[free-sklyarov] Another ebook "processor"

[Seth Johnson]

Jeme:

Do you have any references that show how things were different before
the Berne Convention, particularly as relates to the application of
copyright to fine arts?

Seth Johnson

Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> 
> The Berne Convention was a sort of treaty signed by the United States
> (among other nations) that contained ideas eventually expressed in the
> United States as a rewrite of the Copyright Act.  In particular, the Berne
> Convention requires signatory nations to protect copyright on unpublished
> expressions and removes the requirement of publication via registration of
> a copyrighted expression with the Library of Congress.  This is directly
> opposed to the Congressional mandate set forward in the Constitution to
> promote progress and directly opposed to the bargain struck between the
> public and authors.  The Berne Convention is another example of an
> industry, created by a public trust, using its influence to leverage and
> subvert the will and benefit of the public.
> 
> The copyright bargain is one in which the public gets to use an expression
> and an author gets to ensure that the expression remains true to its
> intent.  These rights are reserved for only a limited time because it is
> the nature of expressions to evolve and it is to the public benefit and
> the progress of all mankind that expressions be allowed to
> evolve.  Eventually, it is necessary for the public to be able to digest
> and regurgitate the expression in other forms not approved by the
> author.
> 
> It's important to note, I think, that the Constitution of the United
> States carefully states that the mandate of Congress is "to promote the
> progress of science and the useful arts" with appropriate legislation of a
> form that secures "the exclusive rights of authors and inventors to their
> respective writings and discoveries".  Modern copyright is only rarely
> used to protect the integrity of a scientific work.  Mostly, copyright is
> used to protect those practitioners of the fine arts.  It was wise and
> insightful of our forefathers to intentionally neglect the fine arts in
> their clause.  It is the nature of fine art to feed upon itself.  Fine art
> exists, some would argue, to reflect the culture and encourage other
> expression in that reflection.  A mirror can infringe copyright and fine
> art is a mirror.  If the fine arts (such as painting, poetry,
> non-scientific writing, and sculpture; as opposed to the useful arts, such
> as carpentry, smithery, and architecture) are not allowed to feed on each
> other in a cannibalistic way, it stagnates and becomes dreary or
> debauched.  This is the state of the modern fine arts, in my opinion.  And
> this state is perpetuated by and was originally brought into being as the
> natural outcome of the extension of copyright to the fine arts.