Re: Stallman calls for an end to file sharing war

[Hadron]

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> 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.

Then I stand corrected. I was told it was banned.

>
>> 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.

Immaterial. It's still illegal.

>
>> Why can a historian not legally purchase an original Iron Cross
>> (ultimate symbol for bravery)?
>
> Why wouldn't he be able to?

The Iron Cross with the Swastika on it is banned afaik. But I'm going on
hearsay...

>
>> It's a bit mad.
>
> Those nationalistic options you clamor for are already there quite

Huh? What am I clamouring for??

> 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?

Reasonable enough.