Licencia Creative Commons

Saturday, July 16, 2005

LA LUCHA POR EL DERECHO A LA COPIA:COPYFIGHT BARCELONA 2005

Ihering ya utilizó el término la "lucha por el derecho".

Por ello, no parece descabellado traducir "copyfight" como lucha (jurídica) por el derecho a la copia o por la precisión del contenido legal del derecho a la copia, así como de los límites del mismo y de la propiedad intelectual.
En Barcelona se están celebrando estos días unas jornadas que cuentan con la presencia de importantes expertos en esta materia: Doctorow, Lessig, Wales, Barlow, etc.
Estos son algunos enlaces relacionados con el evento y con la difusión en nuestro país de ideas sobre la propiedad intelectual en el medio digital:
Doctorow ha hablado de los efectos de la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo americano en el caso Grokster.Algunas de sus novelas y escritos pueden encontrarse aquí:
Elástico ha organizado esta bibiloteca digital:http://www.elastico.net/copyfight/contents.php
José Cervera (retiario), uno de nuestros mejores difusores de las nuevas corrientes, expresa sus opiniones aquí:
En el marco de la lucha legal en torno a la evolución del "copyright", nosotros simplemente reproducimos estas palabras pronunciadas por Macaulay en un foro de lucha legal, el parlamento británico, hace ahora 164 años y con ocasión de una extensión rechazada en la duración de los derechos de propiedad intelectual.No han perdido ni un ápice de actualidad :

"Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly. My honourable and learned friend talks very contemptuously of those who are led away by the theory that monopoly makes things dear. That monopoly makes things dear is certainly a theory, as all the great truths which have been established by the experience of all ages and nations, and which are taken for granted in all reasonings, may be said to be theories. It is a theory in the same sense in which it is a theory that day and night follow each other, that lead is heavier than water, that bread nourishes, that arsenic poisons, that alcohol intoxicates. If, as my honourable and learned friend seems to think, the whole world is in the wrong on this point, if the real effect of monopoly is to make articles good and cheap, why does he stop short in his career of change? Why does he limit the operation of so salutary a principle to sixty years? Why does he consent to anything short of a perpetuity? He told us that in consenting to anything short of a perpetuity he was making a compromise between extreme right and expediency. But if his opinion about monopoly be correct, extreme right and expediency would coincide. Or rather, why should we not restore the monopoly of the East India trade to the East India Company? (...)The question of copyright, Sir, like most questions of civil prudence, is neither black nor white, but grey. The system of copyright has great advantages and great disadvantages; and it is our business to ascertain what these are, and then to make an arrangement under which the advantages may be as far as possible secured, and the disadvantages as far as possible excluded. The charge which I bring against my honourable and learned friend's bill is this, that it leaves the advantages nearly what they are at present, and increases the disadvantages at least fourfold. (...)Now, I will not affirm that the existing law is perfect, that it exactly hits the point at which the monopoly ought to cease; but this I confidently say, that the existing law is very much nearer that point than the law proposed by my honourable and learned friend. For consider this; the evil effects of the monopoly are proportioned to the length of its duration. But the good effects for the sake of which we bear with the evil effects are by no means proportioned to the length of its duration. A monopoly of sixty years produces twice as much evil as a monopoly of thirty years, and thrice as much evil as a monopoly of twenty years. But it is by no means the fact that a posthumous monopoly of sixty years gives to an author thrice as much pleasure and thrice as strong a motive as a posthumous monopoly of twenty years. On the contrary, the difference is so small as to be hardly perceptible. "
Un examen actual de la cuestión se encuentra en el libro de Francois Leveque y Yan Meniere:"The Economics of patents and copyright", publicado por Berkeley Electronic Press bajo licencia Creative Commons y que puede descargarse gratutitamente aquí:

No comments: