Specifically, the right to property.
Some have recently claimed that the right to property not only allows for "intellectual property" as an exception, but that all right of property is based on the intellectual property.
The fact that the intellect as a human faculty is a precondition for property rights doesn't mean that the right to intellectual property is.
There are in fact two roots of intellectual property. The royal and the inquisitorial one. We'll look into both. But first, the general rule.
If I acquire the property rights to any physical object, I have the right to use it in any way which is not harmful to others.
If I own a well, I can not deny someone the water necessary for his survival just because I dislike his face, and if I own a sword, I can not use it on innocent people as a way of practising. But I definitely can (if I have the patience) get buckets from my well to form a swim bath in summer, and I definitely can use my sword together with other people practising swordsmanship in safe protection suits.
How does this apply to a book I buy?
I can read it. I can lend it to someone for free. I can sell it to an old books' dealer. I can put it on the fire if I don't like the content. I can fold it into a hedgehog, if the content could be viewed later, but the hedgehog is more fun right now.
According to the general rule, if there were no exception, I could put page after page of the book I bought (someone else wrote) on a copy machine, not just to access myself (or I access what a library allows me to put on a copying machine), but also to make multiple copies and actually sell them. Or I could laboriously copy the text into a printing press and make enjoyable copies in actual book format, folding quires and binding them, perhaps in an even nicer cover than the book I bought.
Now, the exception says, if I do this, I am committing an offense against "intellectual property" ... this is the royal exception to normal property rights in relation to intellectual property.
Why so? Well, because the one selling the book has an interest in selling the books himself, and if the market is limited, as it is for most books, he might not like people selling the exact same text, obtained from himself, without paying him. One book more sold by me could be one book less sold by him, when we speak of 100's, we are certainly often in that risk zone.
Nevertheless, up to a certain point in time, a few centuries ago, he could do nothing about it, legally.
A French king considered that authors should not be unfairly exploited to the point of dying in misery due to having no control over how their book is sold. Hence, there was a royal monopoly accorded to the author of a book, valid for 10 years, which he could exploit himself if he had a printing press, or which he could communicate with someone who had that asset. It was for 10 years, in case the author needed lots of research before getting the next book, and it was limited, so there would actually be a next book. The whole idea being to make it possible for someone to live off being a writer.
He is not mentioned in the wikipedian histories of copyright, with Queen Anne's law of 1710 coming first (before or after the one I thought of?) in the French wikipedia, while the English one actually speaks of 1662. Let's cite the English first:
The concept of copyright first developed in England. In reaction to the printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the English Parliament passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662,[16] which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved Stationers' Company, giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed.[21]
The Statute of Anne, enacted in 1710 in England and Scotland, provided the first legislation to protect copyrights (but not authors' rights). The Copyright Act of 1814 extended more rights for authors but did not protect British from reprinting in the US. The Berne International Copyright Convention of 1886 finally provided protection for authors among the countries who signed the agreement, although the US did not join the Berne Convention until 1989.[22]
And now the French:
La première véritable législation protectrice des intérêts des auteurs est le « Statute of Anne » du 10 avril 17107,8. L'auteur jouit à cette époque d'un monopole de 14 ans, renouvelable une fois sur la reproduction de ses créations.
Bien que sous l'influence de Beaumarchais et de Franklin, la constitution des États-Unis de 1787 protège expressément le droit exclusif de l'auteur (voir la rédaction de l'article 1), la loi fédérale de 1790 a introduit dans l'Union le régime anglais du droit d'auteur.
En 1777, Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, artiste et homme d'affaires, fonde la première société d'auteurs en France dans le but de promouvoir la reconnaissance de droits au profit des auteurs10. C'est-à-dire qu'il défend le fait que les auteurs méritent un salaire. Il ne s'agit pas seulement de protéger les revenus de l'auteur mais aussi l'intégrité de son œuvre contre les dénaturations fréquentes introduites à l'époque dans l'interprétation par les acteurs et dans l'impression par les imprimeurs. L'idée de protéger l'œuvre de l'esprit, que l'on retrouve chez plusieurs penseurs de cette époque, comme du siècle précédent, est tout à fait présente dans l'innovation de Beaumarchais.
Dans la nuit du 4 août 1789, les révolutionnaires français abolissent l’ensemble des privilèges11, puis les lois du 1312 et 19 janvier 1791 et du 1914 et 24 juillet 1793 accordent aux auteurs le droit exclusif d'autoriser la reproduction de leurs œuvres pendant toute leur vie puis aux héritiers pendant une durée de cinq ans. À l’issue de ce délai, l’œuvre entre dans le domaine public.
What they failed to mention was the 1793 legislation was a rehash on what had previously been considered a "privilège royal" meaning that the original French copyright legislation was first abolished in 1789, that famous or infamous night of the 4th of August.
But yes, I find it totally reasonable that for a determined time, 10 years, 14 years, life time, life time + 75 years, an author and his heirs should have the right to get a part of the sales of a work. This is a reasonable exception.
Now, to the Inquisitorial side.
When it comes to Bibles, the Catholic Church and the English Crown have maintained monopolies. Obviously intended to prevent heretics or dissenters (from the English pov, which long illegalised Catholics) from giving out fake texts of the Bible.
While the English crown and even more the Catholic Church are bodies that don't suffer natural death, when a human person dies, this concept has so to speak come to benefit authors as well.
If I obtained the right from Mr. Quibble to print a work of his, and it contained the sentence "I am tired" he could legally sue me if I replaced that with "I suffer from fatigue" to make it more posh. Also totally fair enough.
Disney has however pushed for extensions of copy-right. And a Swedish cartoonist was forced to change the beak of Arne Anka. Arne is a Swedish name (the one that means eagle!) and Anka means "Duck" — to the point that the Swedish name for "Donald Duck" is "Kalle Anka" ... the comics are very different, no one could even pretend that the Swedish talking duck was misleading anyone about the relations of the American one to Daisy Duck. Nevertheless ...
In the beginning of the 1990s, The Walt Disney Company threatened to sue the author, Charlie Christensen, due to Arne Anka's similarity with Donald Duck. As a response, Charlie Christensen drew a comic strip about Arne faking his own death, so that he could have plastic surgery done to his beak in secrecy. Arne then returned with a new, pointed beak, and the pseudonym Alexander Barks was changed to Alexander X.[3] After a while though, Arne went to a novelty store to buy a fake beak, which looked exactly like his old one. This new beak was drawn showing a small rubber band holding it in place until the threat of being sued was withdrawn. In the meanwhile, however, Disney's threat of a lawsuit, which received very extensive publicity in Sweden, had turned Arne Anka into a Swedish independence hero and increased his popularity manyfold.
Do I make myself clear, crystal clear, that I think Disney was pushing the concept of copyright (as mentioned not the basis of property rights but an exception from normal ones) a bit too far?
Good. Now, suppose Tolkien and C. S. Lewis estates do not allow me to live off getting Chronicle of Susan Pevensie (should I ever finish it) into print, I can live with that. Banning commercialised fan fiction is also going a bit too far, as long as it's clear it is fan fiction, but I can live with that. At least, they are arguably allowing it to exist on the internet, just as the Tolkien estate did with a Russian fan fic ...
The book was first published by ACT of Moscow in Russian in 1999.[7] It was reprinted in Russian by Folio of Kharkov in 2002,[8] and by the print on demand publisher CreateSpace in 2015.[9]
Though translated into several languages, the book has not had a commercial release in English, for fear of legal action by the Tolkien Estate.[2] In 2010, Yisroel Markov translated the book into English, with a second edition released in 2011 fixing typos and revising the prose as well as providing ebook formatted versions;[10] his text has appeared as a free and non-commercial ebook, and Eskov has officially approved this release.[11][12][2] Mark Le Fanu, general secretary of the Society of Authors, opined that despite being non-commercial, the book still constitutes a copyright infringement.[3]
The Last Ringbearer is in many ways despicable, a Communist propaganda with enforced enrolment of Frodo and Sam, who are the brain children of the well known Anti-Communist J. R. R. Tolkien. However, it is at least good that the offense to good taste and manners is not driven out of existence on the online world. Once upon a time, Bored of the Rings* could be published and sold on paper, with no legal consequences, and whatever the arrangements may be between Harvard** and the Tolkien Estate, this seems to be true to this very day.
Now, there seems to be some kind of informal agreement (or a formal but secret one) that all of my content is "copyright violation" ... some people imagine that just because I made a fan fiction involving (obviously) characters from C. S. Lewis, but also at least one (implicitly two) from Tolkien and some further ones from Enid Blyton, besides ones already in public domain from Chesterton and Conan Doyle, that makes my literary production in its entirety an act of "intellectual property theft" ... not so. The fan fiction is 91 chapter, posts, out of a total of 10 000 +.*** On top of that, I have never heard of Tolkien estate, CSL estate etc.
However, there are other people who are more seriously pretending to copyright infringement.
- James Bogle: Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: While the Debate May be Over, It is Yet to be Reviewed
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2023/02/while-debate-may-be-over-it-is-yet-to.html
- Rowland S. Ward: Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Ward, on Flood, Rabbis, Joshua's Long Day
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/03/with-ward-on-flood-rabbis-joshuas-long.html
- Cuthbert Chisholm : New blog on the kid: How did human language "evolve from non-human"?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/11/how-did-human-language-evolve-from-non.html
Their view (least offensive so far Rowland) seems to be, I have no right to cite to refute, whatever non-sense arguments they provide. There are two kinds of people. Authors who can make any comment they like, and hope to get heard because not just of their expertise, but established reputation for expertise.° Including themselves. And debaters, who have no right to object to bad comments, without the express permission of the authors, since the objection by its very nature involves citing what one is objecting to.
This would strike at the heart of Western Culture. One of its roots is the New Testament. I highly doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John asked permission to cite what the adversaries of Our Lord were saying. Another of its roots is Socrates. His disciples recorded his dialogues and Plato wrote them down, and did so without asking Gorgias for permission, likely enough.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Sosthenes of Corinth
28.XI.2023
Apud Corinthum natalis sancti Sosthenis, ex beati Pauli Apostoli discipulis; cujus mentionem facit idem Apostolus Corinthiis scribens. Ipse autem Sosthenes, ex principe Synagogae conversus ad Christum, fidei suae primordia, ante Gallionem Proconsulem acriter verberatus, praeclaro initio consecravit.
* People who think Tolkien is very much into illegal recreation drugs may have confused the text of Lord of the Rings with that of Bored of the Rings. Happens when your sources are oral conversations with people of quality, who, despite being people of quality, are not beyond tweaking the truth a bit in order to have what they consider legitimate fun at someone's expense.
** Bored of the Rings being originally published by "the Harvard Lampoon"
*** 10,919 was the amount reached on last of June this past Summer.
° I'd say Bogle's expertise in law is somewhat superior to (but as illogical as) Cuthbert's expertise in the atheism related subjects.
No comments:
Post a Comment