Druckschrift 
The internet revolution and Jewish law / edited by Walter Jacob
Seite
155
Einzelbild herunterladen

Intellectual Property in the Digital Age 155

all rabbinic authorities considered such a publication highly desirable, but also understood the cost and risks involved. The printers insisted that they needed protection and in Russia , where the Jewish community continued to govern itself, only rabbinic authorities could provide it. They guaranteed a fifteen year copyright for the Talmud (Edition of Slavuta 1817-22) and later for the Vilna and Horodno edition(Widow Romm 1832-1842) When the former began reprinting before the copyright of the second expired a major rabbinic controversy ensued.

Further Jewish developments in the area of copyrights ceased along with Jewish self-government. Emancipation placed this matter totally in the hands of the various European governments which considered rabbinic ordinances an infringement on the powers of the state.

Some rabbinic authorities, however, continued to analyze the issues. They interpreted the concern of previous rabbinic authorities for the publisher as entirely commercial and it should, therefore, follow the

extensive commercial Jewish law. They usually favored modifications which limited copyrights as their primary concern was the wide availability of books. Joseph Saul Nathanson (1810-1875) favored issuing an issur(prohibition) for Russia where the secular government had not seized jurisdiction, for a specified time to protect a first edition. After that republication without protection would assure broad distribution(Shoel Umeshiv Mahadura Kamma 1# 44). In this period Mordecai Banet( 1731-1829) refused to protect printers further as he felt that the community's interest lay in a wide, reasonably priced availability(Perashat Mordecai# 8) which competition would provide. Others like Hatam Sofer (1782-1869) followed the older path and would not permit republication before a copyright had expired, unless the initial edition was exhausted.(Yore Deah 326, also Hoshen Mishpat 657). He interpreted publication Without permission as stealing property which was prohibited by the injunction againstmoving the boundary of a field illegally.