Re: Re: Re: Berne Convention -- copyright or author-right?

On 3/31/06, Vance R. Koven <vrkoven[_at_]gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .... Article 6bis was
> the principal reason the US didn't join the Berne Union for over 100
> years--it's a concept that was considered antithetical to American
> notions (since largely eroded, alas) that the author *is granted*
> (important to note that it's not somehow inherent) exclusive rights in
> exchange for the dedication of the author's creation for public
> consumption.

(Getting on soapbox.)

Not only that but moral rights are also antithetical to the freedom of speech. They are simply unenforceable against speech that the authors find offensive but is permitted by the freedom of speech on which fair use is based.

Although moral rights sound noble due to the word "moral", they are really a tool of censorship so that authors can control over how people will treat their works.

Given that the concept of moral rights originated in Europe, it is not surprising that it does not highly prize the freedom of speech.

(Getting off the soapbox.)

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,658
4658

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Sat Apr 01 2006 - 09:30:03 GMT