California Appeals Overturned Video-Game Ban To The Supreme Court

Apparently, Providing Derrida's Works For Free 'Harms The Diffusion Of His Thoughts'

from the oh-really-now? dept

Thu, May 21st 2009 12:56am — Mike Masnick

JJ points us to an interesting case down in Argentina, where a philosophy professor is being charged with criminal copyright infringement for being so bold as to create a series of websites with Spanish translations of the works of famous philosophers, after it proved difficult to impossible to find those works for purchase in Argentina. From the article, it certainly sounds as though Argentina has no educational exception for fair use. As troubling as the story is, the most bizarre statement comes from the copyright holder of the works of Jacques Derrida:

Horacio Potel has posted, over the course of several years, without authorisation, and free of charge, full versions of several of Jacques Derrida's works, which is harmful to the diffusion of his (Derrida)'s thought.

Ok. I can understanding the (incorrect and misleading) argument that posting such works should be seen as infringing, but I can't fathom an explanation that giving away the works of a philosopher online for free could possibly "be harmful to the diffusion of his thought." It would seem that the opposite would be true.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: argentina, copyright, jacque derrida, philsophy, translations

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

cram, 21 May 2009 @ 2:07am

Perhaps it has something to do with the translation. Since the professor's translations aren't authorized, they could very well "harm the diffusion of Derrida's thoughts," since it's his interpretation of Derrida that's being diffused in the name of Derrida.

My guess is that the copyright holder fears it would lead to an entire generation of philosophy students misunderstanding what Derrida stood for and what his ideas were.

Imagine I translate this blog into a language you don't know and without your authorization, and I paint Mike Masnick as a RIAA agent secretly working with the Illuminati towards world domination. Surely you would be justified in asking me to stop.

I know of one case where an author refused to let his works be translated into English, since he was sure only he could do justice to his own creations in a different language.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cram, 21 May 2009 @ 2:09am

Methinks you take the bait very easily whenever you see "free" being harmed anywhere in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 21 May 2009 @ 2:50am

It's True You Know
Derrida is a post-modernist philosopher. Reading any of his books in their entirety leads to acute mental constipation, which is naturally “harmful to the diffusion of his thought”—indeed, of all thought.
The only way to take in Derrida is in small bite-sized pieces, each of which can be left for several months to fully digest, and allow the recipient to recover, before having another piece inflicted on them. Being forced to read an entire book of Derrida at once is a violation of several sections of the Geneva Convention.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 3:09am

Another case for the "DUH" files.

Get a life people!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Headbhang, 21 May 2009 @ 3:25am

LOL
I can't believe that whoever wrote that message could do so with a straight face. Not even Derrida himself could have put together a more nonsensical sentence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Égide, 21 May 2009 @ 4:20am

Yes, the works of a philosopher online for free dispite of copyright could really be harmful to the diffusion of his thought. How is it possible ? 2 editors have copyright to produce books in order to diffuse authorized translations of Derrida's works. It is very important these editors could control any diffusion of Derrida's texts because it is very expensive for them to publish all texts never published to-day. This month an important work is beginning, publication of Derrida seminaries. It is a great work, the editor take a lot of financial risks to do this publication. Really Any counterfeiting of this edition even by unothaurized translation would be a desease. Lack of income will ruin further projects of edition of the seminaries. have a look here : http://www.editions-galilee.fr/f/index.php?sp=liv&livre_id=3236
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 5:18am

"Horacio Potel has posted, over the course of several years, without authorisation, and free of charge, full versions of several of Jacques Derrida's works, which is harmful to the diffusion of his (Derrida)'s thought."

He should have translated his Spanish to English as
"Horacio Potel has posted, over the course of several years, without authorisation, and free of charge, full versions of several of Jacques Derrida's works, which is harmful to the DISTRIBUTION of his (Derrida)'s WORKS (meaning flow of royalties.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xanthir, FCD, 21 May 2009 @ 6:19am

Re:
Imagine I translate this blog into a language you don't know and without your authorization, and I paint Mike Masnick as a RIAA agent secretly working with the Illuminati towards world domination. Surely you would be justified in asking me to stop.

That would be awesome. I'm not sure why you haven't started this already. Hell, do it in English.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carl, 21 May 2009 @ 6:21am

Ultimate Irony
I thought post-modernists like Derrida subscribed to Barthes' theory, set out in "The Death of the Author", that the reader should be considered the author just as much as the writer.

If so, Derrida's estate has no more business claiming royalties for his work than I do.

I used to be confident about my interpretation of the text, but now I'm not Saussure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2009 @ 6:29am

Re:
Fund it! Make it happen!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron Martin-Colby (profile), 21 May 2009 @ 6:44am

Derridon't
The translation issue could be at work, which is legitimate, I guess. But suing is just stupid. Work with him to translate the works then PAY him.

Regardless, Derrida being nonsensical garbage could have something to do with problems of diffusion. ANY diffusion. What a worthless philosopher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tgeigs, 21 May 2009 @ 6:45am

Re:
"Imagine I translate this blog into a language you don't know and without your authorization, and I paint Mike Masnick as a RIAA agent secretly working with the Illuminati towards world domination."

I smell a novel in there somewhere...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 21 May 2009 @ 7:35am

Re:
Being authorized has nothing to do with it. Since Derrida is dead, we are stuck with someone's interpretation, no matter what. For accuracy, it's better that it be a translation from a professor who cares enough to do this on his own time than a translation "authorized" by the guy who is out to make a buck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the man, 21 May 2009 @ 7:35am

Re: Ultimate Irony
"Barthe" doesn't have an e on it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hegemon13, 21 May 2009 @ 7:40am

Re: Ultimate Irony
Haha, good point. And it makes the rightsholders' statement that much more ridiculous. If the reader is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the work, how can an interpretation be "inaccurate"? By Derrida's own philosophy, neither Derrida nor his heirs have the authority to decide whether Potel is accurate or "correct" in his interpretation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fishbane, 21 May 2009 @ 9:00am

Derrida wouldn't write anymore philosophy if his copyrights aren't respected! And that's totally valid, because Derrida demonstrated that binary oppositions are linguistic constructs, and thus death, as a binary construct, makes no sense to discuss.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RV, 21 May 2009 @ 9:33am

Re:
Even the worst translation (of course,
always with good and "pure" intentions)
is far better than NOTHING.
I live in Argentina, and this kind of data (free)
in this kind of country, is extremely necesary.

By the other hand, the reader/student isn't (and should not be) a simple recipient, unable to have a critic reading
and deep analysis. A bad translation is usually pretty detectable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen S. Power, 21 May 2009 @ 11:13am

diffussion v. dissemination
It's curious that Potel uses the word "diffusion," which means:

a. the spreading or scattering of widely or thinly.
b. Needless profusion of words; prolixity.
c. the transmission of elements or features of one culture to another.

instead of the word "dissemination," which was the title of Derrida's masterwork and which means:

a. the spreading or scattering of widely or thinly.
b. The act of spreading abroad; promulgating

I would argue the latter word is more correct in Potel's context, given the secondary aspect of the word, whereas the secondary and tertiary aspects of "diffusion" critique his verbosity, then give the act of bringing Derrida to South America an imperial flavor that's both appropriate and contrary to Derrida's philosophy.

Of course, he probably didn't use "dissemination" because the thesis of that work is, to quote the flap copy, "that language is haunted by dispersal, absence, loss, the risk of unmeaning, a risk which is starkly embodied in all writing. The distinction between philosophy and literature therefore becomes of secondary importance. Philosophy vainly attempts to control the irrecoverable dissemination of its own meaning, it strives—against the grain of language—to offer a sober revelation of truth." It seems the professor actualized this risk and that didn't please his estate, who are now vainly attempting to control the irrecoverable dissemination of their nest egg.

For this I got an M.A. in English.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 21 May 2009 @ 4:00pm

Re: I Smell A Law Of The Excluded Middle Somewhere...
fishbane wrote:

... Derrida demonstrated that binary oppositions are linguistic constructs, and thus death, as a binary construct, makes no sense to discuss.

How does that follow? Is it because it either makes sense to discuss or it doesn’t? In which case—didn’t he use a binary construct to come to that conclusion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Brown, 22 May 2009 @ 12:38am

Difusing Derrida
Mike ... I bet he was referring to the translation diffusing the WORDS but not necessarily the THOUGHTS - since words are only approximate representations of words and the process of translation necessarily requires interpretation.

Finicky point, but I'll bet it's the truest ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alexander Fairley, 22 May 2009 @ 10:23am

Re: Re:
Illuminati troops have been dispatched to quell this notion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]