Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law

blog.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 203 posts

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

#171

Post by pakled_engineer »

bobwaycott wrote: post #86
webkike wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact of the matter is we've always lived in a 50/50 conspiracy world. Sure, its never as bad as the worst extreme we can think of, but its always half as bad. Not even Stalin's dictatorship, which is what 1984 is based on, was as bad as 1984.

1984 was not based on Stalin's dictatorship. There seems to be a common misconception among too many people who've heard this parroted, erroneously assuming that because Orwell was strongly wary of, and frequently wrote about, totalitarianism , this must mean he was writing about Stalin specifically. He was not. In fact, 1984 was written just as much about the UK and USA as it was totalitarian fascism and Stalinism.…

1984 is definitely influenced from the state propaganda Orwell saw coming out the Soviet Union such as the book character Emmanuel Goldstein who is quite obviously Trotsky, and the state rewriting history by editing Goldstein out of party photographs is Trotsky again, the idea of loving a leader and hating the party, many more parallels.

It's written as a warning of how futile it will be to resist totalitarianism in a future advanced technological state

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

#172

Post by cookiecaper »

alanwatts wrote: post #137
cookiecaper wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. This is overly simplistic. If it were exclusively about cash resources, the most cash-rich candidates would win every time. We know that doesn't happen. Yes, money does play an important role (because it…

>If it were exclusively about cash resources, the most cash-rich candidates would win every time. Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the past 3 presidential elections been won by the candidate with the biggest cash flow? And yes, of course it is not the only factor as you noted, media coverage is crucial and information via the internet is rapidly becoming a more important factor. But the problem is: the same people…

>Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the past 3 presidential elections been won by the candidate with the biggest cash flow?

First, correlation is not causation. Second, this chart [0] shows Romney and Obama were neck-and-neck as far as dollars raised, and that Romney actually had spent slightly more than Obama. This chart says it covers through September 2012, so maybe Obama did end up spending a bit more (or maybe he didn't), but the difference in spending is very small.

When you ask why Romney lost in 2012, there are a couple answers that get cited. First, Romney's leaked "47% comment" was disastrous for him. Second, Obama's team used technology much more effectively to get out the vote. Apparently there was a group working on software on Romney's side, but it wasn't managed correctly and the software was not usable by election day.

[0] http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

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

#173

Post by work-on-828 »

oconnor663 wrote: post #56
Houshalter wrote: post #49

Please read this: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2016/pre-1976 And also look at the graphic on this page: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-mi... Copyright serves a legitimate purpose. I doubt there would be many big budget games or movies produced without some degree of protection. The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to produce creative works. But it also needs…

> I doubt there would be many big budget games or movies produced without some degree of protection. I get where you're coming from, but I worry there's a ton of status quo bias in that doubt. Of all the bajillion ways to incentivize creativity, either with or without laws, how sure can we be that this is the best one?

We should have a status quo bias when considering tearing down a certain fence, lest we be gored by Chesterton's bull.

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

#174

Post by work-on-828 »

the_ancient wrote: post #101
Houshalter wrote: post #49

Please read this: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2016/pre-1976 And also look at the graphic on this page: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-mi... Copyright serves a legitimate purpose. I doubt there would be many big budget games or movies produced without some degree of protection. The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to produce creative works. But it also needs…

>> The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to produce creative works False, the purpose, and only reason for copy right is to promote the useful sciences, all other reasons are UnConstitutional (from a US Stand point anyway) The Surprising History of Copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI http://questioncopyright.org/learn

The full text of the clause is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

"Creative works" is as reasonable shorthand for "useful arts and sciences" as "privacy" is for "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

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

#175

Post by bobwaycott »

pakled_engineer wrote: post #171
bobwaycott wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1984 was not based on Stalin's dictatorship. There seems to be a common misconception among too many people who've heard this parroted, erroneously assuming that because Orwell was strongly wary of, and frequently wrote about, totalitarianism , this must mean he was writing about Stalin specifically. He was not. In fact, 1984 was written just as much about the UK and USA as it was totalitarian fascism and Stalinism.…

1984 is definitely influenced from the state propaganda Orwell saw coming out the Soviet Union such as the book character Emmanuel Goldstein who is quite obviously Trotsky, and the state rewriting history by editing Goldstein out of party photographs is Trotsky again, the idea of loving a leader and hating the party, many more parallels. It's written as a warning of how futile it will be to resist totalitarianism in…

To your first paragraph, we are not in disagreement. Parallels and influences found in particular plot points is not the same thing as the GP's statement that 1984 was based on Stalin. It was not. Read Orwell's letters.

> It's written as a warning of how futile it will be to resist totalitarianism in a future advanced technological state.

You fundamentally misunderstand 1984 and Orwell himself. The notion of the futility of resisting totalitarianism never would have been uttered or thought by Orwell. He absolutely and tirelessly championed resisting totalitarianism. He wrote a great many words on the subject. He never warned anyone of the futility of resistance in his prior works, and he certainly didn't push himself to death to deliver 1984 as such a warning. There is a vast difference between you, the reader, determining that Winston's resistance is futile—particularly in the hindsight of O'Brien's exposé at the end—and suggesting that Orwell was warning the reader that resistance is futile.

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

#176

Post by facetube »

work-on-828 wrote: post #173
oconnor663 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt there would be many big budget games or movies produced without some degree of protection. I get where you're coming from, but I worry there's a ton of status quo bias in that doubt. Of all the bajillion ways to incentivize creativity, either with or without laws, how sure can we be that this is the best one?

We should have a status quo bias when considering tearing down a certain fence, lest we be gored by Chesterton's bull.

I think we have a pretty good understanding of why this particular fence keeps growing taller and taller.

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

#177

Post by solidangle »

JohnIcare wrote: post #60

Is there other story like the Anne Franck one? Why not boycot the museum in Amsterdam, the books and speak of others stories? That's cynical? Not more than the Anne Franck copyright's holders...

You are mistaking the Anne Frank Foundation (Dutch: Anne Frank Stichting), which maintains the Anne Frank House and monitors racism (specifically anti-semitism) in the Netherlands, with the Swiss Anne Frank Fonds, which holds the copyright to her diary. It is currently under discussion whether or not the Anne Frank Fonds actually holds the copyright, as it has been more than 70 years since the death of Anne Frank copyright should have expired, but the Anne Frank Fonds claims that Otto Frank (Anne's father) was a co-author of the book.

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

#178

Post by azernik »

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #168
rms_returns wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because I did nothing to put them there But you have the power to vote and that is the power which puts them there eventually, directly or indirectly. Even if you did nothing, your power to vote DOES influence that entire chain of people. So, next time you decide to vote for your local politician, do a thorough research about him/her and make sure you are choosing the right candidate, for your decision affects othe…

> do a thorough research about him/her Take it a step further and publish that research.

There are already people to do this - League of Women Voters and their voter guide, for example. But another voter guide specifically aimed at illuminating issues not covered by other guides is always a worthy endeavor.

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

#179

Post by jdietrich »

Houshalter wrote: post #49

Please read this: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2016/pre-1976 And also look at the graphic on this page: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-mi... Copyright serves a legitimate purpose. I doubt there would be many big budget games or movies produced without some degree of protection. The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to produce creative works. But it also needs…

I agree that copyright should be shorter in duration, but I think some of your suggestions would be disproportionately harmful to independent artists.

Many songwriters rely on their back catalogue - a hit song serves as a pension, earning a steady trickle of royalties from radio play and sync usage. I don't see it as morally reasonable that, for example, a decade-old song could be used in a commercial without royalties being paid.

Requirements to register and renew would be trivial for large corporate rightsholders, but could be a substantial burden for independent artists, particularly at the beginning of their career.

The current situation of indefinite renewal serves nobody but the big publishers, but I think that a copyright term of approximately the life of the creator makes a great deal of sense. I'd be open to the idea of a shorter duration for works that have been assigned to a corporation. I'd also be open to the idea of a clearinghouse for orphan works, to ensure that orphan works can be used without unfairly disadvantaging artists.

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

#180

Post by mikeash »

azernik wrote: post #157
mikeash wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought the point was that we're supposed to know the names of all these people and that this somehow helps.
Post reply on HN