US Copyright Law Forces Wikimedia To Remove the Diary of Anne Frank (wikimedia.org) 178
Today, the Wikimedia Foundation announced its removal of The Diary of Anne Frank from Wikisource, a digital library of free texts. According to the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act, works are protected for 95 years from the date of publication, meaning Wikimedia is not allowed to host a copy of the book before 2042. Rogers, the Legal Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, says this is just one of the many examples of the overreach of the United States' current copyright law. He goes on to say, "Our removal serves as an excellent example of why the law should be changed to prevent repeated extensions of copyright terms."
Promotion of the useful arts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't make sense. Name any other fields other than books, music and movies that you can create one work and potentially not have to work again the rest of your life and the same for your kids and grandkids and possibly even great grandkids because checks keep rolling in from your ancient creation.
Re:Promotion of the useful arts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, I haven't slept in two days.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I haven't slept for a week. Because that would be too long to sleep for.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.
It is commonly known that robots/AI/ speech recognition have a hard time with sarcasm - recognizing it, that is. So we are OK here.
Re:Promotion of the useful arts (Score:4, Interesting)
Chemistry [wikipedia.org], software engineering [therichest.com], and whatever led to these things [wikipedia.org].
Pretty much, every field has the ability to create multimillionaire success stories, given the right combination of luck, inspiration, and hard work. Of course, it's more difficult to copy the chemistry of dynamite than it is to copy a written work, which is why we still know of Alfred Nobel's work, but very few know about Arthur Brooke [wikipedia.org], whose most famous work (if it was even his) predates the first copyright law.
Re:Promotion of the useful arts (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem seems to be that it's not really the artists pushing this, but the media empires that pushes the notion of perpetual, rent-seeking copyrights to shield business models.
The artist gets trotted out as phony victim of limits on copyright, like a marionette, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them and let the media empires keep finding ways to control all intellectual property forever.
In terms of performing artists, I think there's also a sense that they're being overcompensated for recordings -- basically a single performance. Historically, performers haven't made fortunes off narrow control of copyrighted material, they've been paid for performing. You strummed your lute at the Ye Olde Pub and collected some farthings. If you were lucky, you played for the court and got some gold coins.
Whether this is a fair concept or not, it's kind of how performers have been rewarded financially for most of history. Material inventions like dynamite seem to be different than creative performances.
Re:Promotion of the useful arts (Score:5, Interesting)
Right at the beginning of modern copyright, beginning of the 18th century, the publishers started on this thing about "for the artist" and even then they paid a tuppence for unlimited rights while going on about the starving artist.
It was actually the unelected House of Lords that put their foot down, overrode the elected (bribed) House of Commons who were going to make copyright eternal and limited copyright to 14+14 years for the advancement of learning.
When the first works fell out of copyright they went to the courts claiming copyright was a common law right. Luckily they lost that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Let our Pluto go!
Let our Pluto go in an elliptical orbit, just like a real planet.
Re: (Score:2)
If you invent dynamite, you'll get 20 years of protection. If you write a book about dynamite, you get protection for the age of Mickey Mouse plus 1 year.
Re: (Score:2)
Writing land deeds to remove land from the commons into private ownership is very profitable and can generate income indefinitely. You do have to do some maintenance though.
What do you think of the show so far? (Score:3)
Possibly not, but it wouldn't stop Ernie Wise.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of copyright is to make artists confident that they or their immediate heirs
Wrong, Copyright has always been about corporations.
Your living in a fantasy land.... how much do heirs of artists benefit financially from copyright, and how does that compare to the benefits that go to corporation ?
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: they were being sarcastic. They were not meaning their words literally. It is a form of humour. The the fact that you responded without sarcasm now makes it funnier.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that if Anne Frank knew...
Read it again;
If it was sarcasm, they wouldn't have used the "if".
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, back when modern copyright came to be, the publishers weren't incorporated, more of an exclusive guild, but they knew a good thing, buy the rights to a work for next to nothing and profit forever.
Re: (Score:3)
On a less sarcastic note, I think that perpetual copyright can be a very good thing. Start with "free" copyright for 15 or 20 years, but then, if a work is profitable at that time, charge a nominal fee to extend the copyright for another 5 years - so, if something were written and copyrighted in 1995, it would be protected to say 2015, and if you're still making money on it - register an extension on the copyright, for a fee. You're making money on the work, obviously it's worth it. For works that aren't
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of like that idea, but would modify it.
Copyright is for 5 years and is infinitely renewable. Each issuance or renewal of the copyright costs 2^n * $1 where n is the number of renewals. (I.e., the initial issue costs $1, the first renewal $2, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers work nicely starting at 1, but I see no reason to have people process the paperwork (even when no actual paper is involved) until a significant sum is changing hands. Similar logic for 5 year extensions instead of 1 year extensions.
Inherited Work (Score:5, Insightful)
This makes complete sense. The point of copyright is to make artists confident that they or their immediate heirs will be able to benefit from their works for a limited time.
This does not make any sense at all. Why should the heirs of the artist be allowed to benefit from the artist's work? No other job provides benefits for heirs after the death of the worker unless that worker has saved some of their income and put it into a suitable savings vehicle.
Artists should be recompensed under the same set of ideals. Copyright should be a fixed length regardless of the life of the author. This should be long enough that the creator will gain adequate recompense for the work but the current system is ridicuous. Why should a work created by an artist who dies immediately after creating it earn less than a similar work created by an artist who lives for 50 years after creating it?
With fixed term copyright if the artist dies before the copyright expiration then, and only then, should the heirs inherit the copyright for the remaining term. If the copyright expires before the creator then either they can create more works or they can live off their savings. This is what everyone else has to do so why can't artists work under the same system?
Excellent point (Score:1)
Because companies have abused copyright law for corporate monopoly and "artists" have got along for a free ride.
The reason Pressler and the greedy shits at the Anne Frank Foundation are bleeding this for all its worth is because that foundation generates cash and if you look closely you may find that 'charitable foundation' cr
Re: (Score:2)
Engineers don't collect royalties on bridges in the first place, unless they have some insane contract. They don't own the bridge, they designed it under contract for people with lots of money (who do own it). The children of the people who own the bridge can, in fact, keep collecting money. The Rockefeller family is still tremendously wealthy.
Copyrights are legally property, the same as sports cars or collectible stamps or gold bricks or bridges. If the parent dies, he can leave the copyright to his ch
Re: (Score:2)
A copyright is just that, it grants YOU the right to make copies. YOU can delegate that to someone else. Certainly once YOU die, your right to makes copies should die as well. There should be a limit, say 20 years for a copyright. After that, it's public domain.
I agree with the proponents, why should we grant some liberal arts people special privilege? Why are they any better than anyone else? What they did is work. In your analogy, the copy they made for example the first hardback edition is the same as th
Re: (Score:2)
This does not make any sense at all. Why should the heirs of the artist be allowed to benefit from the artist's work? No other job provides benefits for heirs after the death of the worker unless that worker has saved some of their income and put it into a suitable savings vehicle.
This is much too narrow a view.
My father's farm has been in the family for two hundred years. No one has ever questioned a son's right to benefit from his inheritance --- that has always been the whole purpose of the thing. Why should the inheritance of intangible property be treated any differently?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should the inheritance of intangible property be treated any differently?
Because it is not property. It is merely a contract between the society and the artist.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong Comparison (Score:2)
Why should the inheritance of intangible property be treated any differently?
You are making the wrong comparison. Intangible "property" is not property in the real world in which we live, it is simply an artificial legal construct which society created so that artists can make money from their work. If we started thinking about it as a way to reward for work instead of as property we would have a far better system.
Hogwash because of time value of money (Score:2)
This makes complete sense. The point of copyright is to make artists confident that they or their immediate heirs will be able to benefit from their works for a limited time. I'm sure that if Anne Frank knew that almost a century after her diary was written it would be available on a global network of electronic devices that hadn't been invented in her lifetime she would not have wrote the diary at all. I'm also sure that if her father had known that he would have definitely refused to publish it.
The 95-year copyright term is a joke. You say, "The point of copyright is to make artists confident that they or their immediate heirs will be able to benefit from their works for a limited time..." That's not correct. The point of copyright is to encourage creation by giving artists the ability to earn a return on their investment of time, effort, and sometimes money.
But the time value of money means that almost all of the value of a work will occur within the first twenty to thirty years.
Re: (Score:2)
There are exceptions. I think Tolkien was one. But you are generally correct. However extended copyrights allow for derivative works to have considerably broader protection than if the copyright were not extended. Consider any series of books by an author...especially those by "house names", e.g. the Tom Swift series. They've now faded into irrelevance, but the "house name" that wrote the series was allowed to keep the entire cast of characters and environment under copyright for considerably over 20 y
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least we in the USA can still read Mein Kampf.
Why doesn't wikimedia foundation move (Score:2)
and register itself as a non-profit organization in, oh I don't know, the Bahamas, or Liberia, or somewhere other than big-brotherland where it currently lives.
1976 Copyright Act (Score:5, Informative)
But Anne Frank's Diary was published in 1947. Extending that copyright beyond the term in effect at the time it was published is a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto [wikipedia.org] laws.
But then, IANAL and the Supreme Court would probably be overruled by Mickey Mouse anyway.
Re:1976 Copyright Act (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1976 Copyright Act (Score:5, Informative)
I think on the timeline of: A - Copyrighted, B - Copyright expired, C - Copyright extended by new law, violations of copyright between B and C are protected by ex post facto considerations, but copyright violations after time C are in violation of the law passed at that time, and therefore no longer ex post facto.
Re:1976 Copyright Act (Score:4, Insightful)
It's long been held that "ex post facto" only considers what the law is at the time the government claims you broke it. That's how the government tends to ban things, by outlawing "possession" rather than sale or creation. If you bought something legally that the government then bans, if you are possessing it then you're breaking the possession law right now, and ex post facto does not apply.
Therefore if you make a copy right now of some item whose copyright term was extended, you're breaking the current law right now.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, we can't have any of Disney's movies enter into the public domain!
Forget Mickey Mouse. (Score:2)
Well speaking of Mickey Mouse...
Forget Mickey Mouse.
The expiration of the copyright on Steamboat Willie gives you the right to produce derivatives based on Steamboat Willie and only Steamboat Willie. Eight minutes of silent-era sight gags with a synchronized sound track and a thin narrative thread. Walt Disney Animation Studios' Steamboat Willie [youtube.com]
The character designs --- which is what the geek really wants --- are trademarked, and without them you do not have the Mouse in any recognizable form.
Mickey Mouse appears as a character in over
Re: (Score:2)
Changing something that hasn't happened yet isn't prohibited.
If a work entered public domain, and someone published it as such, then a copyright extension put it back under protection, the public-domain publisher could not be sued for infringement during the time that the work was in the public domain. If they keep publishing it once it was protected again, that'd be a separate offense.
Re: (Score:2)
Your Wikipedia article says in so many words that the ex post facto prohibition only applies to criminal cases:
Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Calder v. Bull (1798) (Score:2)
But Anne Frank's Diary was published in 1947. Extending that copyright beyond the term in effect at the time it was published is a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws.
The geek remains ignorant of the most fundamental distinctions between civil and criminal law.
Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters...
Ex post facto law [cornell.edu]
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.
First that the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution only applies to criminal acts, and then only if the law does one of four things: ''1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.'' The decision restates this later as laws ''hat create, or aggregate, the crime; or encrease(sic) the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction.''
Calfer v. Bull [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright lobby is pushing very hard to get criminal law to do their dirty work and the taxpayers to pay for it so that's not unusual. Those stupid advertisements about copyright violation have been deliberately blurring the line for years.
"ex post facto" (Score:1)
small but significant detail. (Score:4, Informative)
It is the Dutch version they removed. According to Dutch copyright it is in the public domain now. (70 years after the death of the author) Although, because is money to be made, this is also contested.
Wikimedia (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Under Dutch law and many other countries laws, it is public domain, or do you think that Anne Frank needs the money?
2042 we hope the mouse needs more time real soon (Score:2)
2042 we hope the mouse needs more time real soon and that can get pushed back to 2050 or maybe even 2100
Re: (Score:2)
Or, who knows, they may even be able to pass the "forever less one day" proposal. (Yes, a former MPAA president actually wanted to do this.)
God Damn It, Anne Frank (Score:3, Insightful)
On an editorial note, I would not have read the Diary of Anne Frank had I not been forced to in school, and 30 years of alcohol abuse and Prozac has mostly wiped away most of the memories of the books I was forced to read in school. So if any of my past English teachers are reading, yeah, thanks for that. And also, Herman Melville just wrote all that shit about the whale because he liked to hear himself talk. There. I said it. So whatever. Anne Frank can keep her damn copyright for all I care, and for all the good it'll do her.
I have a dream... (Score:2)
Oh wait, that's still under copyright [wikipedia.org] too.. Damnit!
Re: (Score:2)
However the court action may have been to stop his efforts at showing with Hitler's own words that the Time "Man of the Year" was not so nice a guy as so many were saying. Also funny how being anti-fascist even after the war started in Europe was painted as "unAmerican" later on.
Guys, please don't reply with a D vs R shitfight since McCarthy and
Wrong perspective and approach (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What good would that do? Copyright laws in Europe are at least as draconian as in the US, if not more so, and a lot less clear.
The US at least allows the Wikimedia Foundation to avoid liability by complying with DMCA requests; in Europe, they may well be screwed altogether.
there's more to the world than the USA and Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law is governed by international treaties, and most countries are signatories to those treaties. People self-reporting their location isn't going to cut it.
The few countries that are not subject to such treaties are so poor that they aren't going to waste
this is not specific to the US (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
There are two foundations, don't confuse them. The Anne Frank Stichting in the Netherlands maintains the Anne Frank Huis. The Anne Frank Fonds in Switzerland has/had the copyright to the diary and uses the income that generates to fund charitable projects. You're talking about the Anne Frank Fonds, but you call it Anne Frank Foundation, which is the name of the other one (stichting == foundation; fonds == fund).
ftg (Score:2)
a Vaudeville hook for the Vaudeville crook (Score:2)
Make that retroactive, pretty please, so as to retroactively revoke the ridiculous retroactive extensions.
The whole thing flies in the face of even libertarian notions of contract: that you only get what you shake for, in the first instance.
Douglas Adams used to quip "I love deadlines. I love the sound they make as they whoosh past." Market capitalists love mar
Pay up or die without reading it, then? (Score:3)
The events in the diary took place decades before I was born, yet I will likely die before I have a chance to read it unencumbered in the public domain? Yeah, that makes sense, especially when the motivation of the diary had nothing at all to do with profit in the first place.
Isn't it funny (Score:2)
I see it as a sign of corruption and the biggest donor being seen as more important than the nation itself.
Israelis should read it. (Score:1)
And maybe then they will not treat the Palestinians with such cruelty.
Obligatory Link (Score:1)
Copyright should be perpetual (Score:2)
Copyright should be perpetual.
If one finds a piece of work interesting and wants to work with it, I see no reason why the intellectual property owner shouldn't be compensated. After all, the onwer has created value that has long last appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting we dig up Anne Frank and throw some money into her coffin? I have mixed feelings about that.
Re: (Score:2)
She most likely doesn't have a coffin... it's not known when exactly she died, or where she's buried, which is probably in a mass grave.
Re: (Score:2)
Im ok with a copyright being perpetual, but you have to pay to keep it...every 7 years you get a bill and that bill goes up exponentially, so by the time 70 years rolls around you have to pay 7 million to keep it... that will allow all sorts of abandoned works to go into the public domain while keeping certain others... like mickey mouse under protection
OK, I'll do it (Score:2)
Copyright holders are worse than the Nazis!
Can we go home now?
By all means discourage people from reading it. (Score:2)
Nothing to be learned from it anyway. Should lock it up forever. (cough)
Re:it's (Score:4, Funny)
And before any googleclippers respond, "it has" doesn't fucking fit either.
WTF is a googleclippers?
Does TFA count as pre-Godwinning the thread?
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
Googleclipper:
"Someone who reads a post and understands a majority of the words, a minority of the sentences, none of the nuance and less still of the context; and then proceeds to type a word or two into Google and copy-paste the first result that comes up".
E.A.Blair, "Are the kids today utter shitcocks or what?" in "As I please", 1943-1945.
Re:it's (Score:4, Interesting)
I still remember when we were discussing in this very site how the then current copyright length of 80 years was ridiculous. Now its 95? Great.
Your tax dollars at work here. Coz if I remember correctly revenue from so called 'intellectual property' to royalty lords (not necessarily authors) isn't taxed.
Re:it's (Score:5, Funny)
95 years when the copyright is owned by a corporation IIRC, and face it, without that 95 year protection, Anne would never have written her diary due to lack of motivation.
Re:it's (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basing it on the author's lifespan isn't the issue, nor is extending the copyright period itself. What is wrong with the way that copyright has been extended is that the changes are retroactive. Copyright is, in essence, a contract between the creator of a work and the government, stating that for X period of time, the government will provide a mechanism under the law for the creator to enforce their control over the replication of their work, in exchange for releasing it to the public after that period. Th
Re: (Score:1)
Anne Franke must surely be turning in her grave. She would have wanted it to be publicly available. Does the actual author have absolutely no say? How is it restrictive copyright is assumed if there is nobody to benefit from such restrictive regulation? Just WHOSE rights are they protecting in that event?
Re: it's (Score:1)
Aerosmith frontman asks Trump campaign to stop using song [ap.org]
Adele tells Donald Trump to stop pinching her songs for his campaign [theguardian.com]
When politicians use music without asking permission [dailykos.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Patents now also don't protect the inventor, but rather some corporations.
The worse part is having to hear that litany about capitalism being good, when it's carefully avoided by said corporations...
First, it's not a matter of patent. It's copyright. There is a big difference.
Second, the artist had the "protection" up to the point where they signed to contract to allow the distribution. If the artist is getting paid for use of their product (music, in this case) and the terms do not give them the ability
Re: (Score:2)
crap... i screwed up the quoting.
The first two lines were supposed to be a quote from the parent. My bad.
Re: (Score:1)
> Turns out you only need permission from the company with distribution rights, not the artist themselves.
Copyright seems not to protect the author, but corporations.
Patents now also don't protect the inventor, but rather some corporations.
The worse part is having to hear that litany about capitalism being good, when it's carefully avoided by said corporations...
The entire industry exists to feed the hyenas at the top.. preferably with meat from the carcass of the discarded artists...
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, aren't asshole politicians using copyright music during their campaigning, even against the express desires of the artists?
I heard one musician, think it was Randy Bachman, bitching because not only do they use his music (Taking Care of Business) without permission but then the campaign organization, who are responsible for all the shit that happens such as pirating music against the express wishes of the rights owner, goes bankrupt and is dissolved so there isn't even anyone to sue.
One law for us and no law for them
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, aren't asshole politicians using copyright music during their campaigning, even against the express desires of the artists?
That depends. If an artist signs a contract with distributer xyz (not sure if that if the correct term for the industry) and xyz sells / licenses usage of the catalog of artist's music to someone, I would assume the artist loses the ability to approve / deny usage of their music. It depends on the terms of the different contracts.
If an artist doesn't want to lose control of the usage of their product (music), they need to either have terms that allow them some control or just not sign the contract. Of co
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
just wtf are they teaching the kids?!?!
The important stuff? Like say, Pledge of Aellegiance.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Copyright protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a "work for hire", then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter. For works created before 1978, the copyright duration rules are complicated. However, works created before 1923 have made their way into the public domain.
So Miss Anne Frank was "hired" to write a diary while she was hidden from the Nazis? Who would have kn
Re: (Score:1)
If I remember correctly, the common version of the diary is an edited version of the original. That is why it is copyrighted. The original isn't iirc.
Re: it's (Score:5, Informative)
From what I understand, the diary as published wasn't written by Anne but by her father largely/loosely based on her diary.
Your understanding is incorrect. There are two versions of the diary in Anne Frank's own handwriting - her original, and a more polished version she edited with a view to post-war publication. Otto Frank assembled the published book from both of Anne Frank's versions, excluding some passages but not adding new material. You can directly compare the three versions line by line in the original Dutch or in English translation in the Critical Editions published by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation. The words are Anne Frank's, not her father's. He selected from the extant material, but did not re-write or invent.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, the diary as published wasn't written by Anne but by her father largely/loosely based on her diary.
Your understanding is incorrect. There are two versions of the diary in Anne Frank's own handwriting - her original, and a more polished version she edited with a view to post-war publication.
That can never have happened, as Anne didn't even survive the war. She died in Feb or Mar '45 in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. That was her father doing the edits.
Re: (Score:2)
As noted above, she was dreaming of the post-war future, though of course she never saw it. Her revision was prompted by a 'Radio Orange' radio broadcast from an exiled Dutch Government Minister in London, suggesting that wartime diaries and documents would be preserved after the Liberation as a record for future generations. But she can hardly have imagined that hers would become the most famous of all diaries of the Occupation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: it's (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you do realise that neither of those versions is original. They are translations.
"Real diaries don't have multiple editions." (Score:2)
real diaries don't have multiple editions.
Not true.
Mary Chesnut used her diary and notes to work toward a final version in 1881 --- 1884. Based on her drafts, historians do not believe she was finished with her work. Because Chesnut had no children, before her death she gave her diary to her closest friend Isabella D. Martin and urged her to have it published. The diary was first published in 1905 as a heavily edited and abridged edition. Ben Ames Williams' 1949 version was described as more readable, but sacrificing historical reliability and many of Chesnut's literary references. The 1981 version by C. Vann Woodward retained more of her original work, provides an overview of her life and society in the introduction, and was annotated to identify fully the large cast of characters, places and events.
Mary Boykin Chesnut [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The possesive form of "it" is "its". They must have meant "its". This is a common mistake.
Indeed, its is so possessive...
How possessive is its?
Its not only wants its apostrophe, its wants all its s's in possessive!
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's utter rubbish.
The legal holder of the copyright would have exclusive control for 95 years.
That might be some assignee that you sold right to, your heirs, etc. etc.
Nobody is being denied reading The Diary of Ann Frank. You can buy it on Amazon. Or in probably any of the remaining walk-in bookstores.
http://www.amazon.com/Diary-An... [amazon.com]
While, yes, a copyright holder might without a work from the market for some political or o
Re: (Score:2)
This particular case is not about censorship. "The Diary of Anne Frank" is readily available if you buy it. This particular case is about money.
That said, this law, and other similar laws, are enablers of censorship. Any law that allows someone other than the author to withhold public availability of a work is an enabler of censorship.
THAT said, this is not an argument either for or against this particular law. I've made that in other places. This is an argument in favor of thinking clearly about what
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming what the original purpose of the copyright law was. There is evidence to suggest that it was always about allowing an elite to control the distribution of works for financial gain...and by elite I do not mean the authors. I'd say media companies, but that would create an improper impression, as originally the works were all printed. (Well, there were also laws about what the bards were allowed to sing, different in different countries and times, but that was not usually for financial gai
Re: (Score:2)
Which country do you refer to? It's not illegal to own or read in Germany...