If you believe in copyright, then there is no God
In the world a lot of unobvious. In the world everything is interconnected. Disclosure of these links provides a more complete picture of the world. It is this striving from time immemorial that drives philosophers and scientists. However, to identify some of the relationships, it is enough to make a few comparisons, and the observations obtained will force you to take a fresh look at certain aspects of life.
This post is an attempt to analyze the ideas underlying the definition of the term of copyright protection. There will be no so-called. fotozhab and other, without that widespread on the Internet, creativity about copyright and religion. I also make a reservation that the purpose of this post is not to promote or dethrone certain views on higher powers. As a lawyer, the author can only claim the disclosure and interpretation of the ideas that form the basis of the legal rules by which our society lives.
For a start, you should pay attention to the current terms of copyright protection. According to international standards enshrined in Article 7 of the Berne Convention of 1971 on the protection of literary and artistic works, the term of protection of such is the entire life of the author and 50 years after his death.
If we analyze the historical aspect, this period was not established initially, but was constantly changing. And in the direction of increasing.
')
Until 1710 in England, the author could only manage the manuscript. The rights to the text went "to the load." The Queen Anne Statute adopted in the same year established that the author possesses the rights to his work for 14 years with the right to extend the term for another 14. In 1774, by voting in the House of Lords in the case of Donaldson v. Beckett, it was found that The term of protection of the work becomes public domain. The decision of the House of Lords determined that publishers will no longer be able to restrain the growth and development of culture and innovation in England.
As for the United States, the first increase in the term of copyright protection occurred in 1831 from 28 to 42 years. In 1909 - up to 56 years. In 1976 - for all works created after 1978, the copyright term was set at 50 years after the death of the author. For corporations, the copyright period was 75 years. Since 1998, the copyright term has been valid for 70 years after the death of the author.
I cited only two countries that are the heart of the Anglo-Saxon legal system and the mainstay of modern copyright. However, even a cursory analysis of legal norms makes it possible to single out the absence of a basic criterion for establishing the term of protection. Never time limit of copyright is not determined on the basis of some objective criteria. 28, 42, 56 - all these figures are conditional, not related to the work, and changed under the influence of the rightholders. As an argument, giving them the opportunity to receive adequate remuneration for their work was used. It is important to emphasize: your work.
“And Moses said unto the Lord, O Lord! I am not a clear-hearted person, and this was yesterday and the third day, and when You began to speak with Your servant: I speak hard and have a tongue-tied speech. The Lord said: Who hath given mouth to man? who makes dumb, or deaf, or sighted, or blind? am I not the Lord God? so go; and I will be with your mouth ”(Exodus 4: 10-12).
Psychologist Oganesyan N.T. in his article “On the problem of authorship of a poetic work,” he writes that often during the creation of a poetic work, in the process of creation, the poet has a strange feeling that someone else is doing for him, someone leads him with his hand, whispers to him from where lines. As if it was not his thoughts and not his imagination, but a kind of alien spirit instilled in him. This is an incomprehensible beginning and inspires him to work. On the rise of feelings and emotions, there is an insight, a revelation, accompanied by the understanding that the poet becomes just an occasion, an occasion for the manifestation of a certain alien will. That is why many poets observe such a phenomenon - there is a feeling that the work does not belong to you, that it is not yours, and is written by someone else. So, for example, Byron believed that a “demon” was infiltrating a man, and Michelangelo believed that God was leading him with his hand. V. Hugo said: "God dictated, and I wrote."
A.S. Pushkin in his poem “Stansy” writes:
And I ... my spirit flies to the Creator,
Blazing lightning with fire
And the mind anxious dreams
Be free when the thunder hits.
And God is stronger broadcast by me
And in my fiery thoughts,
Than round the noisy thunderstorm
And in the wondrous horrors of the night.
Nobel laureate physiologist Eccles claimed that the brain is only a receptor with which the soul perceives the world.
You can still give a huge number of examples and views on the nature of creativity and inspiration. There is one thing: almost everyone who is associated with creativity, asserts the influence on the creation of works of some higher powers, beyond the power of even the understanding of the author himself. Not without reason, the ancient Greek mythical creatures of the Muses are still practically the object of worship, while the other inhabitants of the pantheon are consigned to oblivion. The inexplicability of the forces driving the author is also manifested in the fact that it is considered impossible to predict the final result of the creative work.
Despite all of the above, the theory of higher powers is not reflected in any way in the law. Moreover, the method of establishing the term of a copyright establishes that a person is the complete and unconditional owner of his work. In support of this thesis, we can give an example that the term of protection is related to the author’s lifetime - not the publication of a work, not its actual distribution. All these key factors in the life of the work play no role. It is only important how much the person lived, who is considered the author of the work.
The copyright system does not just prohibit everyone from using the work, but also involves the transfer of rights by inheritance. The question of the basic idea of ​​such a method of protection is also relevant here. What public benefit, apart from feeding the heirs of the author, is pursued by this rule? In my opinion, it only creates the conditions under which nature can fearlessly rest on the great children.
Today there is no mechanism by which society can claim to use the work against the will of the author, no matter what role the work plays in culture. Nationalization, redemption for social needs - all these methods, peculiar to property law in one form or another, are completely absent in intellectual property rights. At the same time, defenders of a valid copyright are forced to use the tools of the real right. "Copied - means stolen" - this is from there. As well as the theft mentioned in the commandments.
Even in ancient Greece, Plato developed the theory of the "world of ideas" and the "world of things." The power of man did not extend beyond the world of things. Ideas were some kind of common basis, which was projected into the material form. The idea was dominant and primary. Man served only as a guide between these worlds.
The modern copyright system, on the contrary, is based on a proprietary attitude to the idea. The idea is tightly attached to the author. Copyrights are limited only by copyrights of other people. It turns out that a person is a complete and unconditional owner of the idea itself, reflected in the material form of the work created by him. This means that from the point of view of copyright a person is not a carrier of rights, he is the root cause of the idea. There is a certain emptiness in which a person introduces his work. Having created it, he will forever become its owner. There is nothing above or behind a person in the works that would be worth considering. So, man is the Creator.
Without being involved in the comparison of the latter conclusion with church dogmas and philosophical attitudes, it is worth pointing out the situations when this statement simply does not work. Modern copyright protects only those who first expressed a thought. However, the same thought can autonomously come to completely different people. Science knows such examples. In 1675, Leibniz discovered differential and integral calculus. Regardless of him and even earlier (1671), Newton approached the discovery of mathematical analysis, but Leibniz published the results before Newton. In 1839, Louis Daguerre in Paris and Henry Fox Talbot in London independently demonstrated invented photographic devices. The category of simultaneous discoveries refers to the model of natural selection, developed by Charles Darwin and Wallace, who read reports on the evolution of species in Linnaean society on July 1, 1858. There are many such examples, and behind many of them are human dramas. In addition to the one-time idea, many faced with the independent arrival of the idea. And where the form of works is less, this problem is all the more relevant. For example, the notion of slogans - is, above all, the process of screening out previously invented. However, modern law refuses to recognize authorship for another person, if he does not belong to the primacy.
There is an opinion that if Shakespeare had not written his works, they would have been written later, the question is only in time. Cultural environment, common moods generate what is called the "soaring of ideas." Da Vinci came up with a helicopter. He was a genius, and anticipated many ideas. But despite this, no one makes a pirate from the Sikorsky patent pirate. Leonardo came up with a helicopter before this idea was needed by society, and it was forgotten to come to another person in a few centuries. It turns out that the idea will find its way into life, if not through one person, then through another; no sooner - so later.
Thus, the modern system of copyright protection is based on attitudes that are contrary to the prevailing philosophical, cultural and religious views.
Does this mean that the idea of ​​higher powers and copyright cannot be combined? I do not think.
It is important to revise the basic settings, and then the matter can get off the ground. In my opinion, the work can not be considered the property of the author in the classical sense. Authorship should be considered as the right of the author to receive remuneration for his role in mediating with the world of ideas. Therefore, the term of authorship should be established on the basis of a hypothetical term during which such a work can be recreated. This term will also become conditional, but at least it will have a certain criterion. The term of copyright should not be too long to stimulate the author to effectively dispose of their rights without constraining the development of society. It is also obvious that the term of protection should differ depending on the form of the work.
The scattered opposition of the modern model of copyright has already spread throughout the world, including supporters among eminent jurists. The next step should be the proposal of an integrated alternative model. In any case, the right should serve the interests of society, not replacing either religion or philosophy, but only complementing them.
This post is an attempt to analyze the ideas underlying the definition of the term of copyright protection. There will be no so-called. fotozhab and other, without that widespread on the Internet, creativity about copyright and religion. I also make a reservation that the purpose of this post is not to promote or dethrone certain views on higher powers. As a lawyer, the author can only claim the disclosure and interpretation of the ideas that form the basis of the legal rules by which our society lives.
For a start, you should pay attention to the current terms of copyright protection. According to international standards enshrined in Article 7 of the Berne Convention of 1971 on the protection of literary and artistic works, the term of protection of such is the entire life of the author and 50 years after his death.
If we analyze the historical aspect, this period was not established initially, but was constantly changing. And in the direction of increasing.
')
Until 1710 in England, the author could only manage the manuscript. The rights to the text went "to the load." The Queen Anne Statute adopted in the same year established that the author possesses the rights to his work for 14 years with the right to extend the term for another 14. In 1774, by voting in the House of Lords in the case of Donaldson v. Beckett, it was found that The term of protection of the work becomes public domain. The decision of the House of Lords determined that publishers will no longer be able to restrain the growth and development of culture and innovation in England.
As for the United States, the first increase in the term of copyright protection occurred in 1831 from 28 to 42 years. In 1909 - up to 56 years. In 1976 - for all works created after 1978, the copyright term was set at 50 years after the death of the author. For corporations, the copyright period was 75 years. Since 1998, the copyright term has been valid for 70 years after the death of the author.
I cited only two countries that are the heart of the Anglo-Saxon legal system and the mainstay of modern copyright. However, even a cursory analysis of legal norms makes it possible to single out the absence of a basic criterion for establishing the term of protection. Never time limit of copyright is not determined on the basis of some objective criteria. 28, 42, 56 - all these figures are conditional, not related to the work, and changed under the influence of the rightholders. As an argument, giving them the opportunity to receive adequate remuneration for their work was used. It is important to emphasize: your work.
“And Moses said unto the Lord, O Lord! I am not a clear-hearted person, and this was yesterday and the third day, and when You began to speak with Your servant: I speak hard and have a tongue-tied speech. The Lord said: Who hath given mouth to man? who makes dumb, or deaf, or sighted, or blind? am I not the Lord God? so go; and I will be with your mouth ”(Exodus 4: 10-12).
Psychologist Oganesyan N.T. in his article “On the problem of authorship of a poetic work,” he writes that often during the creation of a poetic work, in the process of creation, the poet has a strange feeling that someone else is doing for him, someone leads him with his hand, whispers to him from where lines. As if it was not his thoughts and not his imagination, but a kind of alien spirit instilled in him. This is an incomprehensible beginning and inspires him to work. On the rise of feelings and emotions, there is an insight, a revelation, accompanied by the understanding that the poet becomes just an occasion, an occasion for the manifestation of a certain alien will. That is why many poets observe such a phenomenon - there is a feeling that the work does not belong to you, that it is not yours, and is written by someone else. So, for example, Byron believed that a “demon” was infiltrating a man, and Michelangelo believed that God was leading him with his hand. V. Hugo said: "God dictated, and I wrote."
A.S. Pushkin in his poem “Stansy” writes:
And I ... my spirit flies to the Creator,
Blazing lightning with fire
And the mind anxious dreams
Be free when the thunder hits.
And God is stronger broadcast by me
And in my fiery thoughts,
Than round the noisy thunderstorm
And in the wondrous horrors of the night.
Nobel laureate physiologist Eccles claimed that the brain is only a receptor with which the soul perceives the world.
You can still give a huge number of examples and views on the nature of creativity and inspiration. There is one thing: almost everyone who is associated with creativity, asserts the influence on the creation of works of some higher powers, beyond the power of even the understanding of the author himself. Not without reason, the ancient Greek mythical creatures of the Muses are still practically the object of worship, while the other inhabitants of the pantheon are consigned to oblivion. The inexplicability of the forces driving the author is also manifested in the fact that it is considered impossible to predict the final result of the creative work.
Despite all of the above, the theory of higher powers is not reflected in any way in the law. Moreover, the method of establishing the term of a copyright establishes that a person is the complete and unconditional owner of his work. In support of this thesis, we can give an example that the term of protection is related to the author’s lifetime - not the publication of a work, not its actual distribution. All these key factors in the life of the work play no role. It is only important how much the person lived, who is considered the author of the work.
The copyright system does not just prohibit everyone from using the work, but also involves the transfer of rights by inheritance. The question of the basic idea of ​​such a method of protection is also relevant here. What public benefit, apart from feeding the heirs of the author, is pursued by this rule? In my opinion, it only creates the conditions under which nature can fearlessly rest on the great children.
Today there is no mechanism by which society can claim to use the work against the will of the author, no matter what role the work plays in culture. Nationalization, redemption for social needs - all these methods, peculiar to property law in one form or another, are completely absent in intellectual property rights. At the same time, defenders of a valid copyright are forced to use the tools of the real right. "Copied - means stolen" - this is from there. As well as the theft mentioned in the commandments.
Even in ancient Greece, Plato developed the theory of the "world of ideas" and the "world of things." The power of man did not extend beyond the world of things. Ideas were some kind of common basis, which was projected into the material form. The idea was dominant and primary. Man served only as a guide between these worlds.
The modern copyright system, on the contrary, is based on a proprietary attitude to the idea. The idea is tightly attached to the author. Copyrights are limited only by copyrights of other people. It turns out that a person is a complete and unconditional owner of the idea itself, reflected in the material form of the work created by him. This means that from the point of view of copyright a person is not a carrier of rights, he is the root cause of the idea. There is a certain emptiness in which a person introduces his work. Having created it, he will forever become its owner. There is nothing above or behind a person in the works that would be worth considering. So, man is the Creator.
Without being involved in the comparison of the latter conclusion with church dogmas and philosophical attitudes, it is worth pointing out the situations when this statement simply does not work. Modern copyright protects only those who first expressed a thought. However, the same thought can autonomously come to completely different people. Science knows such examples. In 1675, Leibniz discovered differential and integral calculus. Regardless of him and even earlier (1671), Newton approached the discovery of mathematical analysis, but Leibniz published the results before Newton. In 1839, Louis Daguerre in Paris and Henry Fox Talbot in London independently demonstrated invented photographic devices. The category of simultaneous discoveries refers to the model of natural selection, developed by Charles Darwin and Wallace, who read reports on the evolution of species in Linnaean society on July 1, 1858. There are many such examples, and behind many of them are human dramas. In addition to the one-time idea, many faced with the independent arrival of the idea. And where the form of works is less, this problem is all the more relevant. For example, the notion of slogans - is, above all, the process of screening out previously invented. However, modern law refuses to recognize authorship for another person, if he does not belong to the primacy.
There is an opinion that if Shakespeare had not written his works, they would have been written later, the question is only in time. Cultural environment, common moods generate what is called the "soaring of ideas." Da Vinci came up with a helicopter. He was a genius, and anticipated many ideas. But despite this, no one makes a pirate from the Sikorsky patent pirate. Leonardo came up with a helicopter before this idea was needed by society, and it was forgotten to come to another person in a few centuries. It turns out that the idea will find its way into life, if not through one person, then through another; no sooner - so later.
Thus, the modern system of copyright protection is based on attitudes that are contrary to the prevailing philosophical, cultural and religious views.
Does this mean that the idea of ​​higher powers and copyright cannot be combined? I do not think.
It is important to revise the basic settings, and then the matter can get off the ground. In my opinion, the work can not be considered the property of the author in the classical sense. Authorship should be considered as the right of the author to receive remuneration for his role in mediating with the world of ideas. Therefore, the term of authorship should be established on the basis of a hypothetical term during which such a work can be recreated. This term will also become conditional, but at least it will have a certain criterion. The term of copyright should not be too long to stimulate the author to effectively dispose of their rights without constraining the development of society. It is also obvious that the term of protection should differ depending on the form of the work.
The scattered opposition of the modern model of copyright has already spread throughout the world, including supporters among eminent jurists. The next step should be the proposal of an integrated alternative model. In any case, the right should serve the interests of society, not replacing either religion or philosophy, but only complementing them.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/145481/
All Articles