If you believe in copyright, then there is no God

    There are many unobvious things in the world. Everything in the world is interconnected. Disclosure of these connections gives a more complete picture of the world. It is this aspiration from time immemorial that has driven philosophers and scientists. However, to identify some of the relationships, it is enough to make a few comparisons, and the observations obtained will already make us take a fresh look at individual aspects of life.

    This post is an attempt to analyze the ideas underlying the determination of the term of copyright protection. There will be no so-called fotozhab and other things, already widespread on the Internet, creativity about copyright and religion. I also make a reservation that the purpose of this post is not the propaganda or debunking of certain views on higher powers. As a lawyer, the author can only claim to disclose and interpret the ideas that form the basis of the legal rules by which our society lives.

    First, pay attention to the current terms of copyright protection. According to international standards, enshrined in Article 7 of the Berne Convention of 1971 on the protection of literary and artistic works, the term of protection of such is the entire life of the author and 50 years after his death.

    If we analyze the historical aspect, then this period was not set initially, but was constantly changing. And upward.

    Until 1710, in England, the author could dispose exclusively of the manuscript. Rights to the text went "to the load." The Statute of Queen Anne, adopted in the same year, established that the author has the rights to his work for 14 years with the right to extend the term by another 14. In 1774, a vote in the House of Lords in the Donaldson v. Beckett case established that after completion of the term of protection, the work becomes public domain. At the same time, the decision of the House of Lords determined that publishers would no longer be able to restrain the growth and development of culture and innovation in England.

    In the United States, the first increase in copyright protection occurred in 1831 from 28 to 42 years. In 1909 - up to 56 years. In 1976, for all works created after 1978, the copyright term was set at 50 years after the death of the author. For corporations, the copyright term was 75 years. Since 1998, copyright has been valid for 70 years after the death of the author.

    I have cited only two countries that are the heart of the Anglo-Saxon system of law and the stronghold of modern copyright. However, even a cursory analysis of legal norms makes it possible to highlight the absence of a basic criterion for establishing the term of protection. The copyright term has never been determined on the basis of some objective criterion. 28, 42, 56 - all these figures are conditional, not related to the work, and changed under the influence of copyright holders. As an argument, they used the opportunity to receive adequate remuneration for their work. It is important to emphasize here: your work.

    “And Moses said unto the LORD, O Lord! I am not a man of speech, and that was yesterday and the third day, and when You began to speak with Your servant: I speak hard and tongue-tied. The Lord said: who gave a mouth to a man? who makes mute, or deaf, or sighted, or blind? Am I not the Lord God? go now; and I will be at thy mouth ”(Exodus 4, 10-12).

    Psychologist N. Oganesyan in his article “On the problem of authorship of a poetic work”, he writes that often during the creation of a poetic work, in the process of creativity, the poet has a strange feeling that someone else is doing for him, someone is leading him with his hand, whispering to him from nowhere strings. As if it were not his thoughts and his imagination, but a certain alien spirit that had infused him. This is an incomprehensible beginning and inspires him to work. On the rise of feelings and emotions, there is a certain insight, a revelation, accompanied by the understanding that the poet becomes only an occasion, an occasion for the manifestation of some other's will. That is why many poets observe such a phenomenon - there is a feeling that the work does not belong to you, that it is not yours, and was written by someone else. So, for example, Byron believed that a “demon" is infused into a person, and Michelangelo believed that God leads him with his hand. V. Hugo said: "God dictated, and I wrote."

    A.S. Pushkin in the poem “Stans” writes:
    And I ... my spirit flies to the Creator,
    Burning lightning with fire,
    And the worried mind dreams of
    Freedom when thunder strikes.
    And God speaks stronger to me
    And in my fiery thoughts,
    Than a round noisy thunderstorm
    And in the wondrous nightly horrors.

    Nobel laureate physiologist Ackles argued that the brain is just a receptor through which the soul perceives the world.

    You can give a huge number of examples and views on the nature of creativity and inspiration. One thing: almost everyone who is associated with creativity claims to influence the creation of a work of some higher forces that are beyond even the understanding of the author himself. Not without reason, the ancient Greek mythical creatures of the Muses are still practically an object of worship, while other inhabitants of the pantheon are forgotten. The inexplicability of the forces moving the author is also manifested in the fact that it is considered impossible to predict the final result of creative work.

    Despite all of the above, the theory of higher forces is not reflected in law. Moreover, the method of establishing the term of copyright establishes that a person is the complete and unconditional owner of his work. In support of this thesis, we can give an example that the term of protection is connected with the life of the author - not the publication of the work, not its actual distribution. All these key factors in the life of a work play no role. The only important thing is how much a person has lived who is considered the author of the work.

    The copyright system not only prohibits everyone from using the work, but also involves the transfer of rights by inheritance. Here, the question of the basic idea of ​​such a method of protection is also relevant. What public good, besides feeding the heirs of the author, does this norm pursue? In my opinion, it only creates the conditions under which nature can fearlessly rest on the great children.

    To date, there is no mechanism in which society can claim to use a work against the will of the author, no matter what role the work plays in culture. Nationalization, redemption for public needs - all these methods inherent in property law in one form or another are completely absent in intellectual property rights. At the same time, the defenders of the current copyright are forced to use the tools of property law. "Copied - it means stole" - this is from there. As well as the theft mentioned in the commandments.

    Even in Ancient Greece there was a theory developed by Plato of the "world of ideas" and the "world of things." Human power did not extend beyond the world of things. Ideas were some kind of common basis, which was projected into a material form. The idea was dominant and primary. Man served only as a vehicle between these worlds.

    The modern copyright system, by contrast, is based on a possessive attitude to the idea. The idea is tightly bound to the author. Copyrights are limited only by the copyrights of others. It turns out that a person is the full and unconditional owner of the idea itself, reflected in the material form of the work he created. This means that from the point of view of copyright, a person is not a holder of rights, he is the root cause of the idea. There is a certain emptiness into which a person brings his work. Having created it, he forever becomes its owner. There is nothing above or behind the person in the work that should be taken into account. So, man is the Creator.

    Without getting involved in comparing the last conclusion with church dogmas and philosophical principles, it is worth pointing out situations where this statement simply does not work. Modern copyright protects only the one who first expressed the idea. However, the same thought can autonomously come to completely different people. Science knows such examples. Leibniz in 1675 discovered differential and integral calculus. Independently of him and even earlier (1671), Newton approached the discovery of mathematical analysis, but Leibniz published the results earlier than Newton. In 1839, Louis Daguerre in Paris and Henry Fox Talbot in London independently demonstrated invented photographic apparatus. The category of simultaneous discoveries includes the natural selection model developed by Charles Darwin and Wallace, who read reports on the evolution of species in Linnaeus society on July 1, 1858. There are many such examples, and many of them are human dramas. In addition to a one-time idea, many were faced with an independent idea. And where the forms of the works are smaller, this problem is more relevant. For example, the notion of slogans is, first of all, the process of screening invented earlier. Nevertheless, modern law refuses to recognize authorship for another person if he does not own primacy. screening process invented previously. Nevertheless, modern law refuses to recognize authorship for another person if he does not own primacy. screening process invented previously. Nevertheless, modern law refuses to recognize authorship for another person if he does not own primacy.

    It is believed that Shakespeare did not write his works, they would be written later, the only question is time. The cultural environment, the community of sentiments give rise to what is called the "soaring of ideas." Da Vinci invented a helicopter. He was a genius, and anticipated many ideas. But, despite this, no one makes a Sikorsky patent pirate. Leonardo came up with a helicopter before this idea was needed by society, and it was forgotten to come to another person in a few centuries. It turns out that the idea will find its way into life, if not through one person, then through another; not earlier - so later.

    Thus, the modern system of copyright protection is based on attitudes that are contrary to the prevailing philosophical, cultural and religious views.
    Does this mean that the idea of ​​higher powers and copyright cannot be combined? I don’t think so.
    It is important to review the basic settings, and then things can get off the ground. In my opinion, the work cannot be considered the property of the author in the classical sense. Authorship should be considered as the author’s right to receive remuneration for his role in mediating with the world of ideas. Therefore, the term of authorship should be established on the basis of a hypothetical period during which such a work can be recreated. This term will also become conditional, but at least it will be based on a certain criterion. The term of copyright should not be too long to encourage the author to manage his rights as efficiently as possible without inhibiting the development of society. It is also obvious that the term of protection should vary depending on the form of the work.

    The scattered resistance to the modern copyright model has already spread throughout the world, including supporters among eminent jurists. The next step should be to propose a comprehensive alternative model. In any case, the law should serve the interests of society, not replacing either religion or philosophy, but only complementing them.

    Also popular now: