> What do you think of Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights?
UDHR yay! Tis an old friend. Article 27 is meant to be a denunciation of authoritarian cultural controls, mainly aimed at censorship, but also meant to defend against government expropriation of the work of its citizens. Part 2 is best understood in the context of authoritarian economic regimes. >> (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life >> of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific >> advancement and its benefits. I.e. art should not be the domain of a government vetted elite. >> (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material >> interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic >> production of which he is the author. And the government should not take creators works from them. Note that the definition of material interests is absent; it is up to the nations. Moral interests are implied, and amount to attribution, and perhaps determination of publication. (In my interpretation.) > (1) sounds like it's exactly what we're about, promoting cultural > participation. But (2) sounds like it could be used to justify > maximalist policies in copyright and patent law, promoting absolute > control over creative works, in such a way that it could prevent (1). It's generally best to contemplate the UDHR (and most UN [or other intergovernmental] documents) in the context of the party whose wrongs were being implicitly denigrated. In the case of the UDHR, that's Nazi Germany overtly and the USSR subtextually. > Peace, > ~Nelson~ Pace, -C > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
