Real howler from Wired News: Germany's Kampf Furor Renews by Steve Kettmann 2:00 a.m. Dec. 1, 2000 PST BERLIN -- News this week that a Munich state prosecutor was investigating allegations that Yahoo Deutschland had sold copies of Mein Kampf could help build momentum in Germany for more sweeping restrictions on such material.... http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,40430,00.html Attention Germans. It is trivially easy to buy a book that your keepers don't want you to buy. Click here to search the best used book met search engine to find copies of Mein Kampf: http://used.addall.com/SuperRare/submitRare.cgi?order=TITLE&ordering=ASC&author=&title=Mein+Kampf&keyword=&submit=Find+the+Book&isbn=&match=Y&dispCurr=USD&binding=Any+Binding&min=&max=&StoreAbebooks=on&StoreAlibris=on&StoreAntiqbook=on&StoreBibliofind=on&StoreBiblion=on&StoreBookCloseOuts=on&StoreBookAvenue=on&StoreGutenberg=on&StoreHalf=on&StoreJustBooks=on&StorePowells=on You will currently find some 330 copies (minus dupes) for sale at various used book stores in the US. You are guaranteed to find one willing to ship you a copy. DCF Johnny had four truckloads of plutonium. Johnny used four truckloads of plutonium to light New York City for a year. Then how many truckloads of plutonium did Johnny have? Six! -- Breeder reactor ad from the glory days of nuclear power at the Edison Electric Institute.
At 02:21 PM 12/1/00 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote:
Attention Germans. It is trivially easy to buy a book that your keepers don't want you to buy.
Even easier. You can find the text online at http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Don't tell the Germans.
Duncan Frissell wrote:
Germany's Kampf Furor Renews by Steve Kettmann
actually, contrary to almost all other cases of censorship (not that I say this isn't) the german state of bavaria owns the COPYRIGHT of "mein kampf", and as such actually has some kind of standing in most of the cases. yeah, it's still censorship, but at least they were bright enough to do it in an intelligent way. in essence, only copies printed before 1945 are actually legal, because the copyright owner (bavaria) has not authorized any later printings.
At 4:43 PM +0100 12/2/00, Tom Vogt wrote:
Duncan Frissell wrote:
Germany's Kampf Furor Renews by Steve Kettmann
actually, contrary to almost all other cases of censorship (not that I say this isn't) the german state of bavaria owns the COPYRIGHT of "mein kampf", and as such actually has some kind of standing in most of the cases. yeah, it's still censorship, but at least they were bright enough to do it in an intelligent way. in essence, only copies printed before 1945 are actually legal, because the copyright owner (bavaria) has not authorized any later printings.
This is misleading. There is much debate about ownership of the copyright, whether it has expired (as would normally be the case after roughly 70 years, whether the licenses sold to other publishers are valid, etc.). And it has been published by several publishing houses, which makes the Yahoo case apropos. For example: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/webedit/001014kampf.htm On the trail of the Mein Kampf royalties More from the government vaults By David Whitman ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Oct. 20, 2000, Houghton Mifflin informed U.S.News & World Report that it would donate all royalties from the sales of Mein Kampf that the firm has received since 1979 to an as-yet-unspecified charity. Since 1979, Houghton Mifflin has collected about $400,000 in royalties alone from the sale of Mein Kampf. The publishing house will also donate future royalties from Mein Kampf to charity. ... --end of excerpt-- There are many more such reports about royalties, copyright. Quite odd that the publisher Houghton Mifflin would say they are donating all royalties since 1979 if in fact no copies have been published since 1945! Even more odd if some of us have copies in our libraries which were published much more recently than 1945. --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
Tim May wrote:
This is misleading. There is much debate about ownership of the copyright, whether it has expired (as would normally be the case after roughly 70 years, whether the licenses sold to other publishers are valid, etc.).
it's been changed to 70 years after death of author recently, at least in the US. that would make the expire date 2015.
Quite odd that the publisher Houghton Mifflin would say they are donating all royalties since 1979 if in fact no copies have been published since 1945!
Even more odd if some of us have copies in our libraries which were published much more recently than 1945.
here's what I wrote:
only copies printed before 1945 are actually legal,
am I missing the link between "legal" and "existing", or did you imagine it?
At 12:58 PM +0100 12/6/00, Tom Vogt wrote:
Tim May wrote:
This is misleading. There is much debate about ownership of the copyright, whether it has expired (as would normally be the case after roughly 70 years, whether the licenses sold to other publishers are valid, etc.).
it's been changed to 70 years after death of author recently, at least in the US. that would make the expire date 2015.
Quite odd that the publisher Houghton Mifflin would say they are donating all royalties since 1979 if in fact no copies have been published since 1945!
Even more odd if some of us have copies in our libraries which were published much more recently than 1945.
here's what I wrote:
only copies printed before 1945 are actually legal,
am I missing the link between "legal" and "existing", or did you imagine it?
The copies published in the United States are fully legal. Whether Germany likes our laws is not my concern. --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
Actually, the *US* copyright was siezed by the US government at the beginning of the war and not returned to Germany until the last decade or so. So there are plenty of US copies that would remain legal. DCF
Actually, the *US* copyright was siezed by the US government at the beginning of the war and not returned to Germany until the last decade or so. So there are plenty of US copies that would remain legal.
In Australia at least, I think Mein Kampf is now out of copyright (it's still 50 years from death of author here). Danny.
danny@staff.cs.usyd.edu.au wrote:
Actually, the *US* copyright was siezed by the US government at the beginning of the war and not returned to Germany until the last decade or so. So there are plenty of US copies that would remain legal.
In Australia at least, I think Mein Kampf is now out of copyright (it's still 50 years from death of author here).
Danny.
So if an Australian puts it on his web site can the German government sue for copyright infringement? Can they prosecute for violation of their anti Nazi laws? If a German citizen views it in Amsterdam can his government prosecute when he returns home?
fogstorm wrote:
So if an Australian puts it on his web site can the German government sue for copyright infringement? Can they prosecute for violation of their anti Nazi laws? If a German citizen views it in Amsterdam can his government prosecute when he returns home?
they'll most likely try to, if only to avoid some left-wing magazine headline along the lines of "german government allows nazi propaganda to remain online". there will be NO prosecution for "viewing" it. almost everyone over 60 may have read the damn book, and lots of copies are still around (many people got one for their marriage or other events, and keep them as memoralia(sp?)). this ain't thought-police. you are perfectly free to read this thing. AFAIK you aren't allowed to sell it, but that's it.
At 04:20 PM 12/2/2000, Danny Yee wrote:
Actually, the *US* copyright was siezed by the US government at the beginning of the war and not returned to Germany until the last decade or so. So there are plenty of US copies that would remain legal.
In Australia at least, I think Mein Kampf is now out of copyright (it's still 50 years from death of author here).
Really? Doesn't the Berne convention override national laws? If not...what would the odds be of the Aussies setting up "Gutenberg Down Under" to host works that won't leave copyright in the US and Europe for decades, if ever?
Lizard wrote:
Really? Doesn't the Berne convention override national laws?
Probably, yes. Does that mean national copyright laws only apply to their own citizens/residents? What happens in the case of dual citizenship? And does place of publication come into it? Danny.
At 07:49 PM 12/3/2000, Danny Yee wrote:
Lizard wrote:
Really? Doesn't the Berne convention override national laws?
Probably, yes. Does that mean national copyright laws only apply to their own citizens/residents? What happens in the case of dual citizenship? And does place of publication come into it?
In most cases, national laws are altered to bring them 'in line' with treaties. (All treaties.) This has been an issue in the US, where the SC has ruled that a treaty cannot violate the constitution...or, rather, that it doesn't matter WHAT Congress agreed to, the Constitution will trump any laws passed to institute it. That this might somehow change is a favorite paranoia of a loony right. (And, were it likely to occur, it would be a justifiable paranoia...it would allow the legislature to do an end-run around the Bill of Rights. For example, the US as it stands CANNOT ban 'hate speech' from US-hosted servers, even if Europe pressured them into signing a treaty to do so.)
At 08:02 PM 12/3/00 -0800, Lizard wrote:
At 07:49 PM 12/3/2000, Danny Yee wrote:
Lizard wrote:
Really? Doesn't the Berne convention override national laws?
Probably, yes. Does that mean national copyright laws only apply to their own citizens/residents? What happens in the case of dual citizenship? And does place of publication come into it?
In most cases, national laws are altered to bring them 'in line' with treaties. (All treaties.) This has been an issue in the US, where the SC has ruled that a treaty cannot violate the constitution...or, rather, that it doesn't matter WHAT Congress agreed to, the Constitution will trump any laws passed to institute it.
I don't know if Australia's joined Berne (I assume yes) or how they've implemented it. Copyright laws, like most laws, only apply in whatever jurisdiction the government that writes them can get away with enforcing them. (For most countries, that's their national boundaries, plus occasionally expatriate citizens; for some, it's quite a bit less :-) Traditional Chinese copyright law only applied to civilization, i.e. Chinese-language books written by Chinese; stuff written by barbarians wasn't provided, so lots of my Taiwanese fellow students in college had much lower-cost versions of US-written textbooks, and that tradition was adapted to software on CD-ROMs at least until recently. In the US, that doesn't really affect copyright - the US Constitution doesn't go into any depth on the details of copyright law, so the US Congress was perfectly free to replace the previous details with Berne convention details. The one arguable exception is that the Const. authorizes grants of patents and copyrights for limited periods of time, and the current definitions of "limited" for copyright keep getting stretched; I think it's now "75 years after you're dead, or pretty much forever if you're a corporation". The general comment I've heard from lawyers is that copyright lengths will keep getting extended indefinitely to prevent Mickey Mouse's image from going off copyright.
That this might somehow change is a favorite paranoia of a loony right. (And, were it likely to occur, it would be a justifiable paranoia...it would allow the legislature to do an end-run around the Bill of Rights. For example, the US as it stands CANNOT ban 'hate speech' from US-hosted servers, even if Europe pressured them into signing a treaty to do so.)
No, but Congress does a pretty good job of passing Unconstitutional laws already :-( The treaty trick that's been going on, at least in the ReaganBushClinton years, is for the administration to haggle other countries into a treaty or lower-status-than-treaty agreement about something obnoxious, like drugs laws or crypto export restrictions, then bully Congress into implementing legislation for it "because we've already negotiated it with our major partners". Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 05:26 AM 12/4/00 -0500, Bill Stewart wrote:
Traditional Chinese copyright law only applied to civilization, i.e. Chinese-language books written by Chinese; stuff written by barbarians wasn't provided, so lots of my Taiwanese fellow students in
college >had much lower-cost versions of US-written textbooks, and that tradition >was adapted to software on CD-ROMs at least until recently.
Maybe so with Chinese, but many publishers publish overseas-only versions of CS texts because the furriners (e.g., Indians) couldn't afford US rates. I've seen legitimately licensed $5 copies of, e.g., K & R printed on thinner paper...
At 11:27 AM -0500 12/4/00, David Honig wrote:
At 05:26 AM 12/4/00 -0500, Bill Stewart wrote:
Traditional Chinese copyright law only applied to civilization, i.e. Chinese-language books written by Chinese; stuff written by barbarians wasn't provided, so lots of my Taiwanese fellow students in
college >had much lower-cost versions of US-written textbooks, and that tradition >was adapted to software on CD-ROMs at least until recently.
Maybe so with Chinese, but many publishers publish overseas-only versions of CS texts because the furriners (e.g., Indians) couldn't afford US rates. I've seen legitimately licensed $5 copies of, e.g., K & R printed on thinner paper...
Do you mean you have an independent channel confirming this "legitimate license," or do you mean the rice paper version has carefully reproduced an approval page? Did you check with the copyright holders? (And independent channel would be a letter or even an electronic statement from the copyright holders saying the version was valid. A digitally signed statement would do.) I don't doubt that differential marketing plans will evolve. Selling a CD-ROM of Microsoft Office for $300 US in Bangalore is just not going to fly, not with the back-alley version selling for the rupee equivalent of $5. "The street will find its own uses for technology." And once Mojo gets running, I'm hoping to buy Microsoft Office for 10 Mojobucks. (So I can then resell it to 50 others....) --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
At 12:23 PM 12/4/00 -0500, Tim May wrote:
Do you mean you have an independent channel confirming this "legitimate license," or do you mean the rice paper version has carefully reproduced an approval page?
I believed the dead-tree 'region codes'. I had no reason to be more diligent. Not my royalties :-) Besides, since when are fake Rolexes engraved with something saying, "This cheap fake is authorized by Rolex Inc for sale to third worlders only" Neither did I check to see if the texts were the same. You are merely making a point about authentication I presume?
At 11:27 AM 12/4/00 -0500, David Honig wrote:
At 05:26 AM 12/4/00 -0500, Bill Stewart wrote:
Traditional Chinese copyright law only applied to civilization, i.e. Chinese-language books written by Chinese; stuff written by barbarians wasn't provided, so lots of my Taiwanese fellow students in
college >had much lower-cost versions of US-written textbooks, and that tradition >was adapted to software on CD-ROMs at least until recently.
Maybe so with Chinese, but many publishers publish overseas-only versions of CS texts because the furriners (e.g., Indians) couldn't afford US rates. I've seen legitimately licensed $5 copies of, e.g., K & R printed on thinner paper...
That's legitimate, though it often leads to gray-market rules about smuggling stuff. Many of the Chinese-printed textbooks I saw had covers indicating that they were cookbooks, etc., to conceal that they were pirate editions. Tim writes:
I don't doubt that differential marketing plans will evolve. Selling a CD-ROM of Microsoft Office for $300 US in Bangalore is just not going to fly, not with the back-alley version selling for the rupee equivalent of $5.
"The street will find its own uses for technology."
And once Mojo gets running, I'm hoping to buy Microsoft Office for 10 Mojobucks.
(So I can then resell it to 50 others....)
Tim, you're evil and twisted. Not because you're suggesting ripping off MS, but because you're proposing inflicting that unreliable bloatware on people :-) Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
At 11:49 AM 12/4/00 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
That's legitimate, though it often leads to gray-market rules about smuggling stuff. Many of the Chinese-printed textbooks I saw had covers indicating that they were cookbooks, etc., to conceal that they were pirate editions.
Hilarious. I might have offered to buy a K & R disguised as a chinese cookbook.
At 10:54 AM 12/2/00 -0500, Tom Vogt wrote:
Duncan Frissell wrote:
Germany's Kampf Furor Renews by Steve Kettmann
actually, contrary to almost all other cases of censorship (not that I say this isn't) the german state of bavaria owns the COPYRIGHT of "mein kampf",
Hitler's estate would be the natural heir (under US law :-), although I can believe that .de would seize it too, if he had no heir, or if they didn't like him. The notion of Germany suing hitler.org for copyright infringement of M.K. certainly whets the surrealist's appetite... Some Quebecois should translate it to french and get a Yahoo link :-)
At 3:35 PM -0500 12/2/00, David Honig wrote:
At 10:54 AM 12/2/00 -0500, Tom Vogt wrote:
Duncan Frissell wrote:
Germany's Kampf Furor Renews by Steve Kettmann
actually, contrary to almost all other cases of censorship (not that I say this isn't) the german state of bavaria owns the COPYRIGHT of "mein kampf",
Hitler's estate would be the natural heir (under US law :-), although I can believe that .de would seize it too, if he had no heir, or if they didn't like him.
The notion of Germany suing hitler.org for copyright infringement of M.K. certainly whets the surrealist's appetite...
Some Quebecois should translate it to french and get a Yahoo link :-)
Though I understand you are joking, the obvious point is that "Mein Kampf" was translated into French many years ago...sometime between 1940 and 1945, one would expect, if not earlier. I did a quick Google search to see if the French translation is online anywhere. I couldn't find any obvious links. Much discussion of the Yahoo and Amazon issues, though. The Thought Police are coming! --Tim May -- (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one. Stay tuned.)
-- The election outcome is great. With a bit of luck, we should see the supremes do a party line 5/4 vote on a partisan issue, further destroying what little credibility they have left. With a bit more luck we should see two slates of electors, one proclaimed by the courts, and one by the legislature and executive. Bush's case against the Florida supremes was great: His team shot them down root and branch, claiming that everything they did and said was beyond their jurisdiction, as of course it was, but if one of them had been caught scratching his bum, I am sure Bush would have argued that the offending judge lacked jurisdiction to find his own bum also. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG WbV66f5Xmh8YI+XWY9eJshlRVy0Lc8wPGvz4AMmZ 4ZejlQ7TMtBHNHjcv1nTObc+asCmBt4ydmTx/gpec
David Honig wrote:
Hitler's estate would be the natural heir (under US law :-), although I can believe that .de would seize it too, if he had no heir, or if they didn't like him.
he had no heir, and I believe the (C) falling to bavaria (not germany!) was incidental, not planned.
Tom Vogt wrote:
David Honig wrote:
Hitler's estate would be the natural heir (under US law :-), although I can believe that .de would seize it too, if he had no heir, or if they didn't like him.
he had no heir, and I believe the (C) falling to bavaria (not germany!) was incidental, not planned.
The will read something like: "What I possess belongs - in so far as it has any value - to the Party. Should this no longer exist, to the State; should the State also be destroyed, no further decision of mine is necessary. My paintings, in the collections which I have bought in the course of years, have never been collected for private purposes, but only for the extension of a gallery in my home town of Linz on Donau. It is my most sincere wish that this bequest may be duly executed. I nominate as my Executor my most faithful Party comrade, Martin Bormann " Of course, when the testator, the witnesses & almost all their surviving friends were dead, Martin Bormann was heading in the general dirction of the nearest long-range U-boat & a significant fraction of the Red Army was rolling down Unter den Linden in a very cross mood indeed; any relationship between Hitler's will & what actually happened to his possessions was pretty likely to be incidental & unplanned. kEN
Ken Brown wrote:
The will read something like:
good quote.
was rolling down Unter den Linden in a very cross mood indeed; any relationship between Hitler's will & what actually happened to his possessions was pretty likely to be incidental & unplanned.
"unplanned" intended by me to have the meaning of: "not as in "let's seize the rights to everything he wrote, so we can stop the neo-nazis"".
participants (10)
-
Bill Stewart -
Danny Yee -
David Honig -
Duncan Frissell -
fogstorm -
James A. Donald -
Ken Brown -
Lizard -
Tim May -
Tom Vogt