Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#151

Post by pbhjpbhj » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #136

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a generally sensible proposal that would garner much public support. However, I would like to see moral rights retained for longer than 10 years - the right to prevent modification of the work, the right to be named as author, for example. Extending these to life+X years (but requiring free-gratis registration) seems fair to me as well.

The ability to create derivative works is one of the primary benefits of works entering the public domain, so no.

I think you misunderstood - you can make derivatives, you can't sell the work with your own modifications as if it were the original (you can sell your derivative though). Neither could you plagiarise works under such a system.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#152

Post by pythia__ » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #25

magicfractal wrote: post #6

That's barbaric. That's why civil disobedience is the only adequate answer to the current overreach of copyright in the united states. It's up to us, technologists, to create and disseminate tools to help out in the dismantlement of an absurd system that is obsolete in the digital age.

This logic is the reason why we have so many archaic laws surrounding the technology. Too often our community simply decides it is easier to ignore the law in question than trying to fight it and so we withdraw ourselves from the debate. It isn't our job as technologist to build tools to circumvent the law. It is our job as technologist to educate politicians and the greater population as a whole why these issues are…

>It isn't our job as technologist to build tools to circumvent the law.

Would you say the same thing to those building tools to circumvent the great firewall of China?

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#153

Post by mikeash » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #140

scotty79 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, they get threatened with loss of their seats. They get seats by spending money on campaigns. Public is easily manipulated by political marketing. The only thing that could put them out of there seats would be more money spent for a smear campaign against them. > It's a lot more gratifying to live in this conspiratorial world where a romanticized resistance against our corporate overlords is the only way, but it…

Let's play a game. It's called "NAME! YOUR! REPRESENTATIVES!!!!". We'll start with the easiest and work our way up (subjectively): 1) Who's the President? 2) Who's your Governor? 3) Who's your Mayor? 4) Who are your Senators? 5) Who's your Representative? 6) Who's your State Senator? 7) Who's your State Representative/Assembly member?* I ask these questions every time someone brings up their "The system is rigged, ma…

Only three of those people have influence over copyright law. And what does it matter if I know their names? Despite the propaganda, one vote doesn't make a difference.

I still vote, but I'm also pretty sure it's a waste of my time. It's one of those game theory things. If everyone got out to vote it would be good, but my individual contribution is unimportant.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#154

Post by mikeash » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

cmdkeen wrote: post #127

ddingus wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the National level, it does appear lots of money won't necessarily translate into a win. However, those who do win, unless they are named Sanders, will be bound by said money. On a local level, money does matter more, and it's effects are meaningful.

On a local level a huge number of candidates run unopposed. Even for Congress there were 31 unopposed candidates in 2014. Money isn't everything. Giving a damn matters too.

How many of those congressional races were unopposed because the potential opposition didn't have enough money to make a credible effort?

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#155

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #108

Lots of rage here against the US government, little rage against the Anne Frank Fonds that actually asserts the copyright. If you really feel so strongly then go and rail against the foundation who could transfer the book into the public domain with least a million times (literally) less difficulty than it would take to get US copyright law changed to have the same effect. http://www.annefrank.ch/qa-en.html

Attacking Fonds is striking at branches. Attacking the law is striking at roots.

Rootstriking is vastly more efficient.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#156

Post by hartator » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

This foundation - http://www.annefrank.ch/ owns the copyright. It's meant for charity, but I don't think they realizes they are doing more damage by holding the copyright than whatever good the foundation is doing.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#157

Post by azernik » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #153

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's play a game. It's called "NAME! YOUR! REPRESENTATIVES!!!!". We'll start with the easiest and work our way up (subjectively): 1) Who's the President? 2) Who's your Governor? 3) Who's your Mayor? 4) Who are your Senators? 5) Who's your Representative? 6) Who's your State Senator? 7) Who's your State Representative/Assembly member?* I ask these questions every time someone brings up their "The system is rigged, ma…

Only three of those people have influence over copyright law. And what does it matter if I know their names? Despite the propaganda, one vote doesn't make a difference. I still vote, but I'm also pretty sure it's a waste of my time. It's one of those game theory things. If everyone got out to vote it would be good, but my individual contribution is unimportant.

The point was that if you can't answer, many others can't either. And all of their votes can make a difference.

Even the people who turn out for Presidential elections (when their votes arguably make the least difference) usually don't know enough and their legislative representatives to make an informed decision, and tend not to show up for the off-year elections when it's only those offices up.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#158

Post by mixedCase » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #96

twoodfin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to look into how much money Jeb Bush's Super PAC has spent in the primary season so far, to very little effect.

At the National level, it does appear lots of money won't necessarily translate into a win. However, those who do win, unless they are named Sanders, will be bound by said money. On a local level, money does matter more, and it's effects are meaningful.

I bet it took a lot of hard work not to name Trump there.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#159

Post by bitwize » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

magicfractal wrote: post #6

That's barbaric. That's why civil disobedience is the only adequate answer to the current overreach of copyright in the united states. It's up to us, technologists, to create and disseminate tools to help out in the dismantlement of an absurd system that is obsolete in the digital age.

Hope you like federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. And the loathing and contempt of virtually all creative people everywhere.

See the thing about life+70 is that it has made a few people very rich, so cultural creatives are going to oppose not only attempts to roll back life+70, but also any attempt to roll back anticircumvention laws. They're hoping that they'll be the next to win the superstar lottery, and on the off chance that they do, they don't want their jackpot cut down from what previous superstars have netted. Never mind that vanishingly few people ever win this lottery, or that life+70 benefits publishers far more than it does performers.

In order for civil disobedience to actually work, there has to be popular support for the disobedience, so the cops and prosecutors don't feel like asshats for enforcing what looks to be an unjust and detested law. There just won't be that level of support for opposing copyright laws, not for at least your life + 70 years. So yeah, being sued or imprisoned is about the best you can hope for.

Re: Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

#160

Post by azernik » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

alanwatts wrote: post #134

azernik wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, they get threatened with loss of their seats. Which is accomplished by educating the population. It's a lot more gratifying to live in this conspiratorial world where a romanticized resistance against our corporate overlords is the only way, but it's not a useful mental model for actually succeeding at anything.

What is a useful mental model for succeeding?

Here's a plausible one.

Money doesn't override voters, but it can make decisions that the voters don't care about. How many voters care enough to check up on their Congressional representatives' views on copyright? And how many lobbyists do?

And this cynicism about the system only makes the problem worse. Why check up on votes on banking regulations if you think the donors are going to decide it anyway?