DRM for Public Domain works at B&N

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Just a point I want to make here, a large amount of PD books are translations of even older texts. (Think Beowulf) The translator gets his copyright on the work he did, when theoretically he didn't change a single word. (emphasis on theoretically) Is that not copyrighting of work done on a title without adding any new material?

A good translator brings creativity and originality to the translation, which is why the translation deserves its own copyright.

Even a literal word-for-word translation by a human contains some original input, since words very rarely have a one to one correspondece to words in another language.

However, if I took a book and bunged it through http://translate.google.com/ and then packaged the resulting text, I wouldn't expect to have a new copyright on that text. (And anyone who tried to read it would demand their money back anyway!)


Just for fun, a Google translation to French:

Un bon traducteur apporte la créativité et l'originalité de la traduction, ce qui explique pourquoi la traduction de son propre mérite le droit d'auteur.

Même une interprétation littérale mot à mot la traduction par l'homme contient des intrants d'origine, car les mots ont une très rarement à un correspondece à des mots dans une autre langue.

Toutefois, si j'ai pris un livre et bunged par http://translate.google.com/ puis emballés le texte, je ne serais pas s'attendre à un nouveau droit d'auteur sur ce texte. (Et ceux qui ont essayé de lire la demande de leur argent en tout cas!)

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's not just in this forum, and the amount of anti-DRM feeling should tell you something. If you want someone with a pro-DRM viewpoint, you pretty much have to go to the content industry to find it.

Even the content industry are a backing away:

Felix Gilman, an editor from Tor just said that "Almost all publishing houses have come to the conclusion that DRM is not a viable means of protecting intellectual property.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=22

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

A good translator brings creativity and originality to the translation, which is why the translation deserves its own copyright.

Even a literal word-for-word translation by a human contains some original input, since words very rarely have a one to one correspondece to words in another language.

I'm not arguing against what you say, but have you seen the work Google has been doing with Wave and their translation engine within that? Amazing stuff. Live translation as you type, and very accurate too.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Not
The president of the USA is a single person and is the highest ruling body in his country

Only over one branch of the government. He's not the highest ruling body of the whole government.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Even a literal word-for-word translation by a human contains some original input, since words very rarely have a one to one correspondece to words in another language.

Exactly. There really isn't such a thing as a literal word-for-word translation. If such works existed, they probably wouldn't make a whole lot of sense anyway.

[rixte]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Anti-DRM is the moderate viewpoint. It is DRM which is extreme, just as anti-copyright would be extreme.

DRM gives rights to publishers and resellers that effectively eliminate the objectives of copyright law to balance the public good while encouraging and protecting private enterprise. Copyright law is, when done right, a balancing act between the public good and private benefit.

But DRM has thrown things out of balance. It is being used to prevent artistic creations from entering the public domain in whole or in part, now or ever.

And it is not a good objection to say that public domain works are otherwise available, because in the future, they won't be. The economics of the situation will prevent it - and so will DRM, because when copyright has expired, it will still be illegal for anyone to provide the tools to strip the DRM off of the now noncopyright book.

DRM is not a copyright protection scheme. It is a copyright law elimination device, because its effect, in the real world, is (1) to prevent material from ever going into the public domain in a practical, usable way and (2) to, in practice, prevent fair use of material during the copyright period.

Not to mention elimination of the right of first sale, or any sale at all.

I'm not a fan of DRM, since I don't think it has any real benefit beyond making publishers feel like they're doing *something*, however impotent. But I'm not seeing how you're making the leap to DRM as a copyright elimination device (unless you mean the DMCA?).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Harmon

And it is not a good objection to say that public domain works are otherwise available, because in the future, they won't be. The economics of the situation will prevent it - and so will DRM, because when copyright has expired, it will still be illegal for anyone to provide the tools to strip the DRM off of the now noncopyright book.

I don't see anything that makes it illegal to strip DRM off of a non-copyright book. As was previously mentioned, the DMCA doesn't apply to public domain works.

[igorsk]

Machine translations are a good source of amusement.
http://translationparty.com/tp/ (choose ones with more steps; doesn't work in some browsers).

[Requiem]

I want to stress that I am not pro-DRM, but i happen to see the side of the publishers. It might not protect Intellectual property sufficiently enough, but it is the best option they have for the moment. There was an earlier comment about software and DRM. I believe these are in actuality two completely different topics. Software is a small part of the bigger picture. Intellectual Property is EVERYWHERE; that newspaper, that ad on the wall, the elevator music you are listening to, the design of the carpet you are walking on, the design of the house or apartment you live in, the programs you use on your computer are also included. A single all encompassing scheme to protect them all is not only irresponsible but non-advantageous to the creativity of the human mind.

The rules get so skewed and diluted, especially when you get into laws governing other countries. For example who holds the copyright of a picture of a copyrighted painting? Is it the photographer or the painter? And what about a picture of an individual person? Do you own the copyright of your own likeness? If so then why can Facebook use your pictures in their ads? Just because they claimed everything on their servers? Well I got some books on my bookshelf, I think I will start claiming copyrights on them.

Just too complicated to not have some dissent on either side.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Exactly. There really isn't such a thing as a literal word-for-word translation. If such works existed, they probably wouldn't make a whole lot of sense anyway.

Definitely wouldn't make sense, unless both the source and the target languages were very closely related or at least very structurally similar. Otherwise it can easily end up a cryptic mess.

Példának okáért vegyük ezt a pár magyar mondatot, s nézzük meg mi is történik, ha--szó szerint--szóról szóra lefordítjuk az angol nyelvre. S hogy ne csak nyelvi témát foglaljon magába példám, megemlítem, hogy a zsiráfnak hosszú nyaka jó arra, hogy az akácfák zsengébb lombjait elérje, a tüskék ellenére is.

Word for word:

For example's for purpose we should take this the pair Hungarian sentence, and we should watch done what too happens, if--word according to--from word to word we translate the English to language. And that do not only language subject should hold in itself my example, I mention, that the for giraffe long neck good for that, that the acacia trees more tender its foliages it should reach, the thorns in opposition too.

Proper translation:

For example, let us take these few Hungarian sentences, and let us examine what happens when we--literally--translate them word for word into English. And just so my example does not solely use linguistic topics, I will note that the long neck of the Giraffe makes it possible for him to reach the more tender leaves of the Acacia tree, despite the thorns.

Obviously one could make a translation that is slightly less literal than the first one, but not as sensible as the second one... nonetheless the point is that going "word for word" is translation only in the most technical sense, and the most literal translation is necessarily just short of incomprehensible.

- Ahi

[Requiem]

The point is, if you didn't write that first hungarian sentence, but you translated it to the third one. Who now owns the copyright on the material?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Requiem

The point is, if you didn't write that first hungarian sentence, but you translated it to the third one. Who now owns the copyright on the material?

And the answer is that copyright is either solely that of the translator, or co-owned by the translator and the original writer.

Personally, I think that translation copyright should be markedly shorter than regular copyright. Edgar Rice Burroughs translations shouldn't be under copyright past the life-expectancy of my children for languages where they were only recently translated for the first time.

Translation is a noble profession (and one that occasionally pays bills of mine), but it is not the equivalent of writing original literature (despite also requiring the same skillset, and more, to do well).

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I want to stress that I am not pro-DRM, but i happen to see the side of the publishers. It might not protect Intellectual property sufficiently enough, but it is the best option they have for the moment.

There are many, including some within the content industry, that say getting rid of DRM is the best option.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

There are many, including some within the content industry, that say getting rid of DRM is the best option.

Indeed, the broad (and depending the media, near universal) disregard for the integrity of DRM should be fairly blatant indication that DRM is only an option if it is trivially breakable (i.e.: it doesn't work).

Many people, I among them, will not lease content. If I cannot buy it, I will certainly not pay money to lease it. I'm willing to let a company pretend they are leasing it to me--but if they actually acquire the technological means to enforce the limitations of such pretenses about the arrangement, I'll spend my money elsewhere.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Also, I haven't the slightest problem with the entire move industry, music industry, and publishing industry going bankrupt as a result of piracy (or any other reason for that matter).

Such a turn of events would open up opportunities for more people/companies with a backbone to compete.

- Ahi