DLOska on Thu, 18 May 2000 18:52:07 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Dialectizer closes; a victim of the Corporate Napster Bandwagon? |
In a message dated 5/18/00 12:58:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plagiari@plagiarist.org writes: > The Dialectizer (http://rinkworks.com/dialect/) project dynamically > translates web pages into alternate "dialects", such as "redneck" or > "Swedish Chef." Does anybody know the specifics to how ordinary translations (e.g. an English translation of a Spanish novel, etc.) are understood under copyright law? It would seem under the standards of fair use that a translation would fair pretty well. The heart of translation (the translator's choice of word, syntax, etc.) inherently holds a degree of scholarship, commentary and criticism. The degree of transformation in a translation is enormous..."adding something new with a further purpose or different character, thereby altering the first with the new expression, meaning or message." (taken from http://www.benedict.com/basic/fairuse/fairtest.htm). Furthermore, the effect upon the potential market would apparently be limited. Economically, translations are not, as I see it, substitute goods. Even in the case where a reader could choose to read a book in either of two languages, I doubt that this choice would be regarded as one where substitution was a factor. I'm not sure how to approach the other two standards, that is, nature of the copyrighted work or relative amount. Is a translation worthy of special consideration under copyright law? And is relative amount relevant when the entirety is co-opted AND the entirety is fundamentally altered? Pat Burns _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold