Re: droit de suite

From: Mike Holderness <mch[_at_]cix.compulink.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:08 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > So what drives the raging against copyright, if it isn't any kind
> > of desire for the public good? ....
>
> I see two very big problems with the current state of copyright law:
>
> 1. Copyright is being misused to try and silence whistle-blowers.
> The "Cyber Patrol" case and the Lighthouse Ministry cases spring
> immediately to mind, plus the perennial lawsuits by [That Church
> Tom Cruise Belongs To]. This isn't about protecting authors from
> pirate sales; it's about stopping the public from seeing various
> embarrassing-but-true things about certain wealthy corporations
> and congregations.
>
> Proposed solution: if a work is (a) copyrighted by an organization
> rather than a human, (b) published within the organization but not
> sold to the general public, and (c) contains reasonably newsworthy
> information, it should be made legal for third parties to copy and
> publish the relevant parts for news reporting purposes.

I'll sign up for that. And here's an example of how it can be implemented very clearly:

 Droit d'auteur

---

 Art. L.122-5. Lorsque l'oeuvre a iti divulguie, l'auteur ne peut  interdire:
 ...
 30. Sous riserve que soient indiquis clairement le nom de l'auteur et  la source:
 ...
 c) La diffusion, mjme intigrale, par la voie de presse ou de  tilidiffusion, ` titre d'information d'actualiti, des discours  destinis au public prononcis dans les assemblies politiques,  administratives, judiciaires ou acadimiques, ainsi que dans les  riunions publiques d'ordre politique et les cirimonies officielles ;

Quickly: "Once an author has 'divulged' a work, s/he may not prevent... its distribution, even in its entirety... in the press or broadcasting for the purposes of news reporting of political, legal, judicial or academic proceedings; or in public political meetings or official ceremonies -- on condition that the author and the nature of the source are clearly identified."

Un(e) avocat(e) francais(e) arrivera bientot me corriger...

This has the advantage over fair use / fair dealing in copyright law that it leaves almost nothing to judicial interpretation The "Once it has been divulged" is a nod to French legal theory and can be made less interpretable in other jurisdictions.

All that [the people who quit the church that Mr Travolta is alleged to belong to] have to do to be absolutely safe from [jargon term for legal oppression] is to organise an academic conference to discuss [the work in question], and publish proceedings. Come to think of it, M. Derrida would possibly be prepared to argue in appeal court that such a conference has already taken place :-)

> 2. Copyright term extension vastly increases the number of "lost"
> works ...
>
> Proposed solution: if a work (a) has been previously published,
> (b) no new copies of the work have been offered for sale in the
> last 28 years, and (c) the Copyright Office has no contact info
> for the current copyright holder, then it should be made legal
> for third parties to copy and republish the work upon payment
> of a mechanical royalty.

Sign me up for that too, if by "mechanical royalty" you mean "equitable remuneration" payable to a fund for distressed authorfolk, or the like.

And as Denise Nicholson <Nicholson.D[_at_]library.wits.ac.za> observes:
>
> in most cases, it seems that the publishers benefit, not the writers.
> This is a bone of contention amongst many writers today. Copyright
> seems to protect the publishing industry, not the creators or authors.

The answer to the problems with copyright may be Authors' Rights (droit d'auteur / Urhebergerrecht), no?

I want to persuade translators that to render "droit d'auteur" as "copyright" is equivalent to rendering "republique" as "monarchy". Imagine you're in a meeting in Brussels trying to discuss the *differences*...

--
Mike Holderness
<mch[_at_]cix.compulink.co.uk>
http://www.poptel.org.uk/nuj/mike/

 The proposal of any new order or regulation of commerce which comes from 
 [the dealers] ought always to be listened to with great precaution,  and 
 ought never to be adopted till after having been long examined, not only 
 with the most scrupulous, but also the most suspicious attention. 
   It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same 
 with that of the public,  who have generally an interest to deceive  and 
 even to oppress the public,  and who accordingly have on many occasions, 
 both deceived and oppressed it. 
 ---------------------[Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, concluding Book I.]

Received on Wed Apr 05 2000 - 18:11:15 GMT