Jan Philipp Reemtsma: I bought no writings of Adorno. Those Hamburg foundation for the promotion of science and culture, whose executive committee is I, possesses the deduction Adornos and the rights which are connected with it.

How did she come to the texts?

It was like that that in the eighties-years the money went out of the deduction Adornos, which was available for the care of the ill Mrs. Adorno to end. And the city Frankfurt was not in the position, the care of Mrs. Adorno, who had undertaken an attempted suicide after the death of its man to take over. The executor Adornos came to me, because I had financially supported the edition of the letters Walter Benjamins, and energized a contract between Mrs. Adorno and the foundation. Those took over the care costs of Mrs. Adorno, in response should the deduction from Adorno and Benjamin, which in addition-belonged, to the foundation go.

What became from the deduction?

I furnished the Adorno archives in Frankfurt. That submitted sixty publications since then at an expenditure of six million euro.

Why does one like you insist on copyright at the texts Adornos?

What is 'one like you'? I am the chairman of the foundation, she is not my private property and is subject to national control. I have to ensure that the rights of this foundation remain protected. And I do this, how it makes for each right owner - like also taz, which marks on their Website their texts by a copyright notice as protected, not least the article, about which we talk.

Now nothing would speak against it to popularize Adorno also by Internet further.

Popularization is an honourable request, but not at the price of the breach of law. The foundation is by the way also opposite to the publishing house committed, which it transferred the publication rights. That is the multiplication table of copyright. Now one can argue about whether it is good that there is such a right. I would make myself strong further for it.

There is a well remembered tradition of the pirated edition in left liberals circles...

... in 18. Century was justified. From this copyright developed - not least, in order to protect the rights of the authors. Someone can take naturally the view, it wants to a certain extent as Freibeuter - not the seas, but the illegal reproduction - on the other hand offend. Then he puts on itself with the legal rules and with the right owner. And then he does not have to be surprised, if he gets trouble, and then must he a controversy with lawyers and costs accept.

Isn't that hard? In the seventies Adorno of pirated editions en mass circulated.

That was by the way another situation. The "dialectic of the clearing-up" of Horkheimer/Adorno hardly did not give it long time in the trade and in libraries. There one could argue that one could not read differently the text. In the case of the Internetpiraten it concerned however writings, which are to be had everywhere. The "jargon of the actuallyness" and the "dialectic of the clearing-up", which belonged to the illegal Internet copies, give it for decades as paperbacks. Also everything else is to be had.

"Property is theft", was called it in former times - in this sense Adorno also all net users may be accessible. Similarly argue also many Internet user, which draw themselves free of charge music from the net.

For world-descriptive reasons? Hardly. One would like to have it cheaply. This need is understandable not to satisfy always legally. Thus or other one steals. One can naturally ennoble that with beautiful words, it changes however nothing. In the question of the music I do not know myself well out, but I would say that young people through-live different stages. If they created their first band and published the first record, they are first, which are indignant about Internetpiraten. The law feeling grows with the experience. The most important aspect thereby: Without copyright no publishing house to publish, no author of its work to live be able.

Being determines consciousness...

... to speak over again about books: There was the most spectacular case of a pirated edition end of the seventies-years. That was Arno Schmidts of "Zettels Dream". The publishing house had not suspected that the book would become times the cult object. And printed only 1,000 copies. It was madly expensive. The robbery printers said themselves: The edition is limited, to only few accessible, which have much money - the book should be socialized. And in addition one can earn to it. This pirated edition, which was then made, cost Arno Schmidt the second edition, because those had then been sold by pirat copy.

One hears that the second edition would have made possible to write him a new book.

Yes. He was now dependent to make again money with translations. The robbery printers, which did not want nevertheless to damage the author, as they said, offered him money. But he could not accept that, he would then have sold its book twice, i.e., he would have become contract fragile his publishing house opposite. The people did not think: Which I do with my action from me actually admired...

... those admired him?

Those thought, they would do a favour to him and he would have them to be grateful that them his works - as it meant nevertheless: "popularized". That met Schmidt much and up to its death employed, he felt as an act of the Piraterie.

Why does the copyright infringement release small displeasure, large however in your case the fact that it, Jan Philipp Reemtsma on which insists adherence to the legal rule?

Because many do not think about the sense of the observance of legal rules, which protect everyone, which writes, but, if my name falls, of money think. And there clear thinking stops usually. That has to do by the way nothing also on the left of or right, functioned the transverse patch.

Envy on one, for the money only a serving role plays?

If I concern the question very abstractly, then money pure possibility is many more fantasieanregender, than any concrete luxury property. In order to quote Schmidt: "pressed and dried liberty". It is a medium, which makes maximum associating and most out-curving fantasies possible.

Lottogewinnfantasien?

Also that. If a journalist asks me, why I spend money on an institute or on edition projects and not on a sailing boat, then he talks only about himself, about it, which he would make with much money. But that is his problem. Or it accuses someone to me that I do not spend money on karitative purposes, on patient, insolvent one etc...

And how do you answer?

Not at all. Who makes so a reproach, assumes there is not something, about which he does not know anything also. Or so: He imagines that he, if he had the money he either on to spend or if nevertheless, he would hang to the large bell. He could also assume it is natural that someone, which is wealthy helps also others.

You are author. Do you feel disfavor opposite one, which had to be never wage writers?

May be, also that would be completely understandable. The question is whether to the fact it must lead that one devalues, which the other one does. Into the case the understandable envy changes into a resentment.

Also as you were kidnapped, went around money. Did you feel in the reporting such resentment?

Occasionally. Taz for instance the words of the leader of the gang, which kidnapped me, have it "a De-luxe-Entfuehrung" concerned, then reports, as if it wants to follow this estimate.

Did that insult you?

It disgusted me at that time to hear this cynicism again. But whereupon it does not arrive primarily, it is not your task to write articles which like those, over which is written. But to inform correctly you should follow your obligation. The author of the article over the Internettextpiraten writes about, I want a museum to shortly open, so that people can see, what I at Benjamin writings possess in such a way. That is pure fantasy. Fact is the fact that the Benjamin deduction is transferred from Frankfurt to Berlin into the academy of the arts, because there are no comparably good archives conditions in Frankfurt and because evenly Benjamin also belongs to Berlin. The reader taz experiences only something over the fantasies of any journalist and regards it as the truth. My annoyance is not thereby the yardstick.

What annoys you then?

The degree of disinformation. The delirium, which fills the lines. That each nonsense is believed. I got some letters - and none meant, that cannot be nevertheless. Naturally, also different evaluations of things annoy me, but that is my private thing. About it to weight would be really larmoyant. The people remain nevertheless wunderlich. But whatever, one cannot step out of mankind.

This text was translated via Babelfish.