So The Economist decided not to distribute after all. There was no ban and no decision by Thai distributors not to handle what is now last week's edition. The situation would undoubtedly have been different if they had not taken that decision, but does anyone else find that a strange decision bearing in mind the article's condemnation of Thailand's Less Majeste laws?
My understanding from colleagues in the publishing world is that the publishers of The Economist are looking at whether there have been any breeches of its copyright in the Thai language translations that have appeared across the Internet. The Berne Convention states the owner and creator of any work has the exclusive rights to adapt that work, and a translation is considered an adaptation.
If that original work is deemed not to be protected by copyright, and subsequent translations deemed to be copyright infringements, anyone could translate anything from English into Thai (and vice versa) for commercial gain without paying syndication or licensing fees.
It would be difficult, in our wired world, to impose an intellectual boycott on a country, but I think that is what is called for.
ReplyDelete