Re: [OT] Droit d'auteur vs. free software?
Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl> wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <galactus@stack.nl> writes:
> > > Why do you think the concept is bogus? In principle I think it's
> > > a good idea to have something that prevents others from mutilating
> > > my work. The implementation sucks greatly though.
> >
> > We already have that concept. "Ownership". We even have an extra
> > thing: "Copyright". Both of these, under US law, are fully sufficient
> > to prevent others from "mutilating" your work without your consent.
>
> If I transfer my copyright, I can not stop you from harming
> my reputation. That's why the law has the extra provision that
> helps me protect my moral rights.
If I transfer my copyright to you, you can't (IMHO) damage my reputation
by doing silly things to my work. You can damage _your_ reputation by
doing that.
> > If you don't want it mutilated, don't sell it. Or sell it subject to
> > a contract that prevents unauthorized modification.
>
> This approach means that authors will be forced to accept
> any kind of modifications, even those that directly go against
> their artistic wishes. The US system thinks this is OK since
> you got paid. The European system thinks this is not OK.
I think it's okay. If you no longer hold copyright, how can it affects
your reputation?
> > > He can only insist that a particular modification be retracted
> > > because it damages his honor or reputation. And the court has to
> > > be convinced that it does damage him. If the work is not modified
> > > it would be very difficult for him to assert his moral rights.
> >
> > We have seen the claim that a change in the color of curtains
> > constitutes a damage to honor or reputation.
>
> Indeed. And the court awarded that claim, so I suppose the judge
> found some merit in the claim.
Courts follow the law, however silly the law may be.
This is _not_ a legal argument. It's a common sense argument.
Unfortunately some laws don't make sense.
Peter
Reply to: