немного англоязычного чтива - 1

[avva]

Вот есть интересная статья о "локальных" версиях Гарри Поттера. Автор рассказывает про русскую "Таню Гроттер", в частности.

Мне понравился вот какой аргумент у него насчёт того, почему Роулинг не должна иметь возможности запрещать всякие "локальные" версии (сейчас она эту возможность имеет и активно использует):

Potter's publishers, in defense of strong global copyright, would say that works like Tanya Grotter are theft, and such theft destroys the incentive to write in the first place. But the incentives argument is surprisingly unpersuasive in the international setting. To say Rowling will stop writing for fear of international parody is a difficult case to make. Only the most famous and lucrative works are parodied overseas. If an international adaptation is a sign you've made it rich, how can it be a serious financial deterrent for new writers?

Мне это не приходило в голову, но ведь действительно, это верно. Обычный аргумент типа "копирайт нужен, т.к. без него никто писатели не будут писать" здесь совершенно не работает (он и вообще не работает, но это уже другой, более сложный и гораздо менее очевидный вопрос; в данном же случае всё просто).

А сколько хороших или гениальных книг в истории мировой литературы были переделками или пародиями предшественников? Да, конечно, "Таня Гроттер" на гениальность не тянет, но ведь копирайту на эти вопросы наплевать, он действует одинаково во всех случаях.

Comments

[dyak.livejournal.com]

From what you said it is clear that your problem with calling copyright "property" is that (1) it reverts to public domain after a while, that (2) you may be restricted in how many people may enjoy it simultaneouly, and that (3) you may be restricted in where you can bring and use it.

1. Whenever someone transfers property in the form "to X for 10 years then to Y", X may own property for 10 years, or he can sell it to someone after three years, nevertheless, after 10 years the property automatically transfers to Y. Y can come over and claim it, no matter who the current owner is. Y may be the State. Unless you do not consider any real or movable property property, #1 should not be a problem for you.

2. Practically speaking, every real estate property has an occupancy limit. It is normally posted in bars, theaters, etc. Unless you do not consider such real estate property, #2 should not a problem for you.

3. A car without a license plate is still your property. Try driving on public roads in it. Unless you do not consider cars without license plates property, #3 should not a problem for you.

4. Another objection that you have to calling copyright property is that infrigement does not necessarily cause the owner any harm, yet it can be stopped. Copyright infringement is like trespass. Even if the trespasser causes me no harm, I can still eject him from my property. The same with a book. Even if the copier causes no harm, the copyright owner can stop him. Unless you are against ejecting trespassers, this should not be a problem to you.

5. Another objection to calling copyright property that you mention is that it is a "very modern institution". Yes, it is just a few hundred years old, but I don't see why it's a problem. Condominiums were invented just about 30 years ago, do you call them "hugely different from other forms of property in that it is very modern institution"?

The rest (starting with the words "And the purpose...")is fine with me.