Andrew Haley <[email protected]> writes: > In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Homer wrote: >> [...] >>> You don't /seriously/ expect fascist nuts like Terekhov to understand >>> "value" in terms other than money, do you? >> >> The entire point of copyright law is to give intangible work monetary >> value by imposing monopoly on certain acts. >> >> The German copyright law is very explicit in this respect: >> >> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__32.html >> >> "Der Urheber hat f?r die Einr?umung von Nutzungsrechten und die >> Erlaubnis zur Werknutzung Anspruch auf die vertraglich vereinbarte >> Verg?tung. Ist die H?he der Verg?tung nicht bestimmt, gilt die >> angemessene Verg?tung als vereinbart. " > > I'm not proficient in German, but does this really say that the only > purpose of copyright is to deliver remuneration to an author?
No. It says "The author is entitled to the contractually agreed renumeration for the grant and permission of usage rights. If the amount of renumeration is not established, the appropriate renumeration is considered as agreed upon." "appropriate renumeration", "angemessene Vergütung" is something established elsewhere in the law. > WIPO is clear: "The purpose of copyright and related rights is > twofold: to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning > value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic > existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for > the public." It's the governing principle but not the law itself. If a higher court rules that the law does not embody the principles it needs to embody, this usually means that it passes the law back to the lawmakers without immediately putting it out of effect. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
