If you believe in copyright then there is no God
In a world of many not obvious. In the world everything is interconnected. Disclosure of these relationships gives a more complete picture of the world. It is this desire for centuries, driven by philosophers and scientists. However, detection of some relations it is enough to spend a few comparisons, and the resulting observation will make for a fresh look at certain aspects of life.
This post is an attempt of analysis of the ideas underlying the definition of the term of protection of copyright. There will not be the so-called photoshopped pics and other things, already circulated on the Internet about creativity, copyright and religion. Also specify that the purpose of this post is not a promotion or debunking of those or other views of higher power. As a lawyer, an author may claim only the discovery and interpretation of the ideas underlying the legal rules by which our society lives.
To start is to pay attention to the existing terms of copyright protection. According to the international standards enshrined in article 7 of the Berne Convention of 1971 for the protection of literary and artistic works the term of protection thereof is the lifetime of the author and 50 years after his death.
If we analyze the historical aspect, this term has not been installed initially, and was constantly changed. And upwards.
Until 1710 in England, the author was able to dispose exclusively of the manuscript. Right to the text was "the load". Adopted in the same year, the Statute of Anne established that the author has rights on his work for 14 years with the right to extend the term another 14. In 1774, a vote in the House of lords in the case of Donaldson vs Beckett, it was established that after the expiration of protection, the work enters the public domain. The decision of the house of lords ruled that publishers can no longer restrain the growth and development of culture and innovation in England.
As for the US, the first increase in the term of protection of copyright occurred in 1831 from 28 to 42 years. In 1909 to 56 years. In 1976, for all works created after 1978, establishes the term of copyright 50 years after the author's death. For corporations, the term of copyright was 75 years old. Since 1998, the expiration of copyright is valid for 70 years after the author's death.
I brought only two countries that are at the heart of the Anglo-Saxon system of law and a bulwark of modern copyright. However, even a cursory analysis of legal norms allows to highlight the lack of basic criteria for establishing the term of protection. Never the term of copyright was not determined on the basis of some objective criterion. 28, 42, 56 – all of these numbers are conditional, not associated with work, and changing under the influence of rights-holders. As the argument was used to enable them to obtain adequate remuneration for his work. It is important here to emphasize his work.
“And Moses said to the Lord: o Lord! man I am slow of speech, and that was yesterday and the day before, and when You started talking with Your slave: I have a hard time talking and tongue-tied. The Lord said, who hath made man's mouth? who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth” (Exodus, 4, 10 – 12).
Psychologist Hovhannisyan N. T. in his article "the problem of the authorship of poetry" he says that often during the creation of poetry, in the creative process of a poet there is a strange feeling, what he was doing for him by someone else, someone leads him by the hand, whispering in his inexplicable line. If it's not his thoughts and his imagination, and instill in him a strange spirit. It's strange beginning and inspires his creativity. On the rise of feelings and emotions is a certain Epiphany, a revelation, accompanied by the understanding that the poet becomes merely a pretext, the occasion for the manifestation of a certain someone else will. That is why many poets observe this phenomenon – the feeling that the work is not yours it's not yours, and written by someone else. For example, Byron believed that man possesses the “demon”, and Michelangelo believed that his hand is leading God. Victor Hugo said, “God dictated and I wrote.”
A. S. Pushkin in his poem “Stanzas” says:
I... my spirit to the Creator, it flies,
Blazing lightning fire,
And the mind disturbed dreams
Volney, when the thunder comes.
And God is broadcasting stronger than me
And my fiery doom,
Than around noisy thunderstorm
And in the brave the horrors of the night.
Nobel laureate physiologist Eccles argued that the brain is only a receptor, through which the soul perceives the world.
One can cite many examples and insights into the nature of creativity and inspiration. One: almost everyone who is associated with the work, says the impact on the creation of the work of some higher force, beyond even the understanding of the author. No wonder, the ancient Greek mythical creatures the Muses are still almost an object of worship, while the other inhabitants of the Pantheon of the forgotten. The inexplicable force that continues the author, is also seen in the fact that to predict the final result of creative work is impossible.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the theory of a higher power are not reflected in the law. Moreover, the method of setting the term of copyright establishes that the person is full and unconditional owner of his work. In confirmation of this thesis can give an example that the term of protection associated with the life of the author, not the publication of a work, not its actual distribution. All of these key in life works factors play no role. Important thing is how much the man has lived, who is considered the author of the work.
The system of copyright does not just forbid everyone to use the work, but also involves the transfer by inheritance. Here is also a pertinent question about the basic idea of this method of protection. What is a public good, in addition to feeding heirs of the author pursues this normal? In my opinion, it only creates the conditions under which nature can safely rest on the children of the great.
To date there is no mechanism by which the society will be able to claim the use of the work contrary to the will of the author, whatever role the work is not played in the culture. Nationalization, purchase for public purposes – all these methods are inherent in property law in one form or another, are completely absent in intellectual property rights. The defenders of the current copyright have to use the tools it proprietary rights. "Copied – means stole" — this is from there. As mentioned in the commandments theft.
In Ancient Greece it was common to Plato developed the theory of the "world of ideas" and "world of things". Man's authority did not extend beyond the world of things. The idea was some kind of common ground that was projected into material form. The idea was dominant and primary. People served only as a conduit between these worlds.
Modern copyright system, in contrast, comes from a proprietary relationship to the idea. The idea is firmly attached to the author. Copyright is limited only by copyright of others. It turns out the man is a complete and unconditional owner of the ideas depicted in the material form of the works he created. This means that from the point of view of copyright the person is a bearer of rights, it is the root cause of the idea. There is a certain emptiness, in which man brings his work. After creating it, it forever becomes the owner. There is nothing above or behind the man in the work that we should consider. So, man is a Creator.
Not getting involved in mapping the last withdrawal from Church dogmas and philosophical systems, is to specify the situation when this statement is simply not working. Modern copyright protects only the person who first expressed the idea. However, one and the same idea can autonomously come to completely different people. Science knows such examples. Leibniz in 1675, discovered differential and integral calculus. Independently and even earlier (1671) to the discovery of mathematical analysis came Newton, but Leibniz published the results before Newton. In 1839 Louis Daguerre in Paris and Henry Fox Talbot in London independently of each demonstrated his invention of a photographic apparatus. To the category of simultaneous discoveries is the model of natural selection developed by Charles Darwin and Wallace, who had read the reports about the evolution of species to the Linnaean society on 1 July 1858. Such examples are many, and many of them are of human drama. In addition to one-time ideas, many faced with the arrival of independent ideas. And where the form works less this problem more urgent. For example, the notion of the slogan is, first of all, the winnowing process was invented earlier. However, the modern law refuses to recognize the other person the authorship, if not his superiority.
There is an opinion that is not write Shakespeare his works, they would be written later, only question of time. Cultural environment, the community attitudes generate what is called a "wandering thoughts". Da Vinci invented the helicopter. He was a genius, and anticipated many ideas. But despite this, no one makes Sikorsky patent pirate. Leonardo invented the helicopter before the idea needed society, and she was forgotten, to come to another person through several centuries. It turns out that the idea will find their way in life, if not through one person over another; not before – so later.
Thus, the modern system of copyright protection is based on installations that are contrary to prevailing philosophical, cultural and religious beliefs.
Does this mean that the idea of a higher power and copyright you cannot connect? I don't think.
It is important to review the basic installation, and then it could move from a dead point. In my opinion, the work cannot be considered the property of the author in the classic sense. Authorship should be seen as the author's right to remuneration for his role in mediating with the world of ideas. Therefore, the period of authorship should be determined based on a hypothetical period during which such a work can be recreated. This period also will be suspended, but he, at least, will be based on a criterion. The term of copyright should not be too large in order to encourage the author to maximize the use of their rights did not restrain the process of development of society. It is also clear that the duration of protection should vary depending on the form of the work.
Scattered opposition to the modern model of copyright has already spread around the world, including finding supporters among eminent jurists. The next step is to offer a comprehensive alternative model. In any case, the law must serve the interests of society, replacing religion, nor philosophy, but rather complement them.
Article based on information from habrahabr.ru
This post is an attempt of analysis of the ideas underlying the definition of the term of protection of copyright. There will not be the so-called photoshopped pics and other things, already circulated on the Internet about creativity, copyright and religion. Also specify that the purpose of this post is not a promotion or debunking of those or other views of higher power. As a lawyer, an author may claim only the discovery and interpretation of the ideas underlying the legal rules by which our society lives.
To start is to pay attention to the existing terms of copyright protection. According to the international standards enshrined in article 7 of the Berne Convention of 1971 for the protection of literary and artistic works the term of protection thereof is the lifetime of the author and 50 years after his death.
If we analyze the historical aspect, this term has not been installed initially, and was constantly changed. And upwards.
Until 1710 in England, the author was able to dispose exclusively of the manuscript. Right to the text was "the load". Adopted in the same year, the Statute of Anne established that the author has rights on his work for 14 years with the right to extend the term another 14. In 1774, a vote in the House of lords in the case of Donaldson vs Beckett, it was established that after the expiration of protection, the work enters the public domain. The decision of the house of lords ruled that publishers can no longer restrain the growth and development of culture and innovation in England.
As for the US, the first increase in the term of protection of copyright occurred in 1831 from 28 to 42 years. In 1909 to 56 years. In 1976, for all works created after 1978, establishes the term of copyright 50 years after the author's death. For corporations, the term of copyright was 75 years old. Since 1998, the expiration of copyright is valid for 70 years after the author's death.
I brought only two countries that are at the heart of the Anglo-Saxon system of law and a bulwark of modern copyright. However, even a cursory analysis of legal norms allows to highlight the lack of basic criteria for establishing the term of protection. Never the term of copyright was not determined on the basis of some objective criterion. 28, 42, 56 – all of these numbers are conditional, not associated with work, and changing under the influence of rights-holders. As the argument was used to enable them to obtain adequate remuneration for his work. It is important here to emphasize his work.
“And Moses said to the Lord: o Lord! man I am slow of speech, and that was yesterday and the day before, and when You started talking with Your slave: I have a hard time talking and tongue-tied. The Lord said, who hath made man's mouth? who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth” (Exodus, 4, 10 – 12).
Psychologist Hovhannisyan N. T. in his article "the problem of the authorship of poetry" he says that often during the creation of poetry, in the creative process of a poet there is a strange feeling, what he was doing for him by someone else, someone leads him by the hand, whispering in his inexplicable line. If it's not his thoughts and his imagination, and instill in him a strange spirit. It's strange beginning and inspires his creativity. On the rise of feelings and emotions is a certain Epiphany, a revelation, accompanied by the understanding that the poet becomes merely a pretext, the occasion for the manifestation of a certain someone else will. That is why many poets observe this phenomenon – the feeling that the work is not yours it's not yours, and written by someone else. For example, Byron believed that man possesses the “demon”, and Michelangelo believed that his hand is leading God. Victor Hugo said, “God dictated and I wrote.”
A. S. Pushkin in his poem “Stanzas” says:
I... my spirit to the Creator, it flies,
Blazing lightning fire,
And the mind disturbed dreams
Volney, when the thunder comes.
And God is broadcasting stronger than me
And my fiery doom,
Than around noisy thunderstorm
And in the brave the horrors of the night.
Nobel laureate physiologist Eccles argued that the brain is only a receptor, through which the soul perceives the world.
One can cite many examples and insights into the nature of creativity and inspiration. One: almost everyone who is associated with the work, says the impact on the creation of the work of some higher force, beyond even the understanding of the author. No wonder, the ancient Greek mythical creatures the Muses are still almost an object of worship, while the other inhabitants of the Pantheon of the forgotten. The inexplicable force that continues the author, is also seen in the fact that to predict the final result of creative work is impossible.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the theory of a higher power are not reflected in the law. Moreover, the method of setting the term of copyright establishes that the person is full and unconditional owner of his work. In confirmation of this thesis can give an example that the term of protection associated with the life of the author, not the publication of a work, not its actual distribution. All of these key in life works factors play no role. Important thing is how much the man has lived, who is considered the author of the work.
The system of copyright does not just forbid everyone to use the work, but also involves the transfer by inheritance. Here is also a pertinent question about the basic idea of this method of protection. What is a public good, in addition to feeding heirs of the author pursues this normal? In my opinion, it only creates the conditions under which nature can safely rest on the children of the great.
To date there is no mechanism by which the society will be able to claim the use of the work contrary to the will of the author, whatever role the work is not played in the culture. Nationalization, purchase for public purposes – all these methods are inherent in property law in one form or another, are completely absent in intellectual property rights. The defenders of the current copyright have to use the tools it proprietary rights. "Copied – means stole" — this is from there. As mentioned in the commandments theft.
In Ancient Greece it was common to Plato developed the theory of the "world of ideas" and "world of things". Man's authority did not extend beyond the world of things. The idea was some kind of common ground that was projected into material form. The idea was dominant and primary. People served only as a conduit between these worlds.
Modern copyright system, in contrast, comes from a proprietary relationship to the idea. The idea is firmly attached to the author. Copyright is limited only by copyright of others. It turns out the man is a complete and unconditional owner of the ideas depicted in the material form of the works he created. This means that from the point of view of copyright the person is a bearer of rights, it is the root cause of the idea. There is a certain emptiness, in which man brings his work. After creating it, it forever becomes the owner. There is nothing above or behind the man in the work that we should consider. So, man is a Creator.
Not getting involved in mapping the last withdrawal from Church dogmas and philosophical systems, is to specify the situation when this statement is simply not working. Modern copyright protects only the person who first expressed the idea. However, one and the same idea can autonomously come to completely different people. Science knows such examples. Leibniz in 1675, discovered differential and integral calculus. Independently and even earlier (1671) to the discovery of mathematical analysis came Newton, but Leibniz published the results before Newton. In 1839 Louis Daguerre in Paris and Henry Fox Talbot in London independently of each demonstrated his invention of a photographic apparatus. To the category of simultaneous discoveries is the model of natural selection developed by Charles Darwin and Wallace, who had read the reports about the evolution of species to the Linnaean society on 1 July 1858. Such examples are many, and many of them are of human drama. In addition to one-time ideas, many faced with the arrival of independent ideas. And where the form works less this problem more urgent. For example, the notion of the slogan is, first of all, the winnowing process was invented earlier. However, the modern law refuses to recognize the other person the authorship, if not his superiority.
There is an opinion that is not write Shakespeare his works, they would be written later, only question of time. Cultural environment, the community attitudes generate what is called a "wandering thoughts". Da Vinci invented the helicopter. He was a genius, and anticipated many ideas. But despite this, no one makes Sikorsky patent pirate. Leonardo invented the helicopter before the idea needed society, and she was forgotten, to come to another person through several centuries. It turns out that the idea will find their way in life, if not through one person over another; not before – so later.
Thus, the modern system of copyright protection is based on installations that are contrary to prevailing philosophical, cultural and religious beliefs.
Does this mean that the idea of a higher power and copyright you cannot connect? I don't think.
It is important to review the basic installation, and then it could move from a dead point. In my opinion, the work cannot be considered the property of the author in the classic sense. Authorship should be seen as the author's right to remuneration for his role in mediating with the world of ideas. Therefore, the period of authorship should be determined based on a hypothetical period during which such a work can be recreated. This period also will be suspended, but he, at least, will be based on a criterion. The term of copyright should not be too large in order to encourage the author to maximize the use of their rights did not restrain the process of development of society. It is also clear that the duration of protection should vary depending on the form of the work.
Scattered opposition to the modern model of copyright has already spread around the world, including finding supporters among eminent jurists. The next step is to offer a comprehensive alternative model. In any case, the law must serve the interests of society, replacing religion, nor philosophy, but rather complement them.
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий