Copyright Used Against Censorship?
from the well,-sorta dept
We've talked a lot about how copyright is used to censor things someone doesn't want, but Michael Scott points us to a story where it's claimed that copyright is being used against censorship. It's over in South Korea, where the authors of a history book are suing their own publisher, after it altered their text based on government demands. The government apparently didn't like sections of the book A Modern and Contemporary History of Korea, and ordered them "revised." The publisher obliged, and the authors are now suing, claiming that it was copyright infringement. Of course, to me, it seems a lot more like this could easily be handled contractually, rather than with copyright law, but if someone wants an example of copyright being used for good, here you go...
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: censorship, copyright, south korea
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well and good now...
I'm not sure how, I just know it will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purpose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is central to the pro-copyright mentality. I created this idea therefore it is mine and is not to be tampered with or used without permission. This concept of a moral right is what the authors believe they have, and that's what they're fighting with not against censorship.
If they really wanted to fight censorship (and make themselves more popular and make more money and sell more books), they'd let the publisher go ahead with their revisions, *THEN* release the original, publicizing and hightlighting the differences.
I'd argue that even here copyright isn't being used for good, but for an egotistical argument over "mine mine mine".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (*THEN* release the original)
So in this case the authors could be trying to preserve their work with IP laws because other functions of law and contract make it difficult to find satisfaction in any other way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[]Of course, to me, it seems a lot more like this could easily be handled contractually, rather than with copyright law, but if someone wants an example of copyright being used for good, here you go...[/]
When detractors say things like "You have an agenda" - I think this is what they're talking about.
It's been stated in the comments here more than once that the current author/musician to publisher relationship is more than a little bit biased towards indentured servitude. What leverage, if any, would an author have in this situation aside from a copyright claim? Or could someone fill me in what was meant by "handled contractually"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The contract between the publisher and the authors should state that the publisher is being hired to publish the book that the authors want to publish. A failure to do so would be a violation of the contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright vs lying
If you publish something by someone else it seems that they do have the following natural moral rights.
1. That (at least) you do not misrepresent the authorship without (freely given) permission of the author.
I don't think that need to go as far as always identifying the author - although I think that there is an obligation to answer correctly if the question is asked unless there is some voluntary agreement to the contrary - eg in the case of ghost writing.
2. That you do not publish an altered text as the work of the author without permission. Alteration would include omission in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]