Re: Economics of dead tree (was: Re: A Radical Thesis)

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Tim Perrin wrote:
>
> Yes, but over many generations, language changes until the book, even
> though physically there, is no longer readable. Try Chaucer in the
> original "English". So, how is this problem any different. The
> delivery system (currently HTML) changes over time. Translations may
> be needed to keep the work current and available in a format that people
> can understand. If it has sufficient literary/economic/other value,
> someone will do the translation.
>
> Then, do they get the copyright in the "translation" of the programming
> code? What if it is done by an automated translator?

When a language changes so much that "translation" becomes necessary in order to understand a work in even a basic sense, whether Chaucer, Caedmon, or the like, then the translation is and should be protected by copyright as permitted under the law.

However, I question whether the mere modernization of English in any of the numerous works of the Elizabethan era (including but not limited to Shakespeare and the King James Bible) can in any manner be considered "translation" or copyrightable, since such modernization and reworking of basic syntax and grammar into contemporary form can only be performed in a very definite and very limited manner if the essence of the original work is intended to remain intact.

If I produce my own modernized edition of "Romeo and Juliet" in contemporary English (so that high school students can read it easier), basically modernizing the "thee" and "thou" and -"est" endings, as well as putting into the main text what usually appears as explanatory footnotes in most editions which think the Bard's words are sacrosanct, should my finished copy be copyrightable? I do not think so.

"Hush! What light breaks through yonder window? It is Juliet, and she is the sun" may not poetically scan as well, but it adequately reflects the original text in a modernized minimalist form. Had my revision ended up producing something like "West Side Story," there we would have a different matter, but I barely see anything creative or original in merely modernizing and rephrasing the Bard.

(My ulterior motive in this example relates to those translations of the Bible such as the New King James in which 95% of the text remains identical to the 1611 King James, and most of the remaining 5% is mere modernization of archaic terms in a manner such as above, which in most cases any well-trained English major could readily perform and produce almost identical results).

Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~