|
September 28, 2003
Another blogger censored by copyright laws!
This story is a real outrage: Homes & Gardens of November 1938 showed off Hitler's fashionable home. Homes & Gardens of 2003 would rather kill the story than apologize....It sure is! Once again, we see the copyright laws being used to stifle free speech -- this time an important discussion of the copyright holder's Nazi-glamorizing role in history. Outrageous. If the bastards can get away with this, then I say we take on the damned copyright laws. Get rid of them, rewrite them, defy them by means of civil disobedience followed by First Amendment litigation all the way to the Supreme Court. This country's founding fathers were very uneasy about interfering with the free flow of ideas. Thomas Jefferson feared the very abuse we see here: monopolists using state-granted power to control the flow of ideas. Don't just read this; read the Flea's whole piece, and then do something!
the vast majority of correspondents in prewar Iraq played ball with Saddam and downplayed the viciousness of the regime.Well! I just hope the reports they filed are copyrighted! What if Americans read them and got the wrong idea? UPDATE: Lynn at Reflections in d minor supplies a link to view JPEGs of the actual Homes & Gardens Hitler sycophancy piece, as well as links to the other intrepid bloggers who won't let Homes & Gardens get away with this perversion of the copyright laws. posted by Eric on 09.28.03 at 07:50 PM
Comments
Clearly, by preventing the public from seeing their syrupy display of sycophancy towards Hitler, they are controlling the dissemination of the idea that media behave precisely that way -- and might do so now or in the future! I disagree with the restrictive view on copyright. I think that fair comment should allow one to quote the entire piece and robust debate should allow everyone to view it. Mere "commenting on the fact that H&G had run an article depicting Hitler's home" does not convey context, depth, or tone of evil of media gullibility -- the point the critic was trying to make before he was stopped. What, pray tell, are the authors afraid of? That someone might read and disapprove? Certainly in this case they are not losing money from sales of a 1938 magazine. Nor do newspapers lose circulation sales money from being quoted months later. They fear criticism -- and they should. Eric Scheie · September 29, 2003 06:33 AM The question really is, are they holding back that one issue, and letting people post some others? One photo at the end, Hitler looking at plans for an annex to his house, is an eerie preview of his other plans for annex. Mike · September 29, 2003 11:50 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Yes, and what "ideas" were the holders of the Home & Garden copyrights trying to "control"?
The copyright holders were merely requesting that the copyrighted work be taken down, on the basis that posting it was an infringement. That would not prevent anyone from commenting on the fact that H&G had run an article depicting Hitler's home.
The thieves at FreeRepublic.com post copyrighted material--entire stories from newspapers and the like--all the time. That doesn't mean that what they are doing isn't copyright infringement. And the people who posted the H&G story were just as guilty of copyright infringement.