WIPO Copyright Treaty Article 11 & Grammar

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:33:10 -0700

Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 states:

   "Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and    effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective    technological measures that are used by authors in connection with    the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne    Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which    are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law."

I am interested in parsing grammatically the last clause "not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law." For the purpose of this message I am *not* interested in any substantive arguments as to what it means, just grammatical and logic arguments.

Here are my questions:

1. Does the "not" in the last clause modify both authorized and permitted?
2. Is there only one possible answer to #1, or could the "not" modify authorized but not modify permitted?
3. If the answer to #1 is yes, we then have not(authorized or permitted), and under that assumption I have the following questions:
4. Is the meaning of that construction "neither authorized nor permitted"?
5. Is the meaning of that construction "either not authorized or not permitted"?
6. Are both a and b possible, correct interpretations?
7. For whatever your answers are, do you have any source (either grammar or logic) to support your answers?

Feel free to add anything else that I may have missed in analyzing the grammar/logic of the clause, but, again, please do not buttress your conclusions with things like intent of the drafters or absurd results or anything else substantive. I am also not interested in possible incorrect interpretations, i.e., what someone *might* conclude but erroneously.

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Mon Apr 20 1998 - 22:32:18 GMT