4 ms·

It's also about having a means for giving a legal smackdown on Holocaust denialists who are itching for the material to come out of copyright so they can chop i

It's also about having a means for giving a legal smackdown on Holocaust denialists who are itching for the material to come out of copyright so they can chop it up to produce their own material. That's also why Disney does everything they can to keep copyright on works they explicitly do not allow to be displayed outside their control. For example, "Song of the South" is a huge embarrassment for Disney, and the copyright means they can allow only scholars to exhibit the whole movie. They're still wrong to do it, but it's not just about the money.

jacquesm 11y ago
It's not as if idiots won't do what idiots do. Holocaust deniers can go f* themselves and they're perfectly capable of chopping up the diary today if they want to, if the law of the land isn't stopping them from being Holocaust deniers then copyright certainly won't mean much. I say let them, it won't do them any good and it will in fact show the world even better what they are made of. If all that stands between people believing them is copyright law then we have much bigger problems.
- ocschwar 11y ago
  A credible threat of being bankrupted in a lawsuit has kept many of those cockroaches under a rock where they belonged, and for a long time. Otto Frank himself sued one guy.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Anne Frank's legacy has been the subject of many lawsuits over the years. To date it has all been either about money or control of content that none of the participants created. Otto Frank was using what tools he had to achieve his ends, and he did a pretty good job of it, I have never had the feeling that he did not do anything short of giving his life to put the legacy of his daughter out there for the world to see in the way he deemed the best possible. But with Otto Frank now many years dead and the link with the living past fading I think the time has come to reveal the diary as it was made, rather than as it was interpreted to limit the fall-out for other living people whose sensibilities might have been offended by Anne's razor sharp pen. I'm sure there will be people that will abuse that, but the good and the bad need to be weighed and in my opinion at least the good of a public domain version of the book far outstrips the possible bad that could come of this.
    - ocschwar 11y ago
      That was done years ago. "Anne Frank - The Definitive Edition" was published in 1997, and contains the material Otto Frank censored (nothing particularly surprising - it was the 1950's, and not at all a surprise that he would not release paragraphs about Anne's sexual feelings). It also has references on just what came from where (Anne did not just use one notebook) and what languages she used (she wrote in several. Otto Frank first translated it all into Dutch. His manuscript was what went out for translation in other languages). Again, it's readily available. Keeping the copyright is something they're doing to prevent bad actors from trying (again) to harness the power of stupid people in large numbers.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        It's their word against the Anne Frank Stichting at this point. And their word is not 'we are doing this to prevent bad actors from trying to harness the power of stupid people in large numbers'. Their words are that they are 'protecting Anne Frank'. As for stupid people in large numbers: that's precisely why the message should be available to all. It is stupid people in large numbers that are about to vote Geert Wilders to become the first ultra-nationalist right-wing MP of the Netherlands and all that without being able to carve up Anne Franks diary to their liking. I note that if they really were altruistic in their motives they could easily get the unrest they created go by waving their fees and permitting the distribution of other versions by specific parties under special license without letting go of the copyright in order to be able to challenge would-be carver-uppers.
        ocschwar 11y ago
        Again: it IS available to all. There's bound to be a copy of the definitive edition in your local library.
thejosh 11y ago
So if you're slightly embarrassed about something it shouldn't be public domain?
- ocschwar 11y ago
  Just showing that using copyright to suppress something is not new.

jacquesm 11y ago

It's not as if idiots won't do what idiots do. Holocaust deniers can go f* themselves and they're perfectly capable of chopping up the diary today if they want to, if the law of the land isn't stopping them from being Holocaust deniers then copyright certainly won't mean much. I say let them, it won't do them any good and it will in fact show the world even better what they are made of. If all that stands between people believing them is copyright law then we have much bigger problems.

ocschwar 11y ago
A credible threat of being bankrupted in a lawsuit has kept many of those cockroaches under a rock where they belonged, and for a long time. Otto Frank himself sued one guy.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Anne Frank's legacy has been the subject of many lawsuits over the years. To date it has all been either about money or control of content that none of the participants created. Otto Frank was using what tools he had to achieve his ends, and he did a pretty good job of it, I have never had the feeling that he did not do anything short of giving his life to put the legacy of his daughter out there for the world to see in the way he deemed the best possible. But with Otto Frank now many years dead and the link with the living past fading I think the time has come to reveal the diary as it was made, rather than as it was interpreted to limit the fall-out for other living people whose sensibilities might have been offended by Anne's razor sharp pen. I'm sure there will be people that will abuse that, but the good and the bad need to be weighed and in my opinion at least the good of a public domain version of the book far outstrips the possible bad that could come of this.
  - ocschwar 11y ago
    That was done years ago. "Anne Frank - The Definitive Edition" was published in 1997, and contains the material Otto Frank censored (nothing particularly surprising - it was the 1950's, and not at all a surprise that he would not release paragraphs about Anne's sexual feelings). It also has references on just what came from where (Anne did not just use one notebook) and what languages she used (she wrote in several. Otto Frank first translated it all into Dutch. His manuscript was what went out for translation in other languages). Again, it's readily available. Keeping the copyright is something they're doing to prevent bad actors from trying (again) to harness the power of stupid people in large numbers.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      It's their word against the Anne Frank Stichting at this point. And their word is not 'we are doing this to prevent bad actors from trying to harness the power of stupid people in large numbers'. Their words are that they are 'protecting Anne Frank'. As for stupid people in large numbers: that's precisely why the message should be available to all. It is stupid people in large numbers that are about to vote Geert Wilders to become the first ultra-nationalist right-wing MP of the Netherlands and all that without being able to carve up Anne Franks diary to their liking. I note that if they really were altruistic in their motives they could easily get the unrest they created go by waving their fees and permitting the distribution of other versions by specific parties under special license without letting go of the copyright in order to be able to challenge would-be carver-uppers.
      - ocschwar 11y ago
        Again: it IS available to all. There's bound to be a copy of the definitive edition in your local library.

thejosh 11y ago

So if you're slightly embarrassed about something it shouldn't be public domain?

ocschwar 11y ago
Just showing that using copyright to suppress something is not new.