Fun with the NRSV Bible

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

So, translators are making money, for a very long time, out from works by other people. Without giving them a penny.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure that I understand you.

If a work is in copyright, the translation has to be done with the permission of the copyright holder, and the author will get a percentage of the sales of the "foreign" book. Many popular books are translated into dozens of different languages.

If a work is out of copyright, the translation is presumably done because the publisher feels that there is a commercial market for such a work. Anybody can do anything they wish with a work that's in the public domain - including commercially sell it.

Could you explain in more detail what your objections are to the idea of translations?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Format C:

I can't see the point.

I'm saying if God finds it offensive, then God can do something about it. Men have copyright laws for men's purposes, not God's.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, I'm not quite sure that I understand you.

If a work is in copyright, the translation has to be done with the permission of the copyright holder, and the author will get a percentage of the sales of the "foreign" book. Many popular books are translated into dozens of different languages.

If a work is out of copyright, the translation is presumably done because the publisher feels that there is a commercial market for such a work. Anybody can do anything they wish with a work that's in the public domain - including commercially sell it.

Could you explain in more detail what your objections are to the idea of translations?

I'm not objecting the translations themselves.
Nor the translation, with consent of the author, of a copyrighted work.

I'm objecting the copyright on the translation.
By example, if 119 years from now my great-grandson makes lots of money out of royalties for "Romeo and Juliet", he's a "pirate" (or a parasite, at least).
Even if I translated it, and even if it's legal.
Just like mr Lundgren, who's Public Enemy nr.1, event if he don't get a penny out of copies of the books he contributed to spread.

In a fair world, copyright on translation should not exist.
In our word, Good, Law and Right just follow money. They are always where the wealthiest are.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Format C:

In a fair world, copyright on translation should not exist.

I disagree. If you translate something that is in copyright you have to pay a royalty. If you translate something that is out of copyright people have a choice. Pay you for your translation or get the original work and translate it themselves.

A translation takes time and work. Many people are willing to pay for that. If you're not, then don't.

Isn't it "fair" that the translator gets compensated for their work?

BOb

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I disagree. If you translate something that is in copyright you have to pay a royalty. If you translate something that is out of copyright people have a choice. Pay you for your translation or get the original work and translate it themselves.

A translation takes time and work. Many people are willing to pay for that. If you're not, then don't.

Isn't it "fair" that the translator gets compensated for their work?

BOb

I surrender.

If I cannot express the difference between "without copyright" and "work for free as a slave in chains and never see one penny", nor the difference between "being paid for a work" and "milk money out of it for a century", it just means my English is not good enough.

I simply don't believe that you really cannot see nothing other than "zero" and "98 years of copyright".

[sirbruce]

It doesn't matter if copyright is 10 years or 70 years, translations should still get their OWN copyright.

[HarryT]

I think, sirbruce, that what FC is saying is that translation is less of a creative act than is original authorship, and hence merits a shorter period of copyright protection. I must confess to having some sympathy for that viewpoint.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think, sirbruce, that what FC is saying is that translation is less of a creative act than is original authorship, and hence merits a shorter period of copyright protection. I must confess to having some sympathy for that viewpoint.

Yes, I agree with that also. Although I think ALL copyright terms are much to long. (see the speech my sig quote comes from). I think 10 years is probably plenty long enough. But, will never fly. Haven't we discussed this before.

BOb

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think, sirbruce, that what FC is saying is that translation is less of a creative act than is original authorship, and hence merits a shorter period of copyright protection. I must confess to having some sympathy for that viewpoint.

If that's what he means, then it does make some sense; he seemed to be arguing for *no* copyright on translations.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

It doesn't matter if copyright is 10 years or 70 years, translations should still get their OWN copyright.

Can I find it immoral?
Much more than filesharing?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Can I find it immoral?
Much more than filesharing?

Immoral? Actually derivative works is part of the whole point of public domain. For example, there is a book on Amazon I have been meaning to read. _Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles_.

Heck, the whole open source movement was based on this. Look at the Mac OS X. It is based on the free bsd operating system. Ubuntu builds on the work of Linux and Debian. You could consider these "translations" of the previous work. Red Hat runs a whole company servicing open source software.

BOb

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

If that's what he means, then it does make some sense; he seemed to be arguing for *no* copyright on translations.

0 is shorter than 70....
And yes, I'm all for NO copyright for translations.

And, begging your pardon for my English, I never ever in my life imply that translators should work for free.
I can agree for a 1.000.000.000.000$ per page fee. But definitely NOT for copyright of any form.

If one thousand billions dollars are not enough, I'm out of arguments.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Can I find it immoral?
Much more than filesharing?

How would you like to see it work then, FC?

Suppose I spend 5 years of my life converting "War and Peace" from Russian into English. Do you think that I don't have any right to sell that work commercially, and that everyone should be able to instantly copy it freely?

You have to accept the fact that if you want to see ANY translations of public domain works, nobody's going to do it without being able to get a reasonable "pay back" for their work.

What would your suggestion be?

[sirbruce]

I suppose his idea is everything should be translated while the original is still under copyright and the original author get royalties from each translation, but that they never extend the copyright. So you'd better translate them early or not at all; no sense spending money translating something in its last years.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Immoral? Actually derivative works is part of the whole point of public domain. For example, there is a book on Amazon I have been meaning to read. _Sherlock Holmes Was Wrong: Reopening the Case of the Hound of the Baskervilles_.

Heck, the whole open source movement was based on this. Look at the Mac OS X. It is based on the free bsd operating system. Ubuntu builds on the work of Linux and Debian. You could consider these "translations" of the previous work. Red Hat runs a whole company servicing open source software.

BOb

I don't think so.
Derivative work like you described is not a translation.
"SH was wrong" is definitely a new idea based on a previous work. OTOH a French version of "The Hound of the Baskerville" is nothing new. Just Doyle's idea brought to France (or Senegal).

In the OS example, my version of BSD, where the word "folder" is replaced by "cartella" is not the same thing than OSX.
Not even close to it. Apple developers did something more than "translate" BSD in Italian. The had a few ideas on their own.

Sherlock Holmes translator didn't. He just made his best effort to express EXACTLY what Conan Doyle said in a foreign language.
That effort has to be rewarded, of course. But IMO not copyrighted.



And from what I remember from my catechism to put copyright on Gospel is very very close to simony.

Or, from another POV, God should have eternal copyright on it in every language of the past, present and future.
For the atheists, it means no copyright at all.



So, my point is:

OK to copyright new works (for a shorter time span than now)
OK to give to the original authors copyright for translations (no longer than the original, though)
OK to pay translators billions per page (nobody will say I want it for free, I hope)
OK to copyright comments, reviews, critics and exegesis of PD works
NO copyright on translations of PD works.
NO copyright for mere translators.