Feminist Classic Censored By Copyright Laws
Ampersand at Alas, A Blog has a great post up (which references this NYT piece) entitled "Feminist Classic Censored By Copyright Laws." The astute observer will note that I have copied his title! Short words and phrases, such as titles, are generally not considered copyrightable. Now I'm about to engage in fair use to excerpt the post:
"Chances are, if you're an American feminist, you've never read Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. Even if you're a highly educated feminist who takes pride in having read at least a sample of all the important first- and second-wave feminists, you probably haven't read her. Neither have I, even though I thought I had (it was assigned reading back when I was a Women's Studies student).
"You see, the real Simone de Beauvoir isn't available in English - only in the original French. The English version I and many other English-reading feminists have read, is translated so badly that at times it says the exact opposite of what de Beauvoir intended. ....
"In addition, about 150 pages of The Second Sex is cut out of the English language edition.
"There are qualified translators who'd love to take on the project; there are publishers, such as Harvard University Press, eager to publish a better-translated, complete Second Sex.
"But the publishing house Knopf has the exclusive English-language rights locked up until The Second Sex goes into the public domain - in 2056. Knopf refuses to do an updated transation themselves, and they refuse to allow anyone else to publish one, either." ....
Aspazia at Mad Melancholic Feminsta endorses Amp's sentiments and adds:
...."While Ampersand demonstrates how much this violates principles of the free market, I want to add that it is a clear sign of the continued and pervasive sexism in our society. This is an important and landmark piece of intellectual writing, that should appeal to more than just feminists. From the get go, the translation process was botched. What Ampersand doesn't include is that the French version is full of a dozen errors as well (see this article). No publisher has handled this book with the care and rigor that we would extend to a famous male thinker.
"When I teach this work to students, I always situate it in the context in which it was written, the philosophical influences (particularly phenomenology), and make reference to the French. It is a lot of labor for an undergraduate class, but the translation fails to seriously capture de Beauvoir's real argument. It also fails to consider how the Second Sex is Philosophy.
"I recommend checking out Nancy Bauer's excellent book on de Beauvoir, Philosophy and Feminism, for more on the philosophical importance of the Second Sex."
This is an example of the intersection of copyright law and feminism, and not a very happy one. The idea that I'm either going to have to stay alive until 2056, or become fluent in French, to read the Second Sex as Beauvoir intended it to be read, is very depressing. There may be underground unauthorized translations out there, and the Internet would be a perfect distribution tool for them, but how many scholars capable of doing or recognizing better English language versions want to risk civil or even criminal liability to make them accessible? Cases like BMG Music v. Gonzalez suggest even downloading an unauthorized version of a book could lead to serious legal consequences. Once again copyright law is preventing rather than incentivizing the creation and distribution of important ideas and expression.
Update: Many interesting comments at Alas, A Blog. Here is the slightly edited text of my contribution to the discussion:
When the government brings the force of law to bear to prevent a person from using particular words or images to communicate, and/or to prevent her from distributing or reading certain words, to some of us that seems a lot like censorship. Copyright laws are a restraint on speech, but one that is tolerated by the First Amendment because the copyright system is supposed to incentivize the creation and distribution of useful, creative works. That's not what is happening here.
The copyright laws contain provisions for the compulsory licensing of musical compositions. If a musician wants to "cover" an existing tune, the composer of the song cannot prevent this, but is entitled to a reasonable royalty (caveat: I am oversimplifying the law a bit here - the copyright owner does get to control the first commercial exploition). In my view, the same sorts of rules should apply to translations, but they don't, for political reasons rather than "moral" ones. Unless organized, monied interests desire this change, however, it is unlikely to occur.
Like most authors, Simone de Beauvoir probably had to capitulate to every demand made by her publisher just to see her book in print. Copyright laws could be re-written to at least slightly improve the balance of power between authors and publishers, but don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.