Slashdot Mirror
Joseph Goebbels' Estate Sues Publisher Over Diary Excerpt Royalties
wabrandsma writes with this from The Guardian: The estate of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's minister of propaganda, is taking legal action against the publisher Random House over a new biography, claiming payment for the use of extracts from his diaries. Peter Longerich's biography of Goebbels is to be published in May (Random House/ Siedler). Longerich, who is the professor at Royal Holloway's Holocaust Research Centre, maintains this case has important censorship implications. 'If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research,' he said.
FTA: the diaries "remain in copyright until the end of 2015. Copies are in public libraries."
Just wait a year and then there REALLY won't be an issue. There isn't a clause in the legal code about whether or not a horrible human being can or can't get a copyright, so until there's a court decision (which seems like flirting with what can and can't be said... Which seems like free speech) this case seems extra baseless. The comment that this has implications on research seems misplaced to me. Am I missing something?
Just because you own the diary, does not mean you own the contents. It is pretty clear what happens to the assets of criminals, especially with regard to crimes against humanity and especially when those assets have value derived from the commitment of those crimes. The content is public domain and any attempt to derive individual profit by claiming ownership of the content tend to place the person claiming that as also sharing the liability for how the value was derived for that content.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Takes "copyright Nazis" to a whole new level. Since Goebbel's diaries were associated with his crimes (as others have pointed out), I hope this doesn't get far. There is no reason his descendants should profit from his notoriety.
A private person controls the rights to Goebbels' diaries until a court of law declares otherwise or they fall into the public domain for some other reason. Courts should have done this in the aftermath of WWII, but Germans wanted these copyrights to remain valid in order to control such writings. The writings could also have come into the public domain as part of some settlement to civil claims against the Goebbels estate. But since neither seems to have happened, the copyright still appears to be valid.
Arguing as if "research" should be exempted from the usual rule of law is particularly embarrassing for a German professor studying the Holocaust, since many atrocities were committed in the Third Reich because German academics considered themselves above the law and got away with it.
If Longerich can't make a convincing argument that these works are in the public domain or that he falls under a well-defined legal exemption, he can join the rest of us and work towards shorter copyright terms, broader fair use exemptions, and less draconian laws. Of course, he could also demonstrate good will by licensing his own works under a CC license.
It seems that the bigger problem here is that modern copyright is so unreasonably long, historical documents are still under copyright. Anything over the original 28 year copyright term is really robbing the next generation of history.
60 million is the number now?
Let me guess, if I don't believe your statements - which is a criminal offense in most of Europe - I should be thrown in jail?
60 million is the number now?
Let me guess, if I don't believe your statements - which is a criminal offense in most of Europe - I should be thrown in jail?
Sorry you have me confused with a European, or an American leftist. I disagree with you but I still support your right to make an idiot of your self in public as much as you can.
Hitler and Himmler ordered crimes against humanity to be carried out. The only thing I have heard so far is the Goering hoped that crimes against humanity would be carried out. As the propaganda minister, yes he would of been in control of spreading hatred for Jews, but it is hard to condemn that during wartime when spreading hatred and dehumanizing your enemies is standard practice. And it might not qualify as heinous enough to actually count as a crime against humanity.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Particular to the antisemitism of the Nazis, one can look at the need to find a villain, some group that they could hold responsible for their economic depression (largely the result of WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles) that did not require that they question their Germanic superiority.
If for example, they admitted that the Great War was a colossal screw up, it would insult the people that they were busy ass-kissing and complimenting into believing that there was some divine justification for mounting another world war. So it was awfully convenient to blame everything bad that was happening on social groups that had been historically blamed for things being bad, thus the Gypsies and homosexuals and Jews were convenient targets for the social rage that most Germans should have been pointing at themselves and their leaders who were busily stoking the furnaces of war all over again.
Unfortunately it is a pattern of behavior that has not been the sole property of the Nazis. We can see it in American political parties, Putin's 'social engineering', even in the political manipulations of Israel as they simultaneously drive the Palestinians into a corner and blame their reaction as the reason that they must be treated so harshly
We can expect this to continue for as long at the people who put these politicians into power fall for the same stupid tricks. The continued use by leaders of the Big Lie (Lie big and repeat the lie until people believe it to be true) and an unwillingness on the part of the populace to deal with the pain of Cognitive Dissonance (the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values) explains so much that is bad in this world.
Wherever You Go, There You Are
You find it hard to condemn a guy who was given the job of justifying murdering six million Jews?
You do understand, I trust, that Goebbels was more than just a propaganda writer, but a senior minister and, for a brief time, one of Hitler's chief heirs. But even the propaganda itself was horrifying in its vileness and evil, and even Goebbels had never done anything else, that would still make him one of the evilest men in hisotry.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The standard Nuremburg defence (which didn't work BTW) was "I was only obeying orders", not "I was only giving them".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not a big deal anymore? Do you even Israel?
The last 70 years of Jewish politics have been dominated by Holocaust fallout. As a Jew I find this extremely tragic, as we've been building our future on some sense that we need to escape and defend ourselves rather than make peace with those around us.
Goebbels may have been part of the leadership of a losing side in Europe, but as far what he's done to Judaism, I'm afraid to say he'd be quite happy if he were alive to see the outcome.
Unless you're planning to exhume his remains and put them on trial (It's been done, see Oliver Cromwell) Goebbels has committed no crimes. Yes he is a monster, but he is no criminal.
That's nonsense. It's probably based on the legal principle "assumed innocent until proven guilty", but that fails in two ways. First, it's only a legal principle about how to treat suspects. It's not reality - guilt begins at the act, not at the conviction. And secondly, there is indeed plenty of proof of Goebbels crimes. There is no conviction (because he died before that), but that is also true for Bonnie and Clyde, Jack the Ripper, Richard Nixon, and even, as far as I know, Osama bin Laden.
Stephan
The last 70 years of Jewish politics have been dominated by Holocaust fallout.
Is that what we're calling Zionism now? At what point does the attempted genocide stop being 'fallout' and become its own thing?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"