Re: Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

[David Kastrup]

Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> RJack <user@example.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/25/2010 5:55 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the time the stuff started being performed, the copyright even for
>>>> today's standards (70 years after author's death) in civilized
>>>> countries (those without Disney-controlled perpetual copyright
>>>> extension laws) would have run out.  Of course it is utterly
>>>> unlikely that the
>>>
>>> In an "uncivilized" country like the United States, Gene Krupa and Roy
>>> Eldridges' "Drum Boogie" composed in 1941 would still enjoy copyright
>>> protection today. Tell me DAK, in an obviously more "civilized" country
>>> like Germany, would the documents directing the gassing of five million
>>> innocent men, women and children in 1941 still enjoy copyright
>>> protection today?
>>
>> Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is not in legal circulation beyond existing
>> copies (of which there are none too few) because the state of Bavaria
>> asserts the copyrights.
>>
>> However, non-"literary" documents "directing the gassing..." like
>> letters of command would not have copyrightable creative content,
>> anyway.
>>
>> Are you sure you know what your trolling is supposed to achieve?
>
> The state of censorship is Germany is almost as bad as it was back
> then. WHY cant people buy a copy of this book legally in germany?

It is not all too hard to do this, just go into a bookshop selling old
used books.  You'll not usually find it on display.  Not because it
would be prohibited, but because it may offend people.  People can't
create _new_ copies of it legally due to copyright.  Same as everywhere.
It is likely that once copyright runs out (in 2014 if I am not
mistaken), new copies will reach circulation legally.  Advertising them
would likely be somewhat difficult.  I don't see that as particularly
desirable.

> Why may people not use the Nazi symbol even when using it to fight
> Naziism?

I recommend you look at appropriate court decisions.  Yes, people were
brought to court because of using the Swastika in antifascistic
contexts, but they won those cases.

> Why can a historian not legally purchase an original Iron Cross
> (ultimate symbol for bravery)?

Why wouldn't he be able to?

> It's a bit mad.

Those nationalistic options you clamor for are already there quite
legally as far as I can see.  There are laws against Nazi worshipping in
place that make it problematic to _advertise_ goods like that.
Regarding "mein Kampf", my father's spouse donated her copy to the
history department library of her school when moving in since she was of
the opinion that one copy (that of my father's parents) was more than
enough for a single household.  That copy is sitting in an array of WWII
historic literature (actually banned to second row) that puts it in
proper context.

It is rather fascinating reading but not necessarily something that I
would want to see in the hands of children without appropriate parental
guidance (assuming suitably well-educated parents).

The stuff that made such an impact on enough people 75 years ago has not
magically lost all its appeal.

Blaming ethnic groups for economic problems remains a major political
recipe for success.  In Germany not as much as, say, the Front Nationale
is able to gain in France using that recipe.

But I still don't care for glorification of that crap.  Blaming others
has worked for millennia, and this is a particularly ugly form.

Using copyright to hold dissemination under wraps is a poor measure, but
what's the alternative?

-- 
David Kastrup