SEIV is being Pirated

LazarusLong42 · #1 August 29th, 2001, 09:10 PM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
Ok, now we are getting into an area that I am not familier with. Are translations copyrightable? Common sense tells me no. If so, how could you have a copyright at all? I write a book, someone translates it into German. If you can copyright a translation, they hold the copyright to the German Version. Then they translate it back to English. Now they hold another copyrighted translation, that just happens to be identical to my original.

IANAL, but as a writer I know some things about copyright.

1. Yes, translations are copyrightable.

2. The original author owns the right of translation of a work. Therefore, if someone wants to translate a book of mine into German, he/she must purchase from me the right to translate and publish that work in German. S/he may then publish the work. Usually such contracts with stipulate that the original author derives 30-40% royalties from the translation.

(NB: Often the initial contract with the publishing house will transfer this right to the initial publisher with stipulation about royalties to be collected in the event a translation is published.)

3. The original author's name and copyright info must be on the translation. Thus:

_The Rise and Fall of the Phong Empire_ copyright 2000 by Eric Snyder II. German translation copyright 2001 by Hans Offmeibuch.

4. There is no right to retranslate the work into English. It already existed in English. Doing so would be equivalent to piracy.

5. If the original author can't be found, or is unknown, or his/her copyright has expired, then the translation can be created and copyrighted by the translator.

Thus, Beowulf can be translated into modern English and the translation copyrighted by the translator.

However, there are almost certainly translations old enough to be in the public domain.

If you want to copyright your own translation, though, you'd better start with the original Anglo-Saxon.

LL

geoschmo · #2 August 29th, 2001, 09:21 PM

Cool. I stand corected. That makes a lot of sense when you put it that way.

Geo

Puke · #3 August 29th, 2001, 10:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Hadrian Aventine:
Tell me, if you download a copy of original Beowulf off the net, is that stealing?

no. its actually very clear cut about books. various estates own the publishing rights to things like shakespear, lovecraft, and beowulf. the original authors are quite obviously, deader than a neutral race in a no-bonus game. when you buy the book, someone is getting money. if you pick it up off a bookshelf and run out of the store, you are stealing. If you download it from the net or copy it from some other publicly availalbe source, you are not. if you copy large sections of it that would normally not fall under fair use laws, you are not stealing.

I do not remember what the lines of demarcation are, but I do know that they are clear and specific.

now, fair use applied to music is another story. all the people with a wild hair about how the letter of the law somehow corresponds to ethics should have a field day with why someone who downloads a low quality MP3 for personal use, is doing something worse than a multinational auto manufacturer who takes a perfectly leagle 5 second sample from a Rush song, uses an extrememly identifyable jingle in their driving comercial, pays no royalties, and sells thousand of units.

coincidentially enough, the person was downloading from a service that probably would not be illegal (i dont remember how the cases closed, i have a sneaky suspicion that its not illegal, and they agreed to shut it down just to defer further leagle costs..) if the courts involved had a better understanding of technology. The service did not upload the music. The service did not download the music. They are making money off its misuse, but if i own a toll bridge, I am not responsible for people who use it as a meeting place to sell drugs. anyone who thinks they can derive morality from the letter of the law set by a single and hotly disputed precident is delusional.

Dont give me 'the letter of the law says x, and that must be moral' crap. historically, the law has favoured some rather immoral ****, and since Askan stooped to mentioning Nazies, so will I. We were all pretty darn happy to persecute every one of them for following orders and laws that we found immoral, on the grounds that some orders just have to be questioned. instead of pointing at an issue and siding your self with goodness just because an overpaid attorney was able to place goodness on your side of a thin line isnt going to make it so.

have the decency to argue your own point of view. napster had a legitimate, capitalist business model. some people got jellous. before everything is said and done, there will be a method to exchange all sorts of things Online, and it will be leagle. with any luck, the recording industry will die altogether, as it was an entirely late-20th-centure phenomanon, and a bad one at that.

Puke · #4 August 29th, 2001, 10:21 PM

grr. im being to bull headed. i will go away and let people have their opinions.

------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

geoschmo · #5 August 29th, 2001, 10:40 PM

Puke,

You obviously feel very strongly about this. But when presented with an explanation why Napster/Warez is wrong, all you can do is cite examples of equally wrong behavior being defined at the time as legal. All I can say to that is "Two wrongs dont make a right."

Of course it is possible that laws and regulations are at times unjust. To argue the contrary would be ridiculous. Do you think that somehow defying Nazi laws encouraging religious persecution is somehow on a equal moral ground with defying perfectly reasonable copyright laws? That's a bit of a stretch. Not all laws are just. But your moral right to defy unjust laws does not extend to every law you disagree with.

There are two clear differences between Napster/Warez, and your hypothetical toll bridge. First has to do with the common and accepted use. The common and accepted use of a toll bridge is to get across a river. Nothing at all illegal about that. The common and accepted use of Napster/Warez is to steal music and software that you did not pay for. Now, if you have only ever used Napster/Warez for perfectly legitimate uses, good for you. But you are naive if you don't think you are in the microscopically small minority in that regard.

The second difference is, even the drug dealers pay the toll for the use of the bridge.

Geoschmo

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 29 August 2001).]

Puke · #6 August 30th, 2001, 01:13 AM

quote:
Originally posted by geoschmo:
Puke,

You obviously feel very strongly about this. But when presented with an explanation why Napster/Warez is wrong, all you can do is cite examples of equally wrong behavior being defined at the time as legal. All I can say to that is "Two wrongs dont make a right."

I think my point has been missed. one Last clarification before i dissapear. the law, is in general, a good idea. its not always. if you live your life by other peoples standards of decency without forming educated opinions on your own, you are living without free will and are a drone to the mechanisms of popular society.

I agree that many behaviors discussed on this thread are against the law. I think that without adherance to the law, there can be no civic order. I think that without some degree of civic disobediance, there can be no social progress. I think that the recording industry, musicians, music listeners, and software pirates have all had their fair share of seperate yet equally stupid ideas. I think that I will keep on doing what I choose as long as I feel that it is the correct corse of action to further my goals. That meant exactly what it sounded like. To qualify that Last bit, I think that I will never engage in a course of action that is detremental to an industry or an artform that I enjoy. And if anyone gets wise and asks who determines what is detremental, the obvious answer is "me."

feel free to disagree, im off to haunt another thread.

------------------
"...the green, sticky spawn of the stars"
(with apologies to H.P.L.)

Phoenix-D · #7 August 30th, 2001, 02:32 AM

quote:
Do you think that somehow defying Nazi laws encouraging religious persecution is somehow on a equal moral ground with defying perfectly reasonable copyright laws? That's a bit of a stretch. Not all laws are just. But your moral right to defy unjust laws does not extend to every law you disagree with.

Here's where you loose him.

Some people find said religious persecution laws perfectlly reasonable.

Whether or not a law is reasonable and ethical is the test I use to determine if I care about it at all. Laws do not determine ethics and ethics don't determine laws. Someone makes a law making it illegal for anyone under 18 to use a computer? Tough. Someone makes it legal to kill? Also tough, doesn't mean I'm going to run out and machine gun people.

Applying this to warz/napster, warz is bad because you're supporting the inethical uses of that site even when you download it ethiclly (i.e. you bought the game and the CD broke, hasn't arrived, etc).

Napster? No. You CAN use it for the same idea as warz, and THAT is bad, but napster itself it not. You might as well say the WWW is bad because it allows Warz sites..

Phoenix-D