If the translator was an anarchist (which in all likelihood is the case, since why would a non-anarchist want to spread anarchist propaganda), then I doubt he really cared about copyrights. Propagandists in general want the exact opposite of copyrights - they want you to spread their ideas around as much as possible, instead of limiting it. It is only those who are opposed to the propagandist that want to limit the spread of his / her ideas.
- The translator might well be a scholar wanting to encourage the spread of ideas and understand of positions we don't necessarily agree with. Even propagandists frequently do want to limit bad translations and editions edited to change the thrust of the argument; both by anarchists with a different perception of the situation, and by people who want to put words in the author's mouth.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- If some scholar just wants to encourage the spread of ideas in general, then he wouldn't care about his copyright either - he too would want this translations to be spread instead of limited. If a person is deliberately trying to misrepresent the original work, he too wouldn't care about his copyright either, since he too wants to spread the misinterpreted work.
- Or a scholar could be selling translations as a way of putting bread on the table, or writing them for publishers that demand the copyright as a condition of printing, or translating for a corporation or group that wants to know what these documents say, but doesn't want to propagate their values. That whoever translated it doesn't care about their copyright is simply not something we can just assume.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)