Re: 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

Moral rights are indeed about freedom of speech. It should not be possible to force another person to say something he or she doesn't want to say. Since moral rights protect the integrity the work (and its creator) this means that someone can't republish for instance your text in a distorted way and still claim it is written by you.

/Karl-Erik Tallmo

    KARL-ERIK TALLMO, writer, editor    

    ARCHIVE: http://www.nisus.se/archive/artiklar.html     BOOK: http://www.nisus.se/gorgias
    ANOTHER BOOK: http://www.copyrighthistory.com     MAGAZINE: http://art-bin.com