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

[Per von Zweigbergk]

8 jan 2009 kl. 01.21 skrev Amelia Andersdotter:

> With such a large amount of artists choosing to license their works
> under open licenses, I fail to see why we should necessarily protect
> people who tread on the toes of people with a large artistic pride. It
> seems to me this is better suited as a consumer struggle - let
> consumers show authors that they get upset when people weed out bad
> translations, rather than forcing the authors to oblige.


I think you have this backwards, I for one don't want to give  
unofficial translators any special protection at all. The natural  
state is that all information can be copied and modified without  
limit. Anything else is an artificial restriction set in law.

By default, I think that people should be permitted to create  
noncommercial derivative works of a commercial work. And a translation  
is definitely what I'd call a derivative work. Parody also falls under  
this definition. I see no reason why translations should have any  
specific legal definition.

What I fail to see, however, is why people with excessive amounts of  
artistic pride need to be protected, when the end result is stifling  
creativity for everyone else. As long as their names aren't abused to  
let on that they endorse the derivative work, I simply fail to see the  
problem. Authors do not have any natural right not be offended.

And who says that a "bad translation" can't be an artistic work in its  
own right?
-- 
Per von Zweigbergk

VARNING: E-post till och från Sverige, eller som passerar servrar i  
Sverige, avlyssnas av Försvarets Radioanstalt, FRA.
WARNING: E-mail to and from Sweden, or via servers in Sweden, is  
intercepted by the Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment.