View Single Post
Old 11-19-2010, 02:04 AM   #53
Nerwen
Wisest of the Noldor
 
Nerwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ˙˙˙ssɐןƃ ƃuıʞooן ǝɥʇ ɥƃnoɹɥʇ
Posts: 6,694
Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Nerwen is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.
Send a message via Skype™ to Nerwen
[Note: replying to a deleted post]

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Again, I know this wasn't the original purpose of copyright law. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's wrong to use a law for another purpose than what it was meant for, if that purpose is not in itself wrong.
And I think that's what's gotten us all a long way down a very slippery slope with lots of nasty sharp rocks waiting at the bottom. There are constant attempts to extend the term & nature of 'Copyright' - some are demanding that copyright to be up for sale to the highest bidder & extended indefinitely, so that companies could purchase copyrighted material & keep it out of the public domain forever. That would be be concerning enough if we were dealing only with works of art, but when it includes personal letters & documents, then the danger to society is immense.
As I said in my first post, there are situations when it would clearly would be vital for private documents to be made public, and where this should override all considerations of copyright and privacy. If there isn't any legal provision in such a case, then there certainly ought to be. But that doesn't mean those considerations shouldn't otherwise exist. You apparently see this as an "all or nothing" deal; I don't. (I'd like to use the term "slippery slope" to describe your argument here, but, heck, you beat me to it!)

Still, Davem if society collapses into a bloody dictatorship as a result of people not being automatically able to read each others' diaries without permission, you can always blame me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Actually, no, it must be something beyond the range of silly but a bit embarrassing, because I doubt the authors & publishers of this book would have any issue leaving out material like that. Let's remember they have spent years researching & writing a scholarly work about Tolkien's brother & brought it right to the point of publication & clearly feel that the story cannot be told without the inclusion of this material. The Estate are making out this is just 20-odd pages out of 300 & its no big deal to remove it. The authors, after all their hard work feel that without it the book is missing an element so vital that there is no point publishing it. If I step back from an attitude of 'Oh, its the TOLKIEN Estate so there can't possibly be anything bad in what they're doing here' & look at this objectively, I see very big. very rich organisation preventing the publication of a serious work of scholarship because it contains information said very big, very rich organisation does not want in the public domain. That may just be material which is a bit embarrassing rather than deeply scandalous, but stopping this book going ahead for that reason is a bit of a scandal in itself (IMHO)
I'm sorry, but look, unless there's something you haven't told us, you don't have any evidence for this, have you? Just your own conjectures. As far as any of us know, this is just a straight copyright issue. And as far as I'm concerned, you and I have been talking about a purely hypothetical situation.

Once again, I'm not even trying to defend Tolkien Estate here. I'm certainly not taking the attitude that 'Oh, its the TOLKIEN Estate so there can't possibly be anything bad in what they're doing here'. I've already said it sounds like they may well be being pointlessly obstructive. I just think it's also possible to look at things "objectively" without making a foray into what, if you'll forgive me for saying this, is starting to look rather like borderline conspiracy-theory territory. (More in the phrasing than anything else, though– cf the passage I bolded.) And anyway, as I've said several times already, I do not believe that a moral duty exists to make any and all material public. It just depends.

Again, from my point of view the possible ethical violation here lies in giving permission and then withdrawing it for no good reason, wasting the authors' time and effort in the process.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo.

Last edited by Nerwen; 11-21-2010 at 04:50 PM. Reason: added comment.
Nerwen is offline   Reply With Quote