punish peple who translate important local news from foreign 
>> countries with oppressive governments? The whole idea of trying to 
>> control non-commercial translations is silly, dangerous and from 
>> another world. If you want to cover the impersonation aspect, I think 
>> we should classify it under identity theft or unjust use of another's 
>> name on a work.
>
> I am fully aware that thisis controversial, and subtle. Firstly, 
> copy/authorsright never covers the substance, only the form (the 
> famous"idea/expression" dichotomy - though this terminology is 
> slightly controversial).
I'd like to call it an "implementation". A "form" is a broader concept.
> Secondly, citations are allowed (and should also be allowed for 
> musical samples). All news should be available to everybody, 
> paraphrased or cited. But if your name is still on a work that is 
> attributed to you, and hurts your reputation, there is a reason to 
> consider that illegal (whether it should be considered a crime is 
> another question - criminal law should only be the "ultimum remedium").
>
> And I am definitely opposed against commercial exploiitation of 
> derivative works of the works I made available for free. As you know, 
> it is an option in the CC licence suite.
>
> PP should oppose people  with $€ signs in teir eyes, not artists who 
> want to protect their cultural values.
But this attitude of "protecting cultural values" represents a world 
view stemming from an age when publishing something equals promoted 
business - public and visible affairs, and in that age, it was realistic 
to enforce, because noncommercial publishing was minimal or nonexistent 
- infringement is easily noticed because it is promoted. Business 
doesn't want to publish bad translations and it usually doesn't want to 
do that under the author's name, because that would be bad PR. Business 
has an obvious interest in self-regulation because it is dependent on 
public relations. And when it comes to not publishing bad translations, 
that's all good.

But then came the internet, and changed all of this - suddenly there is 
a huge demand for sufficiently good unofficial translations for works 
that are not and probably never will be translated with approval of the 
author and at the same time there are an enormous number of people 
willing to do all this work for free. It is in the nature of culture to 
spread.

I fail to see an artist's rational interest in wanting to weed out 
unofficial translations that are mostly found only by those looking for 
them, because nobody is actively promoting the material. Wanting to 
criminalize non-commercial translations sounds to me like a childish 
desire to own and control the intellectual space of others with an 
attitude of "that's my song, I heard it first", "you can't use that 
word" or "you can't draw a rainbow next to the pony, that was my idea" 
that I sometimes witness is strangely common among bitter, unsuccessful 
artists. I don't think anyone consciously seeking out unofficial 
translations will think of them as representative of the original 
author's talent or person. You want a non-commercial translation and you 
get just that. Also bear in mind that until machine translation is 
advanced enough to sensibly translate novels, you have nothing to worry 
about when it comes to larger literary works.

Regards,

-- 
Anton Tamminen
International Secretary, Member of the Board
Piraattipuolue - The Pirate Party, Finland
http://www.piraattipuolue.fi