Coming Through the Rye Banned

Intellectual Property Law Obstructs Novel

60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye by Swedish author Fredrik Colting, has been banned from publication in the United States.

A recent ruling by a U.S. District Court judge claims it could harm J.D. Salinger, author of the original Catcher in The Rye. Libel is not specified; plagiarism is implied. But how can one say? The entire philosophy behind copyright law is undergoing a great deal of change with the advent of cyberspace. The issue is perennial in artistic circles, where debate seesaws between claims of originality and notions of intellectual property.

Intellectual Property Redefined Online

In cyberspace, the cutting and pasting of material (especially links) is an essential part of a democratic system of information management. Some material will always be unflattering or offensive to somebody. However, according to the tenets of negative liberalism, this is acceptable. Even if current free speech laws allow a certain measure of harm to occur to individuals, this is often preferable to the greater harms caused by government repression of speech. Besides, asT.S. Eliot argues, art never really improves anyway, it just gets re-contextualized. John Berger likewise notes that if you stick a photo of the Mona Lisa onto your corkboard, it instantly becomes, amidst all the other items, a collage of potentially new and improved art.

Copyright Protects Financial Incentive

If writers and other artists cannot protect their work then there is no money and no incentive for the creation of art. This would spell the end of culture. Certainly some measure of protection is required, but not nearly as much as many people claim.

Those with a vested interested in the arts, which includes far more people than the artists themselves, lobby hard to protect their intellectual capital. They defend vast monopolies in the media and entertainment industries, without which artists would perhaps be wealthier.

Big Brother Could Stifle Opinion, Creativity

Harsh penalties could be imposed upon those who breach intellectual property laws, but the power of the administrative mechanisms required to do so would eventually be turned against us. As Mark Steyn so frequently observes, the Canadian Human Rights Commissions have gone far beyond their mandate already, almost to the point of defending hate speech while prohibiting opinion articles that speak against abuses of the freedom of speech.

Surely a rehashed novel is not worth such a sensation. On the other hand, thankfully, the good old threshing machine of public debate is starting up again.