The truth about enforcement, as interpreted by me.

November 22, 2007 at 12:26 am 1 comment

I am contrite and bitter but that’s another post for another time. This time, it’s about who gets to enforce what.

No one really complains about the Berne Convention, it’s pretty clear-cut in many areas, especially Article 8, which states that only the copyright holder has the right to authorize translations of his or her works. It’s also pretty clear-cut as to WHO gets to enforce these rights, as stated in Article 2.

Article 2(7) states:

(7) Subject to the provisions of Article 7(4) of this Convention, it shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the extent of the application of their laws to works of applied art and industrial designs and models, as well as the conditions under which such works, designs and models shall be protected. Works protected in the country of origin solely as designs and models shall be entitled in another country of the Union only to such special protection as is granted in that country to designs and models; however, if no such special protection is granted in that country, such works shall be protected as artistic works.

And again Article 7(4) states:

(4) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work.

And again in Article 15(1):

(1) In order that the author of a literary or artistic work protected by this Convention shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be regarded as such, and consequently be entitled to institute infringement proceedings in the countries of the Union, it shall be sufficient for his name to appear on the work in the usual manner. This paragraph shall be applicable even if this name is a pseudonym, where the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity.

And again in 15(4A)

(4)(a) In the case of unpublished works where the identity of the author is unknown, but where there is every ground to presume that he is a national of a country of the Union, it shall be a matter for legislation in that country to designate the competent authority which shall represent the author and shall be entitled to protect and enforce his rights in the countries of the Union.

What does all this mean? It means the governments, and subsequently judiciaries, of the infringing countries are allowed to sue violators of the Berne Convention or arrest them and call them criminals. It doesn’t matter if either a lobbying group (RIAA, MPAA, et al), a private company (Odex), or someone else tries to do that, they have absolutely no right to enforce for it is stated in the Berne Convention, that as long as the creator’s name is on any work that has been produced it is more than enough proof for the creator to write a letter to the offending country to start litigating.

From here on is the writer’s personal opinions and ramblings, rhetortic and whatnot and shall be treated as such. Any attempt to link the following with the above shall be met with either a brutal boot to the head or a brutal conversion to the Christian religion, whichever the author feels like doing. (Trust me, 9.99999999999 X 10^OVER9000 times out of 10, it’ll be the boot to the head.)

By bypassing governments and the judiciary groups and companies show that they are not just disrespecting the law, they think of themselves superior to the law and pretty much telling the police force, governments, etc, that they are incompetent, ineffective, and unnecessary. It also says a lot about these companies and groups. If they don’t respect the law, we can consider them criminals and treat them as such.

So why aren’t we arresting these crooks? We all have been taught to respect the law, so why are they exempt? By playing the vigilante, they are in fact, usurping the authority of the law, and you can’t do that when the law still works! It clashes with EVERYTHING we have learnt, taught, theologized, etc. It clashes with all the major religion systems of the world! It clashes with our morality our values, our rights! (Of course you can argue citing recent events and Singapore, that we have no rights whatsoever but I beg to differ with the right to see justice being done and facilitating the means to see this happen, all within the rules of the country you came from, I might add.) And don’t give me that crap about the rich being able to bribe governments and whatnot. That might work in America, but IT DOES NOT WORK HERE IN SINGAPORE, WHERE NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHTS TO ALMOST ANYTHING. Even the rich ones have to sign over their rights when they become citizens here, IT’S THE LAW. If you haven’t realized that Singapore is a NANNY STATE, you sir, are living under a giant, porous rock for the last 42 years.

I’d like to see justice done too, but I’m just a lowly intern with a big mouth. This is as much as I can do within my lack of rights in this ruddy nanny state disguised as a democracy. Without resorting to any high-handed elitism or pissing people off, but I tend to piss people off by being in the wrong place at the right time, so the latter has less significance.

Edited for some silly news: tl;dr: Odex got hacked. LOL

The son of Edit: I r stoopyd Digital Media student.

Entry filed under: Anime, Bitching.

Geekery, Portal Spoilers, and animé come together to warp your mind beyond uh I dunno, Clive Barker’s Jericho, I guess. I am a bitter and contrite man.

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. Lupus  |  November 26, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Actually Drm, you got it all wrong. What “It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union” means is that it is up to the countries of the Union to draft and pass legislation(s) giving effect to the Berne Convention. International treaties do not themselves have any binding legal powers – the participating nations must themselves create legislations that have terms in accordance with the treaties in order for them to be binding on the citizens of each nation.

    Also, you’re quoting the wrong sections. Article 2(7) states that in regards to designs (which are a subcategory of Intellectual Properties, separate from copyright) countries of the union have freedom in deciding how far and what terms of the convention should apply, and a few other proviso. Similar you’re misinterpreting the other articles. You can’t just take a small bit out of each article to argue your case.

    Sorry to rain on your parade, but even if you have good intentions, you need to get the facts right.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


And the prophet spake, saying: "Frak this, for my faith is a shield proof against your blandishments!"

- Alem Mahat, The Book of Cain, Chapter IV, Verse XXI

Email: DrmChsr0atgmaildotcom (at=@, dot=.)


  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Who needs a calendar?

November 2007
« Oct   Dec »

The stale pile of randomness

I have been anally violated

  • 542,418 times OMG


%d bloggers like this: