[ Main page ] [ HTML (one huge file) ] [ HTML (multiple files) ] [ PDF Format ] [ RTF format (.zip) ]

The Rape of Europe(Reasoned Introduction)
The execution agreement
The Laws recognize in the author's personality the source of the legitimate trusteeship, which is opposable against all: no participant can act against the author. This personal privilege has a civil origin, and it enters in force with the first public exhibition of the work. In order to understand this, let us consider the exhibited work like a contract between the author and his public: this contract states that any difference in interpretation of the work will have to be solved in accordance with the author's original version. In the light of the natural reason, we know that such a clause is inapplicable because of the otherness of the human languages. The contract with the public must be provided in various versions, as it is the case when the parts live in independent countries and do not share the same legal framework. In these cases, sworn in translations are used, which are considered legally equivalent in each country. But in the case of author's works, this solution also means that one finds oneself in impossibility of differentiating, de facto o de jure, the original version from which is not the original. To avoid this legal aporia, it is necessary to invoke the author, and to accept that the author can impede every parts' criterion, even in foreign countries, even in foreign languages. On the other hand, this imperative breaks the principle of the contractual equity of the parts or, more precisely, it denies the right of version. It is an expedient, designed to avoid major conflicts, but it cannot dissimulate either the insufficiency of the reasoning on the bottom, nor the arbitrary figure which is the result. The author is confronted with a dilemma: how to make use, with justice, of the civil privilege that Laws given to him? The author can choose to benefit from its position and, with the cry of: "-This is my work!», and call upon the protection of the laws to impose his personal criterion against the right of version of individuals, in whatever country, in whatever language. But he can as well use his civil prerogative, with an aim of making respect and, if necessary, of restoring the principle of contractual equality and the right of version of the participants.
The GLT meant already the choice of this second solution, since the recovery of the right of version implies the equality of the participants, and announces the possibility of an equitable agreement. Here, the Convention comes first of all by giving an expression to this author's convention, then by inviting the future participants to execute it in all the countries and all the languages. The equality found between participants implies for the author to renounce to the personal exercise of its trusteeship, and to be presented like a participant among others. But the renouncement is not sufficient by itself. It is also necessary to testify of a personal compromise, as the strength of this compromise is the guarantee of the author's personality commitment on his work. Under the terms of this compromise, the version together with the reputation of one participant is exhibited to the participants' approbation. The invitation made by the Convention to participants, so they expose their versions and reputation to the vote of other participants is definitively a call to restore the legitimacy of the demos, or raison, in reaction to the insufficiency and the exhaustion of the laws of author.
This is the proposition of the license of execution, which introduces the Convention. In this license, the author freely renounces to his prerogatives, and chooses to subordinate any personal exercise of his trusteeship to the rules and procedures contained in the work. Its renouncement leaves without effect the civil privileges that the laws granted to the author, against other participants. The author's version in first place, followed by the versions from any other participant, must remain publicly exhibited: not only because everybody can be part of this agreement, but also because each participant will testify of a personal compromise with the principles of the Convention. Consequently, the participants' judgment comes to legitimate the author's personal and unitary trusteeship, and to recognize the authors' authority over the work as a whole, and over each version in particular. The condition imposed by the license of execution is the same for all: reciprocity of the personal compromise, in virtue of which all the participants become mutually warrantors the agreement. What differentiates a participant who adheres personally to the Convention, from a simple recipient of the General license of translation, it is the possession of the Certificate of execution. This certificate, in conformity with the laws, gives a license to execute the work out of Internet. In practice, the certificate grants voting rights in decisions referring to the Convention exploitation. Consequently, if the personal commitment required by CITI fails, the GLT remains and it suspends clearly and indefinitely the exploitation of work in all countries. It is advisable to say that the will and the personal compromise of participants are the necessary conditions to exploit the Convention out of Internet, not only as a intellectual work, but also as a execution agreement. Once surmounted on Internet the conflict of interests between the personal trusteeship and the right of version, the license of execution opens the door to the exploitation of the Convention out of Internet.
In accordance with the license of execution, the general will of participants replaces the author's personal opinion. Any version of the work, as legitimated by vote, is considered, in all senses, an original version. The participant's name is published alone, as a personal guarantor of the work as a whole and as the legitimate holder of the exploitation rights in all countries and for all languages. In the vocabulary of the Convention, the holder of a referended version receives the name of Trustee of procedure. The fact that several Trustees perform such an acknowledged trusteeship does not call into question their legitimacy: the trusteeship remains unitary, because the work, the contained rules and procedures, are the same one. It remains personal, because the Trustees necessarily exert it according to their version and in their languages. Any language for which there is a recognized version of the Convention is brought up as Trustee Language. The executory force of a decision adopted in a Trustee Language is the same for all the Trustee languages. The trusteeship recovers its first meaning, namely: the capacity to interpret the rules and procedures of the Convention.

Internet© 1999-2005 Unofficial Version -
GLT-EN version 1.5 (
In3ActivA® is an author's mark subjected to the provisions of the Convention.