(03-03-2021 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Cancel culture is all about punishing people for wrongthink, even if the wrongthink is decades or even centuries old.
Personally, I don't think people should be punished for wrongthink. Especially if the wrongthink was the prevalent thinking during their era. Tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the hallmarks of being American. Well, it used to be.
Yeah... but who is being punished here? The estate has made the decision to not publish these specific books.
(03-03-2021 09:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Seems pretty reasonable for the estate to make this decision IMO.
Irrespective of the content of the works, arguably works that old should already be in the public domain -- in which case it wouldn't be the estate's decision to make. Copyright for works from that period generally lasts 95 years, which may be excessive. For more recent works, it's even longer: life of the author plus 70 years, which some have called the "Walt Disney rule".
(03-03-2021 09:42 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Seems pretty reasonable for the estate to make this decision IMO.
Irrespective of the content of the works, arguably works that old should already be in the public domain -- in which case it wouldn't be the estate's decision to make. Copyright for works from that period generally lasts 95 years, which may be excessive. For more recent works, it's even longer: life of the author plus 70 years, which some have called the "Walt Disney rule".
The life of author plus 70 years seems pretty reasonable for my non-lawyer mind. What do you think is reasonable for works such as this?
(03-03-2021 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Cancel culture is all about punishing people for wrongthink, even if the wrongthink is decades or even centuries old.
Personally, I don't think people should be punished for wrongthink. Especially if the wrongthink was the prevalent thinking during their era. Tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the hallmarks of being American. Well, it used to be.
Yeah... but who is being punished here? The estate has made the decision to not publish these specific books.
I was speaking of cancel culture generically, specifically the firing of people over comments made in the long ago past, but...
to answer your question, millions of 5 year olds are being deprived of Dr. Seuss books. The estate may have made the decision, but they made it under pressure, or did it (IYO) just come out of the blue like a bolt of lightning?
Anyway, my personal opinion is that we should not be canceling people's lives over long ago transgressions that were not transgressions at the time they happened. Yes, that includes Governor Northam's childish and long ago blackface. Now if he did the same last week, that may well be different.
When I was at Rice, one of the colleges put on an annual Minstrel Show, patterned after the shows that were prevalent 100 years earlier. I am sure it was racist, by 2020 standards. I am also sure that it does not exist, in 2020. But the people who participated in 1964 should not be losing their jobs or their livelihoods in 2020 for what they did in 1964 that is not permitted in 2020.
So, what is your position? Should all the people who participated in 1964 be terminated? Our alumni base is going to get much smaller if we do that.
(03-03-2021 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Cancel culture is all about punishing people for wrongthink, even if the wrongthink is decades or even centuries old.
Personally, I don't think people should be punished for wrongthink. Especially if the wrongthink was the prevalent thinking during their era. Tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the hallmarks of being American. Well, it used to be.
Yeah... but who is being punished here? The estate has made the decision to not publish these specific books.
I was speaking of cancel culture generically, specifically the firing of people over comments made in the long ago past, but...
to answer your question, millions of 5 year olds are being deprived of Dr. Seuss books. The estate may have made the decision, but they made it under pressure, or did it (IYO) just come out of the blue like a bolt of lightning?
Millions of 5-year-old won't see these few/specific books that contain offensive, racist imagery. They will still have access to dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of Dr. Seuss books. I think they'll be just fine.
Quote:Anyway, my personal opinion is that we should not be canceling people's lives over long ago transgressions that were not transgressions at the time they happened. Yes, that includes Governor Northam's childish and long ago blackface. Now if he did the same last week, that may well be different.
When I was at Rice, one of the colleges put on an annual Minstrel Show, patterned after the shows that were prevalent 100 years earlier. I am sure it was racist, by 2020 standards. I am also sure that it does not exist, in 2020. But the people who participated in 1964 should not be losing their jobs or their livelihoods in 2020 for what they did in 1964 that is not permitted in 2020.
So, what is your position? Should all the people who participated in 1964 be terminated? Our alumni base is going to get much smaller if we do that.
No... I don't think people in those sorts of situations should be "cancelled".
(03-03-2021 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:42 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Seems pretty reasonable for the estate to make this decision IMO.
Irrespective of the content of the works, arguably works that old should already be in the public domain -- in which case it wouldn't be the estate's decision to make. Copyright for works from that period generally lasts 95 years, which may be excessive. For more recent works, it's even longer: life of the author plus 70 years, which some have called the "Walt Disney rule".
The life of author plus 70 years seems pretty reasonable for my non-lawyer mind. What do you think is reasonable for works such as this?
Well, every IP right is a monopoly in the work covered by the right, and thus a restriction on the public's freedom of action. Hence, every grant of such right is (or should be) a balance between the public's interest in sufficiently incentivizing the creation of such works and the public's interest in freely using them and in free expression generally.
The US Constitution recognized this balance when it authorized patents and copyrights in the first place, giving Congress the enumerated power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
For promoting the creation of written works, a monopoly term on the order of life of the author OR 30 years (whichever ends last) seems sufficient -- which is about what it was for the first 120 years of US copyright law.
Life of the author PLUS 70 years seems to stretch both the policy purpose and the Constitutional authorization in two ways:
- First, it seems to stretch "limited" far beyond what is necessary and proper to promote creativity.
- Second, by extending the monopoly 2-3 generations past the actual author's existence, it seems to stretch the scope of "securing to Authors".
This lengthly term is perhaps a classic example of regulatory capture: the principal lobbyists involved in making copyright law are the representatives of the publishing industries (not just book publishing, but music, movies, and so on) -- i.e. the rights owners, who have a massive vested interest in making the term as long as possible. And they have been impressively successfully in steering the law more and more in their favor over the last several decades.
I'm the first to note that popularity doesn't make right, but pretty much everyone I have ever talked to about this topic has said that the current copyright term is too long. Rice93 is the first person I've conversed with who has stated otherwise.
Note that the Seuss estate's decision does not affect the secondary market: owners of the no-longer-published books have every right to sell their books to the public.
(03-03-2021 10:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:42 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Seems pretty reasonable for the estate to make this decision IMO.
Irrespective of the content of the works, arguably works that old should already be in the public domain -- in which case it wouldn't be the estate's decision to make. Copyright for works from that period generally lasts 95 years, which may be excessive. For more recent works, it's even longer: life of the author plus 70 years, which some have called the "Walt Disney rule".
The life of author plus 70 years seems pretty reasonable for my non-lawyer mind. What do you think is reasonable for works such as this?
Well, every IP right is a monopoly in the work covered by the right, and thus a restriction on the public's freedom of action. Hence, every grant of such right is (or should be) a balance between the public's interest in sufficiently incentivizing the creation of such works and the public's interest in freely using them and in free expression generally.
The US Constitution recognized this balance when it authorized patents and copyrights in the first place, giving Congress the enumerated power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
For promoting the creation of written works, a monopoly term on the order of life of the author OR 30 years (whichever ends last) seems sufficient -- which is about what it was for the first 120 years of US copyright law.
Life of the author PLUS 70 years seems to stretch both the policy purpose and the Constitutional authorization in two ways:
- First, it seems to stretch "limited" far beyond what is necessary and proper to promote creativity.
- Second, by extending the monopoly 2-3 generations past the actual author's existence, it seems to stretch the scope of "securing to Authors".
This lengthly term is perhaps a classic example of regulatory capture: the principal lobbyists involved in making copyright law are the representatives of the publishing industries (not just book publishing, but music, movies, and so on) -- i.e. the rights owners, who have a massive vested interest in making the term as long as possible. And they have been impressively successfully in steering the law more and more in their favor over the last several decades.
I'm the first to note that popularity doesn't make right, but pretty much everyone I have ever talked to about this topic has said that the current copyright term is too long. You're the first person I've conversed with who has stated otherwise.
I mean... I haven't put any real thought into this so I'm not really looking to stake a position. Perhaps 30 years is more reasonable than 70.
(03-03-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Millions of 5-year-old won't see these few/specific books that contain offensive, racist imagery. They will still have access to dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of Dr. Seuss books. I think they'll be just fine.
You are a very scary person, 93. I think you would fit into Orwell's world just fine. Or, for that matter, Stalin's or Fidel's, or Kim's worlds. Sure wouldn't want you on some oversight board deciding what can be seen and by whom.
Basically, you are saying that if five-years are only allowed to read properly vetted books, they will be fine. Protect the snowflakes. Or, create the snowflakes. What about 10 YOs, 15YOs, 20Yos, 30YOs? What about Tom Sawyer and Natty Bumppo? What about Shakespeare? How about the writings of Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor)?
OO: Rice93 is not staying that the books in question should be illegal. He simply saying that it's ok for the rights owner to choose not to publish them. And of course that's OK -- it would be a strange world in which a rights owner were REQUIRED to publish a work.
And remember:
- Readers can still buy the books on the secondary market; and
- Eventually, the works will be in the public domain, and then anyone can publish them.
But OO's concern is not entirely off the mark: it is a bit troubling that Rice93 framed his assessment in terms of whether the public "needs" the works in question, rather than presuming that (subject to the valid rights of the copyright owner), the public should be free to make that decision for itself.
(03-03-2021 11:28 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]OO: Rice93 is not staying that the books in question should be illegal. He simply saying that it's ok for the rights owner to choose not to publish them. And of course that's OK -- it would be a strange world in which a rights owner were REQUIRED to publish a work.
And remember:
- Readers can still buy the books on the secondary market; and
- Eventually, the works will be in the public domain, and then anyone can publish them.
But OO's concern is not entirely off the mark: it is a bit troubling that Rice93 framed his assessment in terms of whether the public "needs" the works in question, rather than presuming that (subject to the valid rights of the copyright owner), the public should be free to make that decision for itself.
Agree. I'm not saying that these books should be disappeared however I am fully in support of the estate's decision against future publications of these specific books. I'm fine with the public making it's own decision as to reading these books/making them available in a library, etc.
As to the public "needing" the works, George, I was simply making a point to OO that it is unlikely that 5-year-olds are "suffering" based on the estate's decision.
(03-03-2021 11:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Millions of 5-year-old won't see these few/specific books that contain offensive, racist imagery. They will still have access to dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of Dr. Seuss books. I think they'll be just fine.
You are a very scary person, 93. I think you would fit into Orwell's world just fine. Or, for that matter, Stalin's or Fidel's, or Kim's worlds. Sure wouldn't want you on some oversight board deciding what can be seen and by whom.
Basically, you are saying that if five-years are only allowed to read properly vetted books, they will be fine. Protect the snowflakes. Or, create the snowflakes. What about 10 YOs, 15YOs, 20Yos, 30YOs? What about Tom Sawyer and Natty Bumppo? What about Shakespeare? How about the writings of Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor)?
Because I think it's OK for the estate to make its own decision as to which of his books to publish? Hyperbole much?
(03-03-2021 10:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:42 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Seems pretty reasonable for the estate to make this decision IMO.
Irrespective of the content of the works, arguably works that old should already be in the public domain -- in which case it wouldn't be the estate's decision to make. Copyright for works from that period generally lasts 95 years, which may be excessive. For more recent works, it's even longer: life of the author plus 70 years, which some have called the "Walt Disney rule".
The life of author plus 70 years seems pretty reasonable for my non-lawyer mind. What do you think is reasonable for works such as this?
Well, every IP right is a monopoly in the work covered by the right, and thus a restriction on the public's freedom of action. Hence, every grant of such right is (or should be) a balance between the public's interest in sufficiently incentivizing the creation of such works and the public's interest in freely using them and in free expression generally.
The US Constitution recognized this balance when it authorized patents and copyrights in the first place, giving Congress the enumerated power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
For promoting the creation of written works, a monopoly term on the order of life of the author OR 30 years (whichever ends last) seems sufficient -- which is about what it was for the first 120 years of US copyright law.
Life of the author PLUS 70 years seems to stretch both the policy purpose and the Constitutional authorization in two ways:
- First, it seems to stretch "limited" far beyond what is necessary and proper to promote creativity.
- Second, by extending the monopoly 2-3 generations past the actual author's existence, it seems to stretch the scope of "securing to Authors".
This lengthly term is perhaps a classic example of regulatory capture: the principal lobbyists involved in making copyright law are the representatives of the publishing industries (not just book publishing, but music, movies, and so on) -- i.e. the rights owners, who have a massive vested interest in making the term as long as possible. And they have been impressively successfully in steering the law more and more in their favor over the last several decades.
I'm the first to note that popularity doesn't make right, but pretty much everyone I have ever talked to about this topic has said that the current copyright term is too long. Rice93 is the first person I've conversed with who has stated otherwise.
Just a smidgeon of a correction George -- every IP right is *not* a monopoly right. They are, however, a right to restrict others. Kind of nuanced, but a very important distinction.
Copyright even has further in-roads defined in the statute, such that it is not a complete right to restrict.
I cant wait until the NAAS (as opposed to the NAACP) makes it cry -- Sneetches need not be denigrated so heavily in the literature.
(03-03-2021 11:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 11:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Millions of 5-year-old won't see these few/specific books that contain offensive, racist imagery. They will still have access to dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of Dr. Seuss books. I think they'll be just fine.
You are a very scary person, 93. I think you would fit into Orwell's world just fine. Or, for that matter, Stalin's or Fidel's, or Kim's worlds. Sure wouldn't want you on some oversight board deciding what can be seen and by whom.
Basically, you are saying that if five-years are only allowed to read properly vetted books, they will be fine. Protect the snowflakes. Or, create the snowflakes. What about 10 YOs, 15YOs, 20Yos, 30YOs? What about Tom Sawyer and Natty Bumppo? What about Shakespeare? How about the writings of Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor)?
Because I think it's OK for the estate to make its own decision as to which of his books to publish? ?
No, not that, but because you think sanitizing literature by the state to approved thought guidelines is a good thing.
So what do you think of
Tom Sawyer? should HSers be allowed to read this book, or should it be removed from libraries, as they will be "just fine" with other books?
(03-03-2021 12:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 11:39 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 11:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Millions of 5-year-old won't see these few/specific books that contain offensive, racist imagery. They will still have access to dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of Dr. Seuss books. I think they'll be just fine.
You are a very scary person, 93. I think you would fit into Orwell's world just fine. Or, for that matter, Stalin's or Fidel's, or Kim's worlds. Sure wouldn't want you on some oversight board deciding what can be seen and by whom.
Basically, you are saying that if five-years are only allowed to read properly vetted books, they will be fine. Protect the snowflakes. Or, create the snowflakes. What about 10 YOs, 15YOs, 20Yos, 30YOs? What about Tom Sawyer and Natty Bumppo? What about Shakespeare? How about the writings of Richard Burton (the explorer, not the actor)?
Because I think it's OK for the estate to make its own decision as to which of his books to publish? ?
No, not that, but because you think sanitizing literature by the state to approved thought guidelines is a good thing.
That's a pretty big accusation. Where did I suggest that? Did you read the part a few posts above where I said this?:
I'm not saying that these books should be disappeared however I am fully in support of the estate's decision against future publications of these specific books. I'm fine with the public making it's own decision as to reading these books/making them available in a library, etc.
Quote:So what do you think of Tom Sawyer? should HSers be allowed to read this book, or should it be removed from libraries, as they will be "just fine" with other books?
Yes... I think HSers should be allowed to read TS. I don't know what I've written to make you think that I would be opposed.
(03-03-2021 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Cancel culture is all about punishing people for wrongthink, even if the wrongthink is decades or even centuries old.
Personally, I don't think people should be punished for wrongthink. Especially if the wrongthink was the prevalent thinking during their era. Tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the hallmarks of being American. Well, it used to be.
This.
A perfect example is WMR. If you're so against him and what he did that you don't want to attend then that is a fair and reasonable choice... but to take what he endowed for all that it is worth and then to relegate the key person who made that all possible to a foot note is just ridiculous to me. If you want to 'end' him, that's fine. His estate/heirs should be able to 'take back' what they did
(03-03-2021 04:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Cancel culture is all about punishing people for wrongthink, even if the wrongthink is decades or even centuries old.
Personally, I don't think people should be punished for wrongthink. Especially if the wrongthink was the prevalent thinking during their era. Tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the hallmarks of being American. Well, it used to be.
This.
A perfect example is WMR. If you're so against him and what he did that you don't want to attend then that is a fair and reasonable choice... but to take what he endowed for all that it is worth and then to relegate the key person who made that all possible to a foot note is just ridiculous to me. If you want to 'end' him, that's fine. His estate/heirs should be able to 'take back' what they did
I'm a bit torn on the statue issue. I understand both the POV of both sides but I tend to listen to the black students who say that they are uncomfortable with the statue being in the quad. Therefore, if I were asked to vote, I would likely vote for the removal of the statue.
I'm not sure that moving his statue to a place that receives less foot-traffic is "relegating him to a foot note". Even completely removing the statue. I don't think there's any chance that Rice is going to change its name.
(03-03-2021 04:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 04:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-03-2021 09:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Cancel culture is all about punishing people for wrongthink, even if the wrongthink is decades or even centuries old.
Personally, I don't think people should be punished for wrongthink. Especially if the wrongthink was the prevalent thinking during their era. Tolerance for other viewpoints is one of the hallmarks of being American. Well, it used to be.
This.
A perfect example is WMR. If you're so against him and what he did that you don't want to attend then that is a fair and reasonable choice... but to take what he endowed for all that it is worth and then to relegate the key person who made that all possible to a foot note is just ridiculous to me. If you want to 'end' him, that's fine. His estate/heirs should be able to 'take back' what they did
I'm a bit torn on the statue issue. I understand both the POV of both sides but I tend to listen to the black students who say that they are uncomfortable with the statue being in the quad. Therefore, if I were asked to vote, I would likely vote for the removal of the statue.
I'm not sure that moving his statue to a place that receives less foot-traffic is "relegating him to a foot note". Even completely removing the statue. I don't think there's any chance that Rice is going to change its name.
Why does that seem impossible to you? If WMR is so shameful we have to hide or remove the statue of the founder, it seems entirely logical to me that we eventually would be debating whether to change the name to "Freedom U." or "Sojourner Truth U.".
I foresee lots of schools having to change their names to satisfy this movement. Washington and Lee? There's a double whammy of slaveowners. I don't know who Brown, Yale, Harvard, Baylor or dozens of other schools were named after, or the detail of their lives or if those details measure up to modern race standards, but I doubt that many people from over 50 years back will measure up. When even Lincoln cannot appear as the name of a school in SF, it is not inconceivable.
If walking by a piece of rock makes somebody uncomfortable, don't walk by it. The Alamo makes me uncomfortable. The UT Tower makes me uncomfortable. The whole city of Waco makes me uncomfortable. The IRS office makes me uncomfortable.
If walking by the statue of the man who made your education possible makes you uncomfortable, I think you must be very ungrateful.