[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:58:27PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Show me where the international law says so.
> That has been pointed out several times: The Berne Convention (Paris
> text 1971, English version), article 2, section 3:

	Yes. I did point it out.
> | (3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other
> |     alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as
> |     original works without prejudice to the copyright in the
> |     original work.
> Notice the last nine words.

	That's your interpretation. The "without prejudice" (in my
interpretation) does not mean that the translation can hold and entirely
different copyright from the original. It means that changing 
to an altogether copyright for the translation does not change the
original's (the original author maintains his rights *on the original* not
on the translations').

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

	I already knew this. I thought you were talking about other law.
As far as I see it it boils down to different interpretations (your's and
mine's) on the law.

	However, as I see it, if Law X is an implementation of Law Y and
gives the rights I talked about (different copyrights between original and
translation) then either:

1.- Law Y implies the same things as Law X
2.- Law X is not proper and cannot be held in court. 

Y= Berne Convention
X= Spanish law

	Being as it is, that Spanish law has been written by lawyers and
not computer geeks, I would say that 2) should be discarded and then we're
left with 1).

	So, if Spanish laws permits for different copyrights then you can
imply that the Berne Convention does too. As a result your interpretation
is flawed.

	Next one....	:-)


Attachment: pgpGDd8nI5fg5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: