Deklaro de TEJO pri Solidareco kun Ukrainio - Declaration of TEJO on Solidarity with Ukraine

 

 

Declaration of TEJO on Solidarity with Ukraine

 

Remember, remember, remember, the only means of achieving a lasting peace: is to abolish the root cause of all war. The rule of one people over another. Zamenhof 1914

It is in the same spirit, that TEJO, an organisation dedicated to liberty and human rights, condemns the invasion of Ukraine instigated by the Russian government. TEJO strives for solidarity and respect between the people's of the world, and desires that no one, wherever they are in the world do not suffer from war and its massive traumas, which drive people apart. The military attacks by the Russian government are against our ideals of democracy, world peace, and mutual understanding: it is a serious insult to the fundamentals of human rights. That is why we have decided to not be silent about it.

TEJO, is in solidarity with the victims of all wars:with the dead and the wounded and every refugee. To all of our members, activists, partners and fellow Esperantists in Ukraine we send our support. We also acknowledge the suffering of Russians, who were reluctantly dragged into this war. We also support brave Russians who are courageously protesting the war and risk arrest.  As speakers of the language of peace we salute those fighters for peace. We urge our like-minded people around the world, and especially in Ukraine and Russia, to engage in mutual understanding and fraternal dialogue in order to foster peaceful relations between the people, despite the reprehensible action of the Russian government. 

TEJO calls for peace in Ukraine and throughout the world, so that people can live without the threat of violence, death, or oppression. We plead for the immediate withdrawal of the Russian military from Ukraine and for the respect of human rights.We call on all international bodies to strive to use diplomacy to end conflicts, provide rescue assistance to victims and build stable world peace.This should be based on respect for the human rights of all, including the linguistic rights of ethnic minorities.We appeal to every Esperantist all over the world: to uphold human rights, peace and understanding.

World Organisation of Esperantist Youth (TEJO)

To concretely support Esperantists affected by the war, you can donate to UEA's Konto Espero. TEJO is now actively involved in the European Youth Forum's (FoJE) transnational working group. The aim of the working group is to gather information between Ukraine and neighboring European countries in order to effectively provide the necessary resources. If you can help or wish to contribute to the activities of TEJO, contact the TEJO Office or the Commission on External Relations (KER).

 

Sed memoru, memoru, memoru, ke la sola rimedo, por atingi pacon, estas: forigi unu fojon por ĉiam la ĉefan kaŭzon de la militoj… la regadon de unuj gentoj super aliaj gentoj.

Remember, remember, remember, the only means of achieving a lasting peace: is to abolish the root cause of all war. The rule of one people over another. Zamenhof 1914

 

 https://www.tejo.org/deklaro-de-tejo-pri-solidareco-kun-ukrainio/

 

Samspirite, kiel organizo dediĉita al libereco kaj al respekto de homaj rajtoj, TEJO kondamnas la invadon de Ukrainio iniciatitan de la registaro de Rusio. TEJO strebas al solidareco kaj estimo inter la popoloj kaj pledas por ke homoj, kie ajn en la mondo, ne suferu militon kaj ĝiajn efikojn, kiuj dividas la homaron. La milita agado fare de la registaro de Rusio kontraŭas niajn idealojn pri demokratio, tutmonda paco kaj interkompreniĝo; ĝi estas danĝera malrespekto de la fundamentaj homaj rajtoj. Tial ni decidis ne silenti pri ĝi.

TEJO solidarecas kun ĉiuj viktimoj de militoj: kun mortigitoj kaj vunditoj kaj kun ĉiuj rifuĝintoj. Al ĉiuj niaj membroj, aktivuloj, partneroj kaj samideanoj en Ukrainio ni dissendas nian subtenon. Ni ankaŭ agnoskas la suferon de rusianoj, kiuj estis kontraŭvole enplektitaj en la militon. Ni solidarecas kun la kuraĝaj rusianoj, kiuj manifestacias kontraŭ ĝi riskante malliberiĝon. Ni salutas tiujn pacajn batalantojn kiel parolantoj de lingvo de paco. Ni petas al niaj samideanoj en la tuta mondo, kaj aparte en Ukrainio kaj Rusio, interkompreneme kaj gefrate dialogi por flegi pacajn rilatojn inter la homoj, malgraŭ la kondamninda ago de la registaro de Rusio.

TEJO alvokas por paco en Ukrainio kaj tra la mondo, por ke homoj povu vivi sen risko de perforto, morto aŭ subpremo. Ni pledas por la tuja retiriĝo de la militistaro de Rusio el Ukrainio kaj por la respekto de la homaj rajtoj. Ni alvokas al ĉiuj internaciaj instancoj strebi utiligi diplomation por ĉesigi konfliktojn, provizi savan helpon al la viktimoj kaj konstrui stabilan mondan pacon. Tio baziĝu sur la respekto de ĉies homaj rajtoj, inkluzive de lingvaj rajtoj de etnaj malplimultoj. Ni apelacias al ĉiu esperantisto tra la tuta mondo: subtenu la homajn rajtojn, pacon kaj interkompreniĝon.

Tutmonda Esperantista Junulara Organizo (TEJO)

la 27-an de Februaro 2022

Por konkrete subteni esperantistojn trafitajn de la milito, vi povas donaci al Konto Espero de UEA. Nun TEJO estas aktive enplektita en transnacia laborgrupo de la Forumo Junulara Eŭropa (FoJE). La laborgrupo celas kunigi informojn inter Ukrainio kaj eŭropuniaj najbaraj landoj por efike disponigi bezonatajn rimedojn. Se vi povas helpi aŭ deziras kontribui al la agado de TEJO, kontaktu la Oficejon de TEJO aŭ la Komisionon pri Eksteraj Rilatoj (KER).

 

Retired Belarusian Colonel calls on soldiers to defy criminal orders

 

 

 

Video link

 

Translation:

Full Translation:

Best of health my dear defenders of the motherland. Making this address to you is a Lieutenant Colonel of the reserves Sahashik Valerij Stepanovich.
I’m introducing myself because I’ve quit quite a long time ago. Some of the current airborne forces may not know me, although everyone must have heard about the Black Hawk trials. All the current bravery and mastery has originated from there, and also you must have heard about how the 38th airbourne Briansk brigade used to run 10km and at the end in full personal would swim in a lake all year round, well I’m exactly the guy that for 4 years in a row would run at the front of the brigade and would be the first to jump into the lake. I am the Black Hawk number 1.
All of the most important things in life all happen impromptu and unexpectedly. It’s impossible to prepare yourself to be a hero. In the life of every person a situation may suddenly arise in which he must act here and now, and either get written into the history books, or wait for a more appropriate moment. Although usually fate gives you a chance to do a real hero deed only once.
I had served in the airbourne forces for a quite a long time. More than 10 years only in the Briansk brigade, from Kombat to the Brigade commander. Those who have met me won’t let me lie to you, I was one of the most fanatically devoted officers to the forces and a patriot of my motherland, I’ve never know anything but military service. Materialism has always been foreign to me, I’m saying this to counter any attempts at claiming that I sold out for this speech. My biography has zero cases that would allow to have any suspicion that I can sell out, and in my age people don’t change.
Airbourne force were everything in my life. All years after I quit I continued to help my brigade. In front of my house there’s always been a flag *Not sure here, maybe Belarus flag* with the flag of the VDV (airbourne forces). And the reason why I took it off is a different story related to the events of the 2020, we won’t talk about that for now.
For now I’ve decided to record the first video in my life because my comrades, guys in the blue vests, same as I wore all my life are sitting in the forest on the Ukrainian border. And its looking like shortly they can be accomplices in some very bad actions which can have catastrophic consequences for our country, and fatally burry the glory and tradition of our forces, that were built up by many generations of Airbourne troops. It’s possible that a lot of them will not get back home alive.
Russian army, which has a huge combat experience is experiencing hell for 3 days straight The number of dead is counted in thousands, hundreds have been captured, the hospitals on the borders are filled with wounded, none of the missions of this operation have been accomplished, at the moment neither Kiev nor any other of the regional centers have been captured.
Russian army is quite run down, while Ukrainians who have endured the first most difficult days have successfully mobilized, organized themselves, polished of the logistics, got support of the whole world, moral as well as technical combat equipments, and most importantly saw, that the aggressor attacking them are just ordinary people, stoped being scared, felt the taste of victory.
This army won’t retreat and won’t surrender. Russians have become victims of their own propagandists that promised them, that the people of Ukraine will meet them with bread and salt, like liberators, but by now you know everything, although you’re prohibited from having smartphones, you’re still in your motherland, in contact with friends and relatives, you’ve had time to weight and analyze everything, do any of you have any doubt that your entry into Ukraine will be any better then the New Years offensive of Grozny of 1995.
Info wars is a scary thing. Propagandists in an agile way have learned to produce a bait and switch of values, learned to replace white with black and the opposite… I don’t want to get into politics, it has always been foreign to me, but to every thinking person, 3 things should be quite obvious. 1. Ukraine has never threatened Belarus and isn’t threatening it now 2. There are not Druggies or nationals in the Ukrainian government and if they were they were fairly elected in free democratic elections. 3. Belarusian forces have absolutely no right to enter the Ukraine, furthermore it is directly prohibited in the Belarusian constitution.
It’s not our war. You will not be defending your motherland, your home, your family. You won’t gain any glory in this conflict, only shame, humiliation, blood, death and the status of a hated outcast nation for centuries to come.
Brothers find a way not to take part in this dirty business. Father commanders, will you be able to live with the fact that you put down the boys for nothing, how will you look mothers into their eyes, that gave you their sons.
Separately, I’d like to address the people who have a lot of influence, to the war chiefs with big stars. For many of you I was a commander, a mentor, a friend. In my memory you are responsible, decent war commanders, who are able to quickly navigate in a difficult surroundings, smartly analyze the situation and calculate the consequences of different decision which are in front of you.
Guys, at the end of the day, those are your direct personal responsibilities. This is what the motherland has been nurturing you for, for so many years for. However hard you are pressured, be a real man and do a real manly thing, make the right decision, fill yourself with real civil courage, don’t send the boys to slaughter, sometimes the highest hero deed, is just to say no. And enter the history as a person who saved hundreds if not thousands of lives and relations with a brotherly nation. And even if you get fired believe me you will be heroes.
I salute you.

 

Update:

 *Spoken to some Belarusians, he is who he says he is and is a retired/reserve colonel, and was involved in the protests in 2020 in Brest. However, his role was to negotiate between the authorities and the protesters, and most of them accuse him of stalling and being an obstacle. He had close connections to Viktor Sheimin a powerful and ruthless key Lukashenko ally. Curiously, he fled the country soon after and hasn't been back since. So this video could be one of three things, he's had a genuine change of heart, he's convinced his old bosses are doomed and is trying to appeal to the opposition, or he still has contacts with some key Belarus officials and is using his platform to reflect opposition within it to being sucked into a bloody conflict.

Second Update:

Rainbow Revolutions - Review

 

Its Pride Month in my local Library, so out of curiosity I picked this off the stand and decided to see what material was being made for younger generations. I'm sure this book was published to target school libraries and young readers. The book is stuffed with beautiful and highly colourful two page pictures that introduce every section, and each section is itself set out in a two page summary of the key facts about the topic. And the section dedicated to discussing the impact of Section 28 mentions that had it still been in force that it would've been impossible for this book to have been published.

I'm not in the target audience for the book, and while some of the more well known sections left me feeling like some important bits were cut out I did still learn some things from it, and I found it to be an easy read, I started and finished it in one sitting.

I can say with confidence that this book is miles better than anything that was available to me on Queer history and identity when I was still a pupil. But then, that's not surprising, there was nothing like this in my school library because most of my early schooling was in the last years of Section 28. A fact that this book reminded me. Looking back this explains why we went from no talk or discussion about Queer issues until 2004-5 when we suddenly had special and clearly very rushed lessons in biology and sexual education about how some people are Gay, Intersex or Transsexual (the term used at the time) and that this was natural and wasn't something to be vilified.

I really like this book, Its making a strong attempt to be as inclusive as possible and acknowledges some of the failings of the older Queer rights and liberation movements, there are sections on issues affecting Trans people, Women, Ethnic minorities, bisexuals and so on. I was also pleased that while it was congratulatory over the recent legislative reforms won in some nations like same-sex marriage and discrimination protections, it always qualified them with reminders that phobia, discrimination violence and other challenges didn't disappear with them.

The Funeral of Peter Kropotkin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video link 

 

 Pyotr Kropotkin's funeral took place from 10th to 13th of February 1921, and it was documented by "Section of social chronicles of all-Russian cinema and photo publishing". English translation: ABC-Belarus

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpGu...

 

 

Work Pensions

 

This year, I've become a freelancer again, which means I get to go over my own finances. While looking through my financials, I decided to take a look at my work pension from my old job. This snippet jumped out to me. 

This policy was started in 2017, so it's about five years worth, but this figure is calculated on the assumption I'd stay on the plan until retirement age. This plan was set at the legal minimum requirement, so yes I could've paid more into it, but even the next level of contributions would've severely limited my take home pay that at that level was just covering my living costs, rent, bills, food etc. So it wasn't really a viable option, even a reduction of £20-30 every week would put me on shaky ground budgeting wise, and all for the promise of a minor increase in the year 2058. I was working for the national minimum wage an average of 42 hours per week, though it was not unusual for me to work more than that, and when I started at this job my hours were 60 per week with sometimes even more. The reason we were set to 42 was because me and another employee gave formal notice that we weren't prepared to do any more, and the company backed down. 

Work pensions were a controversial thing in 2017-18, but have largely fallen into the background since they were introduced. Personally, I think they're a terrible reform that should be scrapped. For workers on the lower salary ranges, they add another burden on take home pay, all for frankly nothing decades later, what will inflation look like in 2058? Will there even be a Pound currency or nation? I'd much rather have that £42 in my account now, so I can use it or actively save it, it wouldn't be remotely life changing, but it would be of use to me. Meanwhile, for higher incomes, they act as an extra incentive for loyalty to the company. I've seen several job listings that have a special workplace pension scheme that pays more than the government mandated system, and when I shared this information elsewhere, several labour aristocrat types showed up to condescend about how great their 401ks are and that I should pay more into my fund. So, it's worked on some people. 

Hell, I had one person give me details on how much their pension plan works, and he didn't seem to bat an eye that the employee pays more in percentage than the employer does, so even the matching part of the system has already been abandoned. Sadly, there are people out there who are so easily blinded by the promise of future money, they don't even care that the employers pay less than they do in a fund that was pushed on the message of "we're all in". If you pay 5% and your company only pays 4% (as in his example) they're ripping him off for an 1% and if he's already surrendered that 1% with good grace than he's already signalled that he can be ripped off provided it's handled appropriately.

Women as Sex Vendors; or Why Women are Conservative

 

 A marxists' confused attempt to argue that women are a petits-bourgeois class in society, both reactionary and privileged when compared to men.

The propertyless woman today is rarely reduced to starvation. If the price (or wages) offered for the sale of her laboring power are unsatisfactory, she may always supplement them through the barter or sale of her sex. That there are no women hoboes in the civilized world today is incontestable proof of the superiority of the economic status of woman over man.

The arguments are diverse and often contradictory, and there is absolutely no acknowledgement nor attempt to grapple with the contemporary women's movement, whose very existence rebuked most of his points. At the beginning of the book, the author mentions that there are few women revolutionists, so I suspect he was using this as an excuse not to engage with it. The Women's movement in particular the campaigns for suffrage and full civil rights were overwhelmingly reformist, but they involved a very diverse coalition of women from all backgrounds and political lineages, including revolutionaries like Sylvia Pankhurst. But even though for many political and social reforms were the end point of the movement it was an international movement that mobilised thousands of women to intervene socially and politically with an incredible diversity of tactics, from respectable petitioning to acts of terrorism, one Suffragette -Mary Leigh- threw an axe at the Prime Minister Asquith. 

 

And in response to this demand for reforms the suffrage movement was met with systematic violence, that included police beatings, arrests and torture by force-feeding hunger strikers.  

And he weakens any revolutionary purity grounds by comparing men to women and concluding that men are serious minded and talk and discuss things of importance like civil engineering. So I suspect this refusal to even acknowledge the existence of a mass and diverse movement of committed political reformers willing to make extreme sacrifices is less to do with purity and more to do with cowardice.

Also, largely ignored was the related movement by women to enter the workplace, thus giving up their beneficial sex commodity privileges in favour of the far inferior selling of labour that men must suffer through. I say largely because the author does grudgingly acknowledge women work but it's sparse and highly revealing. Apart from references to stereotypical jobs for women like stenographers there's a speculative passage on the First World War leading to massive social upheaval if it continues and forces more women into industry, and a criticism of women bringing down wages, which lays the blame not on the bosses or the weakness of the labour movement but on women themselves.

Women compete for jobs with men today, force down wages to a lower level and demand more from men before they will marry. And yet we see $25.00 a week stenographers giving up their positions to barter themselves, presumably for life, to $35.00 a week clerks or salesmen, rarely because of the mating instinct, but usually because of the personal triumph this means in the competition between members of the sex, and the social approbation which marriage brings.

Why compete for jobs and then ditch them as soon as they can attract a man with even a slightly higher salary? Selling labour power in this book is a negative, inferior way of survival in class society according to this book. This is not explained, the fact that women were increasingly pushing for access to work should be recognized as a major issue for the overall "biological and economic" argument, but instead it's just brushed aside because many of these women were still marrying. And where on earth is the evidence for why these relationships happen to come from? Either the author is thinking of one specific woman who earned $25.00 a week as a stenographer who married a clerk on $35.00 a week and told them it was for the "personal triumph this means in the competition between members of the sex, and the social approbation which marriage brings" or they're making assumptions.

Furthermore, several points can only stand up if you ignore or weren't aware of men in the sex industry. A key argument is that women are better off in the 1910s America because they can sell their sex in both marriage and prostitution, whereas men apparently could not. This is simply incorrect, men do in fact sell their sex commodities, both in sexual work and in courtship and marriage. Ultimately the approach being used in this book is the shotgun technic, the author lacks a killer argument to be the foundation, so it moves from one point to another but the relationship between them is rarely made clear and is only assumed, and  in numerous cases contradict one another.

One passage assures the reader that women are as capable as men at everything, and it's the economic system we live in that is to blame. But then a few pages later it advises only hiring male stenographers because they're smarter than women in that role. Another passage claims that listening to boys is always intellectually stimulating because they talk about serious topics like civil engineering, careers and politics, whereas girls only talk about boys and dresses. Another section relies heavily on Engels' Origins of the family to make its points for it. Most of the quotes concern the decline of maternal societies with the advent of industrial capitalism, one quote even refers to this as the "historic defeat of the female sex". But after that, the book makes the argument that women as a sex are superior to men because there are laws to protect women and in capitalist society laws are only made to protect the propertied, ergo women have more economic power. So Engels is correct that maternal society has been abolished and the key feature of this society was that women occupied privileged positions of power over men, turn the page and this non-maternal society we live in has as its key feature women occupying privileged positions of power over men. Unless Engels and the other historians named in that section were being brought up simply as an appeal to authority, this actually raises many questions over the orthodox marxist approach to stages of development.

The legal framework argument would also make the outlawing of child labour prove that it is the adult population who serve at the beck and call of the youth. Indeed, quite a few of the arguments in this book could be taken and altered slightly for "Why Children are Conservative".  

The book maintains a detached tone, arguing that the conclusions of the author are the result of economic and biological analysis and the attempt to get at the root of the issue. There are a few moments where this slips, usually when the author attempts to generalize from anecdotes or make absolute statements about things that have very obvious counter examples. But when the issue of divorce comes up, this falls away completely. The entire section is just a highly emotive tirade about how the courts and public opinion always sides with the woman and never the man.

If she be discreet, she may entertain lovers galore; she may refuse to perform any of the theoretical duties of the home; she may refuse to bear children or to surrender to her husband, without censure, and often without the knowledge of the world. If she be addicted to drunkenness, people will divine that her husband must have treated her brutally; if she be seen with other men, folks suspect that he neglects her.

If her husband seeks satisfaction for his desires elsewhere, she may divorce him and secure alimony; if he deserts her the law will return him to her side, if it can find him. If he fails to bring home the wherewithall to provide for her, she may have him sent to jail. If she discovers that he is getting the affection and the sex life which she has denied him, outside of his home, and if she buys a revolver and murders him in cold blood, the jury will exonerate her.

If a wife deserts her husband and her children, the law does not make her a criminal; for wife abandonment, the husband is held criminally liable.

No matter what the offense of the woman, custom and public opinion demand that every "decent" man permit his wife to accuse him on "just grounds" and to secure the divorce and call on the law to force him to pay her alimony for the rest of their natural lives.

No matter what the provocation, legally or sentimentally, no man can be exonerated for killing a woman. No matter how little the provocation, legally or sentimentally, any woman may kill almost any man, and the jury will render a verdict of Not Guilty. She has only to say that he "deceived her."

I looked it up, and it's not true, until the 1970s the easiest way to get a divorce was to move to Nevada because its requirements were less stringent, and you only had to live in the state for six months to qualify. Failing that, another Western state would do. These `divorce mill` states as they were called wouldn't have been needed if the tirade above were true. Until no-fault divorce was made legal in the US, you had to prove one spouse was at fault, if both were found at fault the divorce request was denied. During the period that this book was written, the majority of divorces were given to the wife 

During the whole period under study the over-
whelming majority of divorces were granted to the
wife, and this majority increased slightly through-
out the period. There is a definite territorial
pattern: The proportion of decrees granted to
women in the South, particularly the South Atlantic
Division, was always lower than in other areas.
During the early years of divorce statistics the
overwhelming majority of decrees in several
southern States were granted to husbands, but
this majority disappeared about the turn of the
century. On the other extreme, wives have ob-
tained about three-fourths of all decrees in the
West and, since 1916, in the North Central Region

 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_024.pdf

However, this still shows the dishonesty of the author's framing, husbands could obtain divorces if they wished and could prove the fault. 

To be perfectly honest, I suspect this pamphlet was authored as an attempt to promote a conservative conception of the socialist movement. During the war, the suffrage movement was making progress and women were entering the workforce in large numbers. It was only a matter of time before the number of women agitators and revolutionists increased significantly. Of course since it can't even acknowledge the existence of these currents its ability to head this off was doomed from the beginning.

The Public Domain Archive

I've launched another project to support the public domain. The Public Domain Archive

"Property is theft" -Pierre Joseph-Proudhoun

 Copyright, the mechanism for maintaining Intellectual property is a never ending series of headaches. It's an absurdity on the face of it, how can one claim ownership to concepts? When a story is copyrighted it's not the physical book that's owned but the idea and the specific way that idea is formed, produced and sold. By its nature, it limits art and expression and collaboration between people. Want to make a vampire story? Make sure it isn't similar to Bela Lugosi or Salem's Lot, otherwise that idea won't see the light of day, and you may even get a stern talking to by a law firm. 

Originally copyright was a movement championed by creatives, Victor Hugo was an early advocate of rights for creative workers like authors and painters,  "any work of art has two authors: the people who confusingly feel something, a creator who translates these feelings, and the people again who consecrate his vision of that feeling. When one of the authors dies, the rights should totally be granted back to the other, the people". And was a founding member of the Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale, an organization of artists which in 1886 became successfully created what became known as the Berne convention, which is today the most common backbone of copyright law on the planet.

But as time has moved on and the protection of rights for artists has proven to be incredibly lucrative for the industries they labour for, the concept has simple gone off the rails. Hugo was also a passionate defender of the public domain and while he did foresee some provision for artists heirs, he believed that it was possible to balance and complement the interests of the two.

Here's a longer quote:

Literary property is of general utility.

All the old monarchical laws denied and still deny literary property. For what purpose?  For the purpose of control. The writer-owner is a free writer. To take his property, is to take away his independence. One wishes that it were not so. [That is the danger in] the remarkable fallacy, which would be childish if it were not so perfidious,  “thought belongs to everyone, so it cannot be property, so literary property does not exist.”  What a strange confusion!  First, to confuse the ability to think, which is general, with the thought, which is individual; my thought is me.  Then, to confuse thought, an abstract thing, with the book, a material thing. The thought of the writer, as thought, evades the grasping hand.   It flies from soul to soul; it has this gift and this force — virum volitare per ora — that it is everywhere on the lips of men.  But the book is distinct from the thought; as a book, it is “seizable,” so much so that it is sometimes “seized.” [impounded, censored, pirated.] (Laughter.)

The book, a product of printing,  belongs to industry and is the foundation, in all its forms, of a large commercial enterprise. It is  bought and sold; it is a form of property, a value created, uncompensated, a form of riches added by the writer to the national wealth.   Indeed, all must agree, this is the most compelling form of property.

Despotic governments violate this property right; they confiscate the book, hoping thus to confiscate the writer. Hence the system of royal pensions. [Pensions for writers, in the place of author’s rights] Take away everything and give back a pittance! This is the attempt to dispossess and to subjugate the writer. One steals, and then one buys back a fragment of what one has stolen. It is a wasted effort, however. The writer always escapes. We became poor, he remains free. (Applause) Who could buy these great minds, Rabelais, Molière, Pascal? But the attempt is nonetheless made ​, and the result is dismal. Monarchic patronage sucks at the vital forces of the nation. Historians give Kings the title the “father of the nation” and “fathers of letters;….. the result? These two sinister facts: people without bread, Corneille [the great French author] without shoes. (Long applause).
Gentlemen, let us return to the basic principle: respect for property. Create a system of literary property, but at the same time, create the public domain! Let us go further. Let us expand the idea.  The law could give to all publishers the right to publish any book after the death of the author, the only requirement would be to pay the direct heirs a very low fee, which in no case would exceed five or ten percent of the net profit. This simple system, which combines the unquestionable property of the writer with the equally incontestable right of the public domain was suggested by the 1836 commission [on the rights of authors]; and you can find this solution, with all its details, in the minutes of the board, then published by the Ministry of the Interior.

The principle is twofold, do not forget. The book, as a book, belongs to the author, but as a thought, it  belongs – the word is not too extreme – to the human race. All intelligences, all minds, are eligible, all own it. If one of these two rights, the right of the writer and the right of the human mind, were to be sacrificed, it would certainly be the right of the writer, because the public interest is our only concern, and that must take precedence in anything that comes before us.  [Numerous sounds of approval.]But, as I just said, this sacrifice is not necessary.

  Sourced from the Public Domain.org

Currently, the Berne Convention stipulates that copyright terms should last for the lifetime of the author plus 50 years. Which to me is outrageous, but it gets worse, it includes provisions for member nations to extend that and many have taken that option including my own the United Kingdom, in many countries its life plus 70 years, and in Spain 80, Mexico 100 years! And the United States is a cluster of confusion since it joined the convention in 1978 and has slowly, I mean glacially slowly, been moving its system to co-operate with it. 

So, not quite the dream that Victor Hugo imagined. Though personally speaking even if copyright were made according to Hugo's wishes I still would have issue. While I agree, in a world of capitalism and governmental authority it's important to protect the rights of its working people's, something that copyright has been very bad at doing, but let's think hypothetically and assume there's a rights' system that can actually do this quite well, why should people who share some civil or blood relationship get special privileges? And why should someone expect and be entitled to control over their creations for life? The idea of the system seems to be built on a false premise that all works of what we call art are the works of singular individuals. Hugo's appeal above keeps making a distinction between the individual artist and the collective audience, but that's not always the case. 

Architects can copyright their designs, but it takes the labour of many to make those designs feasible, so how is it fair that only one person in the process gets to reap the rewards, shouldn't the engineering team that build a bridge be paid every time that bridge is used or a higher one time fee per person for usage rights? That seems ridiculous, but that is in effect what our society compels us to do with art, rent a film or pay extra to buy a way of watching as much as you want, pay for tickets to the cinema or a concert or get a CD, subscribe to a streaming service etc. 

If you read copyright statutes, it becomes obvious that they're quite archaic, the one creator system works quite well for authors and painters and sculptors, the older forms of creation, but film and radio projects and even comics throw that into chaos. The credits for films often take ten or more minutes to finish because they're acknowledgements of work put into the film that is shown in the final product. So does the life plus system kick in once they've all died a long time ago? No, there's been a compromise, in many countries like the UK motion pictures are handled in this way.

A motion picture passes out of copyright after the term of copyright has expired for the following

1. Director
2. Screenplay Author
3. Composer

 But why stop there? The reason is that it just wouldn't be manageable to protect the rights of every individual who contributed to it, just like it wouldn't be profitable to extend architectural rights to builders. At least with this compromise, big studios can negotiate with only a handful of persons. 

And I don't want to even think about how they can decide who gets the term applied to video game and software development. Though, I notice I haven't seen any legal provision for them made in any copyright statute I've read.

Personally, I think the United States of America had a better way for handling art ownership. This feels weird to write since the USA has for the past few decades been the main enemy of the public domain domestically and internationally. Their approach was to tie it to the work itself and not the artist, so copyright was based on year of publication, and limited the term of protection with just one option of renewal and then that was it. Before the 1978 reforms, works of art were protected for 28 years and could if the owner chose to renew for another 28 years, so 56 years in total. This doesn't solve any of the issues of special rights for only certain types of work, and it conflates owners with creators, which isn't always the case and is increasingly rare in the entertainment and academic industries, most published works involve the creative person or persons giving up their copyright to the corporate entity publishing them. 

But it did ensure a lot of material entered the public domain in a more timely manner. If this benevolence is confusing, a major factor in this approach was that most works stopped being profitable for their owners in the middle of their first term. So some did not bother to renew, and some who did use the option only did so on the outside chance that a second windfall would come their way. This is why you have this strange situation where works are still copyrighted in the rest of the world but not in the US, and tangentially why it works in reverse, stuff is still copyrighted in the US and only the US, like the last two Sherlock Holmes short stories authored by Conan Doyle and the title of the Casebook of Sherlock Holmes, which collected the last set. Between the 1970s and 1990s the US passed a lot of legislation relating to copyright and intellectual property, virtually every single one of these updates place more power on corporate owners, but one of the worst damages was a 20-year freeze on the public domain. 

That's another area of the archaic nature of the copyright system, since on the internet we live in a global market that is increasingly standardizing and becoming uniform, and yet we still have to abide by a confusing patch work of rules, laws and limitations, at both ends. I live in the United Kingdom and so have to abide by the laws and norms of that territory, however as a user of the internet the laws that apply depend on each particular site, where its owners live or are based for tax purposes, and where the site is registered. If you've ever opened a link on a website or youtube video and seen some message along the lines of 

Unfortunately this site contains content owned by ____ who has blocked it in your territory

or

Unfotunately we cannot show this contents to your region as we do not comply with regulations in your territory

This is why. It's simply unworkable, I've listened to librivox recordings of things that aren't public domain in my territory, and I've shared stuff that is but not in the US. I have neither the interest nor the means to police other people's property for them, that was why there was so much furore over ACTA, SOPA etc. Those legislative moves were designed to force websites to become police officers for content owners, effectively studios and publishing houses. 

We can't keep going like this, I love art and want to experiment and share it. This is why I've started this blog as a way to celebrate and raise awareness of the importance of the public domain, creative commons, copyleft et al, and the wider movement for a free society.