Prof may go to jail for popularizing philosophical works

Major controversy has erupted after the French and Argentinian governments went after a philosophy professor for popularizing Spanish translations of philosophical texts. Prof. Horacio Potel is accused of violating “intellectual property rights” and faces a prison term of one month to six years. Much of the discussion is in Spanish and therefore inaccessible to the English-speaking world. Here’s a translation of one report from the Spanish-language online newspaper Clarin.com

February 28, 2009

France intervened to shut down an Argentinian site popularizing philosophical works

It acted through the Book Chamber. The site posted Derrida texts. Solidarity support on the Facebook network.

By Andres Hax

Derrida, the French author who shaped the thinking of the last thirty years with key works like “politics of friendship” and “the writing and the difference”, among others.

In the late nineties, when the Internet was completely novel, professor of philosophy at the University of Lanús, Horacio Potel, began posting texts of Friedrich Nietzsche at a personal site. In his words, it was a non-profit publishing and stewardship effort. Soon he added two more sites, with texts by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger and the Frenchman Jacques Derrida. This tiny digital library – which also includes biographies, links and essays – has been consulted, according to his logs, by more than four million people since its inception and ranks high among search engines: in Google, if you type Jacques Derrida Argentina, the first hit is the Wikipedia entry and the second is the former site of Potel, www.jacquesderrida.com.ar.

For Potel, this laboriously-compiled collection has become a nightmare: after the intervention of the French Embassy in Argentina, a criminal case filed by the Argentina Book Chamber for violation of Intellectual Property Law 11.723 has forced him to take down the Derrida texts from his site and deal and face a possible “prison term ranging from one month to six years.”

The charge against Potel cites the law prohibiting the “editing, selling or reproduction by any means or in any medium, a published or unpublished work without permission from its author or his heirs.” The legal language is not debatable. Having posted online Derrida’s texts – protected by copyright – Potel infringed on copyrights. “This law exists to protect cultural works,” says Carlos de Santos, president of the Argentina Book Chamber, to Clarin. “The Chamber has always acted in defense of intellectual property rights. Without intellectual property rights, publications cannot possibly exist. And I believe the possibilities for intellectual work will be less,” he concluded.

The Argentina Book Chamber’s case was initiated by a complaint from Derrida’s publisher (Les Editions de Minuit) and the intervention of the French Embassy in Buenos Aires. According to cultural attaché Jean-François Gueganno “The gold standard in these cases is intellectual property. If you write a piece, you own the text and nobody can post them on a site to be accessed freely without the author’s consent”. Potel defends himself: “It was never my intention to make a profit. In 1999 I was fascinated by the unlimited possibilities the network offered for knowledge exchange. These sites are a lot of work for me and it is a tragedy for me that I have to remove them.”

The case has provoked widespread protest in cyberspace, highlighting the gray area between popularization and piracy. On the Potel page in Facebook, hundreds of users worldwide have expressed outrage at the “censorship”. One user summed up the opinion of the cyber-citizens: “What is happening is an outrage to the culture of human rights. An obscene display of the mechanisms of control, surveillance and punishment.”

(See original story in Spanish here: http://www.clarin.com/diario/2009/02/28/sociedad/s-01867515.htm)

About these ads

3 Comments

  1. Posted March 18, 2009 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the English language translation. It is an outrage that someone would be put in jail for sharing. The publisher’s case is also more clear cut than most and so it exposes their lie more effectively. By prohibiting sharing they clearly show their interest is control rather than publishing.

    It is rare that publishers lie more clearly than they have here and the lie shows what an impediment they really are. The statement, “Without intellectual property rights, writings cannot possibly exist,” is historically as well as semantically dishonest. The term, “intellectual property” is designed to confuse the concepts of copyright, trademark and patents with each other and real property. It should never be used, even when quoting others, without refutation. The historical lie is more obvious. People were happy to share their views in writing long before mechanical presses and copyright laws. The philosophers in question were certainly not motivated by money. Publishers stand in the way of the greatest public library ever created – the library that will exist when we can all share without fear.

  2. Roberto Verzola
    Posted March 19, 2009 at 6:10 am | Permalink

    I agree completely. Well, I do confess I’ve often used “intellectual property” without refutation, although I put it in quotes to indicate my perspective.

    I have argued elsewhere that the only thing that stands between us and information abundance is “intellectual property”, which is contrary to the nature of information itself.

    Greetings from Manila,

  3. Par Neix
    Posted March 26, 2009 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    It’s still possible to get many of Derrida’s book via P2P networks


3 Trackbacks

  1. [...] Prof may go to jail for popularizing philosophical works The case has provoked widespread protest in cyberspace, highlighting the gray area between popularization and piracy. On the Potel page in Facebook, hundreds of users worldwide have expressed outrage at the the “censorship”. One user summed up the opinion of the cyber-citizens: “What is happening is an outrage to the culture of human rights. An obscene display of the mechanisms of control, surveillance and punishment.” [...]

  2. [...] A victory in New Zealand. A defeat in Argentina. Many repressive databases in the U,K, are f***ed up. Well, yeah; oppression and imbecilic [...]

  3. [...] Roberto Verzola Carobotero equinoXio in english Carolina Botero at P2P Foundation Recomendar esta entrada [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers

%d bloggers like this: