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

#181

Post by jdbernard » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #170

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…

If you're looking to strike a balance, there also needs to be a good-faith effort to make the work available to the public domain after the copyright term expires. For software, the original creative work (source code) should need to be escrowed. And the same for any work obfuscated with DRM.

I disagree. I do not think there should be an obligation for a creator to give away their work after the copyright expires. They just no longer get the benefit of having a legal mechanism to prevent others from copying/using it.

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

#182

Post by pakled_engineer » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 8:31 PM UTC

bobwaycott wrote: post #175

pakled_engineer wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 futi…

I've read the letters, Hitchens books on Orwell, listened to his lectures on Orwell, read Orwell's essays, and his books. The message is to me, that resistance is hopelessly futile once totalitarianism is firmly entrenched and the state has absolute power over humanity itself. That's why Winston is broken and loves Big Brother at the end of the book, because there was no other possible outcome.

It's a warning that if you don't stop it by recognizing it's rise through dictatorship over language, over emotions, and finally over thought it will be impossible to resist. Well, that is what I (and apparently Hitchens) see in his writing. I also see plenty of parody, especially towards Emmanual Goldstein and his book (Trotsky), purges blaming foreign conspiracy, and the illogical party slogans.

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

#183

Post by lloyd-christmas » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

azernik wrote: post #178

lloyd-christmas wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yep. It doesn't even need to be in depth. "Here's who I voted for and why" in a blog post is enough to give even the most basic of information about a candidate, as well as just remind people it's voting season.

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

#184

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 8:46 PM UTC

jdbernard wrote: post #181

mindslight wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're looking to strike a balance, there also needs to be a good-faith effort to make the work available to the public domain after the copyright term expires. For software, the original creative work (source code) should need to be escrowed. And the same for any work obfuscated with DRM.

I disagree. I do not think there should be an obligation for a creator to give away their work after the copyright expires. They just no longer get the benefit of having a legal mechanism to prevent others from copying/using it.

[deleted]

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

#185

Post by bobwaycott » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 8:50 PM UTC

pakled_engineer wrote: post #182

bobwaycott wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 futi…

I've read the letters, Hitchens books on Orwell, listened to his lectures on Orwell, read Orwell's essays, and his books. The message is to me, that resistance is hopelessly futile once totalitarianism is firmly entrenched and the state has absolute power over humanity itself. That's why Winston is broken and loves Big Brother at the end of the book, because there was no other possible outcome. It's a warning that if…

Well, now you've actually elaborated with enough description to qualify your statement that, again, we are not in disagreement. It's quite odd to me that your first statement carried the tone of disagreement, while this reply offers enough substantive explanation to indicate we agree. Substance is key. The appeals to Hitchens, however, do read as an unnecessary argument to authority. There's a clear distinction between stating resistance is futile generally, and arguing it is futile against a thorough totalitarianism that has gained control over humanity itself.

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

#186

Post by rwmj » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #179

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 royalti…

Why doesn't a pension serve as their pension?

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

#187

Post by mindslight » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 9:02 PM UTC

jdbernard wrote: post #181

mindslight wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're looking to strike a balance, there also needs to be a good-faith effort to make the work available to the public domain after the copyright term expires. For software, the original creative work (source code) should need to be escrowed. And the same for any work obfuscated with DRM.

I disagree. I do not think there should be an obligation for a creator to give away their work after the copyright expires. They just no longer get the benefit of having a legal mechanism to prevent others from copying/using it.

And what does the public get from granting you this temporary monopoly?

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

#188

Post by zackmorris » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

kijin wrote: post #58

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…

It doesn't even have to be a strict cutoff. The first 10 years might be free and automatic, but the Copyright Office could charge exponentially increasing fees for renewals afterward. For example, $1K for the next 10 years, then $10K, then $100K... This means that only works that remain truly profitable in the long term will stay copyrighted. If Disney wants to pay $10B to keep Mickey Mouse copyrighted, they are welc…

I think you are onto something, and the nice thing about this is that it provides a runway to move us to a basic income economy. Eventually (30, 50, 100 years from now) all property will be intellectual because anything will be 3D printable, biological agents will be synthesizable etc etc so this would allow everyone to benefit and still reward innovation.

Also, a flat tax favors the wealthy on a linear scale but is fairer on a logarithmic scale. So for example when income increases by 10 times, the corresponding tax rate could go up by 10% or something to that effect.

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

#189

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 9:24 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #186

jdietrich wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 royalti…

Why doesn't a pension serve as their pension?

[deleted]

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

#190

Post by vacri » Sat, Feb 13, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

sago wrote: post #145

vacri wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What they did" was strike a bargain to try and fix the voting system to make it more representative in future. The two major parties combined forces to campaign against more representative voting, because they were happy when it was just the two of them. The flip side of the bargain was that they'd vote alongside whichever party took them up. Because of that bargain, they didn't really get to vote in a representativ…

> they didn't get 'good representation' anyway They formed the government. Your original comment said they had 'little to no representation' - for a party with cabinet seets and the deputy prime minister, that's a bizarre claim. Feel free to nuance it and segue into a discussion of FPTP, sure. I'm a Green Party member, so I need no persuasion there. But if you're a LibDem, then telling yourself you imploded because o…

I'm Australian, so not a Lib Dem. But our last government was a minority government that was a major party in coalition with both a minor party and a couple of independents. Those independents got to have a slightly louder voice than their one seat would usually allow, but it's not like they were dictating general government policy simply because they held the balance of power.

> If they can't be trusted to stand for what they offered the electorate.

They were playing the long game. My guess is that they knew very well they'd be taking a body blow (since everyone was shocked by the coalition in the first place) but that in years to come, the system would be more representative.