Dr Seuss

[Maddy]

These companies gained their dominant market share--if not their flat-out monopoly--by being firmly afixed to the government tit. Sever that tie, and require them to compete on an even playing field, and they can do whatever they please. Until then, they're not only the traditional public square, but an arm of government itself.

[vnatale]

As a libertarian (with a small l by the way), I agree that Amazon or the foundation can stop selling the books. That doesn’t mean the reasons are not incredibly moronic. Are libertarians not allowed to talk about that? I think you have a dumb, caricature-ish view of libertarianism. Has anyone here called for government intervention?

I just did a quick review of all that everyone wrote here. Where was there any discussion of the the moronicity of the reasons? All I seemed to see was the familiar lamenting that this fit into the rubric of the "cancel culture". Correct me if any of my facts or perceptions are incorrect. Not afraid to admit I am wrong.

You are correct. No one called for government intervention. I was pointing out that it was private companies making these decisions with no government involvement.

[glennds]

Who is banning books? Isn't this the Libertarian way? A private group, the estate of Dr. Seuss who owns all the books and decides which ones to publish, decided not to publish six books. The government played no role in this.

I'm confused why professed Libertarians have a problem with this.

Who is banning books? Isn't this the Libertarian way? A private group, the estate of Dr. Seuss who owns all the books and decides which ones to publish, decided not to publish six books. The government played no role in this.

I'm confused why professed Libertarians have a problem with this.

Now that you put it that way, it's a valid point.
I wonder if you'll get a response.
It does seem very un-Libertarian to complain about what a private party is doing within their own rights, and at at their own market risk.

I'm not even engaging since neither of you seem to grasp the concept of humor, especially since you both know my views on liberty. But by all means keep quoting me despite this fact.

Hi,
Testy. I didn't mean to quote you. And your meme was funny.
I don't really know your views on liberty, but I respect your right to have them whatever they are.
Some of my questions are because I am trying to learn more about Libertarianism and how the interpretations of what it is might vary from person to person (quite a bit of variance I am finding).

So I was replying (echoing?) Vinny's comment more than anything else. Sorry for inadvertently quoting you!

[Xan]

The bigger issue here is actually copyright. Originally, copyright in the Constitution was 14 years. It may have been renewable once.

Copyright is a relatively recent (1600 or so, IIRC) invention. It artificially allows one person or entity to "own" the rights to producing a work.

Copyright is a monster that is out of control. If these works were in the public domain, as they should have been a long time ago, then "Dr Seuss Enterprises" or whatever would not be the only place you could get these books, and their decision would not affect your ability to buy them.

So, the libertarian answer would be to rein in or potentially eliminate copyright. Then anybody who wants to produce these books could do so.

[moda0306]

The bigger issue here is actually copyright. Originally, copyright in the Constitution was 14 years. It may have been renewable once.

Copyright is a relatively recent (1600 or so, IIRC) invention. It artificially allows one person or entity to "own" the rights to producing a work.

Copyright is a monster that is out of control. If these works were in the public domain, as they should have been a long time ago, then "Dr Seuss Enterprises" or whatever would not be the only place you could get these books, and their decision would not affect your ability to buy them.

So, the libertarian answer would be to rein in or potentially eliminate copyright. Then anybody who wants to produce these books could do so.

I have a similar feeling towards intellectual property. But in that case we should have a discussion critiquing any rent-seeking leaning on that system. Regardless, they’re not suing anyone for producing these books. They’re simply ceasing production themselves.

Pointing out one instance where a company ceases publishing children’s books that depict and describe Asians in ridiculous ways seems a bit... selective.

Meanwhile, Kentucky just passed a law that you can’t insult cops, so if we want to discuss real censorship issues, we’ve got options.

Or we can bounce to potato toys without dicks.

[moda0306]

lgsfglduail61.png

Lol. Nobody’s banning books.

[Hal]

Looks like Pepe is in the gunsights now....

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/can ... pe-culture

[glennds]

The bigger issue here is actually copyright. Originally, copyright in the Constitution was 14 years. It may have been renewable once.

Copyright is a relatively recent (1600 or so, IIRC) invention. It artificially allows one person or entity to "own" the rights to producing a work.

Copyright is a monster that is out of control. If these works were in the public domain, as they should have been a long time ago, then "Dr Seuss Enterprises" or whatever would not be the only place you could get these books, and their decision would not affect your ability to buy them.

So, the libertarian answer would be to rein in or potentially eliminate copyright. Then anybody who wants to produce these books could do so.

Would you extend the same argument to patents?

[Xan]

The bigger issue here is actually copyright. Originally, copyright in the Constitution was 14 years. It may have been renewable once.

Copyright is a relatively recent (1600 or so, IIRC) invention. It artificially allows one person or entity to "own" the rights to producing a work.

Copyright is a monster that is out of control. If these works were in the public domain, as they should have been a long time ago, then "Dr Seuss Enterprises" or whatever would not be the only place you could get these books, and their decision would not affect your ability to buy them.

So, the libertarian answer would be to rein in or potentially eliminate copyright. Then anybody who wants to produce these books could do so.

Would you extend the same argument to patents?

Patents largely DO have limited terms. They haven't grown into "life of the creator plus 75 years" or whatever copyright is now.

[GT]

The bigger issue here is actually copyright. Originally, copyright in the Constitution was 14 years. It may have been renewable once.

Copyright is a relatively recent (1600 or so, IIRC) invention. It artificially allows one person or entity to "own" the rights to producing a work.

Copyright is a monster that is out of control. If these works were in the public domain, as they should have been a long time ago, then "Dr Seuss Enterprises" or whatever would not be the only place you could get these books, and their decision would not affect your ability to buy them.

So, the libertarian answer would be to rein in or potentially eliminate copyright. Then anybody who wants to produce these books could do so.

I don't mind copy rights being renewed as the artist should have a say in what is done with their work - I also wouldn't want a company making money off my hard work or changing my work with out my consent. The Beatles lost the rights to their own works and lost millions (Billions) in royalties or overall catalog value. https://www.biography.com/news/michael- ... ic-catalog.

My concern is the cancel culture and artists feeling they must bow to the pressure and by extension everyone must now bow to the pressure.

In all honesty I am a bit of a hypocrite because there is a book "Huckleberry Finn" that I would not feel comfortable reading to my kids. Having said that, I guess it should be up to the parent to decide what they read to their children.

[Xan]

The bigger issue here is actually copyright. Originally, copyright in the Constitution was 14 years. It may have been renewable once.

Copyright is a relatively recent (1600 or so, IIRC) invention. It artificially allows one person or entity to "own" the rights to producing a work.

Copyright is a monster that is out of control. If these works were in the public domain, as they should have been a long time ago, then "Dr Seuss Enterprises" or whatever would not be the only place you could get these books, and their decision would not affect your ability to buy them.

So, the libertarian answer would be to rein in or potentially eliminate copyright. Then anybody who wants to produce these books could do so.

I don't mind copy rights being renewed as the artist should have a say in what is done with their work - I also wouldn't want a company making money off my hard work or changing my work with out my consent. The Beatles lost the rights to their own works and lost millions (Billions) in royalties or overall catalog value. https://www.biography.com/news/michael- ... ic-catalog.

My concern is the cancel culture and artists feeling they must bow to the pressure and by extension everyone must now bow to the pressure.

In all honesty I am a bit of a hypocrite because there is a book "Huckleberry Finn" that I would not feel comfortable reading to my kids. Having said that, I guess it should be up to the parent to decide what they read to their children.

It's interesting how the default has shifted from creative works being "in the air" to being OWNED. For the vast majority of human history, there was no "owning" a story or a song or a sculpture or whatever.

Under the Constitutions original copyright provisions, the Beatles would have "lost" the rights after 14 (or 28?) years, but the rights wouldn't have gone to somebody else to make millions off of them. The songs would belong to all of us. The songs worth millions/billions in revenue would then belong to everyone.

[GT]

The bigger issue here is actually copyright. Originally, copyright in the Constitution was 14 years. It may have been renewable once.

Copyright is a relatively recent (1600 or so, IIRC) invention. It artificially allows one person or entity to "own" the rights to producing a work.

Copyright is a monster that is out of control. If these works were in the public domain, as they should have been a long time ago, then "Dr Seuss Enterprises" or whatever would not be the only place you could get these books, and their decision would not affect your ability to buy them.

So, the libertarian answer would be to rein in or potentially eliminate copyright. Then anybody who wants to produce these books could do so.

I don't mind copy rights being renewed as the artist should have a say in what is done with their work - I also wouldn't want a company making money off my hard work or changing my work with out my consent. The Beatles lost the rights to their own works and lost millions (Billions) in royalties or overall catalog value. https://www.biography.com/news/michael- ... ic-catalog.

My concern is the cancel culture and artists feeling they must bow to the pressure and by extension everyone must now bow to the pressure.

In all honesty I am a bit of a hypocrite because there is a book "Huckleberry Finn" that I would not feel comfortable reading to my kids. Having said that, I guess it should be up to the parent to decide what they read to their children.

It's interesting how the default has shifted from creative works being "in the air" to being OWNED. For the vast majority of human history, there was no "owning" a story or a song or a sculpture or whatever.

Under the Constitutions original copyright provisions, the Beatles would have "lost" the rights after 14 (or 28?) years, but the rights wouldn't have gone to somebody else to make millions off of them. The songs would belong to all of us. The songs worth millions/billions in revenue would then belong to everyone.

I wonder if this changed based on the ability to record the performer and replay the original production over and over (reruns)? or maybe the government found a revenue stream by requiring renewal fees to recertify copyrighted work - https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html

With the advent of 24/7 cable and now streaming services - old shows that would have been lost to time are now worth more than a new series (the original Star Trek TV series comes to mind) - Shows want to hit the magical 90 to 100 episodes to reach the minimum threshold for syndication - A lot of actors will take a smaller upfront salary to have a piece of the "back end" residuals of reruns. Screen writers will deliberately not cover a current topic in a TV series so reruns will not seem dated in the future.

[glennds]

It's interesting how the default has shifted from creative works being "in the air" to being OWNED. For the vast majority of human history, there was no "owning" a story or a song or a sculpture or whatever.

Under the Constitutions original copyright provisions, the Beatles would have "lost" the rights after 14 (or 28?) years, but the rights wouldn't have gone to somebody else to make millions off of them. The songs would belong to all of us. The songs worth millions/billions in revenue would then belong to everyone.

To further complicated it, I wonder if the original Constitution's provisions would mean anything anyway if the creative work and the creator(s) were from the UK? At that point, it might be a question of international copyright law.

Either way, I get your point that the vast majority of creative work would be public domain at this point. In the past couple of years, sales of music catalogs have been big deals. Bob Dylan's sale was confidential but estimated to be around $300MM. Stevie Nicks sold 80% of her catalog for $100MM, which got my attention because Stevie Nicks is good, but I would not have thought her catalog to be $125MM good.

I have visited the Vatican several times in my life. On one trip, I learned that the company that had done the restoration work on the Sistine Chapel had somehow negotiated copyright rights on the restored ceiling. So from that point forward, it was permissible to take photos anywhere in the Vatican and the Vatican museum until you reached the door to the Sistine Chapel where security barks at everyone to put away cameras and surveils the crowd for any violators who are then thrown out. The idea is that this restoration company now gets a piece of every authorized postcard or souvenir photo so they don't want people taking their own photos or it would dilute the income stream. Prior to the restoration, you could take all the photos you wanted.
I remember thinking then and now that the 500 year old Sistine Chapel ceiling felt like a work that should belong to all of humanity and the idea that a restoration company should obtain exclusive rights to photographs of it is a travesty.

BTW, further off topic, for anyone who might be interested, the story of the painting of the ceiling is fascinating, and the best book I ever found on it is Michaelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling by Ross King.

[Kbg]

This is a good quality thread.

One thing I wrestle with...let's assume the person is alive or some reasonable amount of post life time for his/her immediate family...if there isn't some pretty hefty protections to favor the actual content creator it just ends up getting Googled, Appled or FBized and essentially the distribution channel makes all the money and the creator gets peanuts. You need both, but I think the creator should get the majority/a high percentage of the earnings.

Professional athletes in the most popular sports definitely have figured out they have the real power of the sport and are getting compensated accordingly now. News outlets are picking up the fight over content and it will be interesting how far the trend goes for other things. Taylor Swift has successfully swung a very big bat in the music world, but I'm not aware of many (any?) others who have been able to essentially tell Apple to "pay me" or pound sand. Game developers are engaged as well.

Thoughts?

[GT]

It's interesting how the default has shifted from creative works being "in the air" to being OWNED. For the vast majority of human history, there was no "owning" a story or a song or a sculpture or whatever.

Under the Constitutions original copyright provisions, the Beatles would have "lost" the rights after 14 (or 28?) years, but the rights wouldn't have gone to somebody else to make millions off of them. The songs would belong to all of us. The songs worth millions/billions in revenue would then belong to everyone.

To further complicated it, I wonder if the original Constitution's provisions would mean anything anyway if the creative work and the creator(s) were from the UK? At that point, it might be a question of international copyright law.

Either way, I get your point that the vast majority of creative work would be public domain at this point. In the past couple of years, sales of music catalogs have been big deals. Bob Dylan's sale was confidential but estimated to be around $300MM. Stevie Nicks sold 80% of her catalog for $100MM, which got my attention because Stevie Nicks is good, but I would not have thought her catalog to be $125MM good.

I have visited the Vatican several times in my life. On one trip, I learned that the company that had done the restoration work on the Sistine Chapel had somehow negotiated copyright rights on the restored ceiling. So from that point forward, it was permissible to take photos anywhere in the Vatican and the Vatican museum until you reached the door to the Sistine Chapel where security barks at everyone to put away cameras and surveils the crowd for any violators who are then thrown out. The idea is that this restoration company now gets a piece of every authorized postcard or souvenir photo so they don't want people taking their own photos or it would dilute the income stream. Prior to the restoration, you could take all the photos you wanted.
I remember thinking then and now that the 500 year old Sistine Chapel ceiling felt like a work that should belong to all of humanity and the idea that a restoration company should obtain exclusive rights to photographs of it is a travesty.

BTW, further off topic, for anyone who might be interested, the story of the painting of the ceiling is fascinating, and the best book I ever found on it is Michaelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling by Ross King.

Agree - seems odd - wonder if the selling of the rights was a way for the Catholic Church to help offset the upfront cost for the restoration on the painting. Still seems odd

[glennds]

One complication of reduced copyright terms is the fallacy that the value of the work is linear. Think about the fact that most artists died long before their work was fully appreciated, Picasso being one notable exception. But for Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Monet, it was long after their deaths that their work was valued. Same with many of the great composers. Even pop music in the modern age has had instances where the music was valued much more over the longer term than upon immediate release.
In film, I will never forget that Apocalypse Now was treated by critics like a total failure for about a decade after which it became recognized as a masterpiece that was way ahead of the audience. Some of Stanley Kubrick's films fell into the same category.

So imagine what it would be like for the creator or their estate if their work was ahead of its time and only became recognized and valued after the copyright term ran.

With technology being what it is, if there were not protections for creators, I think to Kbg's point, the work would be so easily replicated by the distribution channel that it would become a low value commodity for all creators, and we might live in a world of fast food content.

[stuper1]

I agree with a lot of stuff said in this thread, but the bit about the Sistine Chapel ceiling belonging to all of humanity I don't get. I mean I get in some sentimental, romantic sense how somebody could want to think that, but in fact the ceiling belongs to the Vatican, and they get to decide how to deal with it. If they can't come up with, or don't want to come up with, the money upfront and want to enter a business arrangement with a restoration company, that seems like a legitimate free market choice.

I might complain about it as a tourist, but that would be silly. Seeing it in person certainly has value, but I'm sure we all know from experience that our photos never recreate the view that we had in person. Or maybe it's just that I'm a bad photographer.

[Xan]

I agree with a lot of stuff said in this thread, but the bit about the Sistine Chapel ceiling belonging to all of humanity I don't get. I mean I get in some sentimental, romantic sense how somebody could want to think that, but in fact the ceiling belongs to the Vatican, and they get to decide how to deal with it. If they can't come up with, or don't want to come up with, the money upfront and want to enter a business arrangement with a restoration company, that seems like a legitimate free market choice.

I might complain about it as a tourist, but that would be silly. Seeing it in person certainly has value, but I'm sure we all know from experience that our photos never recreate the view that we had in person. Or maybe it's just that I'm a bad photographer.

The ceiling itself belong to the Vatican, certainly. The idea that copies of the images on the ceiling can be owned is new. In fact, they don't own those images. But what they CAN do is keep you from taking pictures of the ceiling.

[glennds]

The ceiling itself belong to the Vatican, certainly. The idea that copies of the images on the ceiling can be owned is new. In fact, they don't own those images. But what they CAN do is keep you from taking pictures of the ceiling.

Correction, what they CAN do is TRY and keep me from taking pictures of the ceiling.

When they barked their copyright rules at me, I chose to peacefully protest by going in to stealth mode. This means holding the camera at waist level, and triggering the shutter with my pinky finger and thanking the modern technology gods for 1. High ISO and 2. autofocus.
Admittedly, this was not easy to do.

Here are my two favorites, priceless to me as personal remembrances of that day and a monument that amazes me:



and my own favorite:



That ceiling, and much of the Renaissance art is an inspiration on many levels, some of which far transcend a private business licensing agreement, at least for me.

[Xan]

Stunning, glennds! Wow! Really amazingly great.

I'm not sure that the issue here is copyright. I think the issue is that the Vatican agreed to forbid picture-taking. I could be wrong, though.

[glennds]

Stunning, glennds! Wow! Really amazingly great.

I'm not sure that the issue here is copyright. I think the issue is that the Vatican agreed to forbid picture-taking. I could be wrong, though.

Thx Xan. I think both issues are at play, though now only the latter. The exclusive photography licensing right from the restoration company was the reason the no photography rule first went into effect. However, after some reading, I have learned, the licensing deal had a term that has now ended, but the Vatican has kept the no photo policy in place anyway so at this point the issue is purely a Vatican rule.

I still don't understand the inconsistent reasoning though because photography is allowed next door in the Raphael rooms where the most famous painting, School of Athens, is a fresco just like the Sistine Chapel.

[Xan]

Stunning, glennds! Wow! Really amazingly great.

I'm not sure that the issue here is copyright. I think the issue is that the Vatican agreed to forbid picture-taking. I could be wrong, though.

Thx Xan. I think both issues are at play, though now only the latter. The exclusive photography licensing right from the restoration company was the reason the no photography rule first went into effect. However, after some reading, I have learned, the licensing deal had a term that has now ended, but the Vatican has kept the no photo policy in place anyway so at this point the issue is purely a Vatican rule.

I still don't understand the inconsistent reasoning though because photography is allowed next door in the Raphael rooms where the most famous painting, School of Athens, is a fresco just like the Sistine Chapel.

The Vatican, the Louvre, and the British Museum have such unimaginably wonderful collections. Everybody should go see them at some point.

[ahhrunforthehills]

If you pay a little extra you can literally cut the entire line, go into the sistine chapel 15 minutes before the public is allowed in the building, they will turn the lights on for you, and let you take all the photos that you want. The concierge desk at luxury hotels have the connections to those that are happy to be paid off.

Bribes are more Italian than pasta

It is unreal to watch them turn off the lights, open the doors to the public, and then start forbidding people to take pictures when they just got done taking one for you.

[SomeDude]

Noooo photos please!

[vnatale]

The ceiling itself belong to the Vatican, certainly. The idea that copies of the images on the ceiling can be owned is new. In fact, they don't own those images. But what they CAN do is keep you from taking pictures of the ceiling.

Correction, what they CAN do is TRY and keep me from taking pictures of the ceiling.

When they barked their copyright rules at me, I chose to peacefully protest by going in to stealth mode. This means holding the camera at waist level, and triggering the shutter with my pinky finger and thanking the modern technology gods for 1. High ISO and 2. autofocus.
Admittedly, this was not easy to do.

Here are my two favorites, priceless to me as personal remembrances of that day and a monument that amazes me:



and my own favorite:



That ceiling, and much of the Renaissance art is an inspiration on many levels, some of which far transcend a private business licensing agreement, at least for me.

Why am I just seeing the same two symbols rather than the two pictures?