[Mike Renzulli]

Well Folks,

Diana Mertz-Hsieh has struck again. As it turns out, she just sent me an e-mail stating that she doesn't give me permission to play her Objectivism 101 lectures for my group's meeting coming up this Thursday.

Hsieh says that she holds the copyright for it, that TAS's copyright for her lectures has expired and, while she will not stop me, she states that my doing so would be stealing her intellectual property.

I already have a call into Ed Hudgins at TAS to see if what she is saying is accurate. I may have to bag using the lectures until the legalities of doing so are cleared up unless someone on these boards knows otherwise.

Regardless if she is right or not, its one more feather in her cap of making an ass out of herself.

This post has been edited by Mike Renzulli: 21 April 2008 - 05:48 PM

[Chris Grieb]

Mike; I am not surprised.

I looked at my copy of David Kelley's course on Objectivism problems and could not find a copyright notice. I have heard that Summer Seminar speakers are supposed to give permission for resale of their lectures by TAS. I don't know if this premission for TOC to sell can be withdrawn.

[Bill P]

Mike Renzulli, on Apr 22 2008, 07:48 AM, said:

Well Folks,

Diana Mertz-Hsieh has struck again. As it turns out, she just sent me an e-mail stating that she doesn't give me permission to play her Objectivism 101 lectures for my group's meeting coming up this Thursday.

Hsieh says that she holds the copyright for it, that TAS's copyright for her lectures has expired and, while she will not stop me, she states that my doing so would be stealing her intellectual property.

I already have a call into Ed Hudgins at TAS to see if what she is saying is accurate. I may have to bag using the lectures until the legalities of doing so are cleared up unless someone on these boards knows otherwise.

Regardless if she is right or not, its one more feather in her cap of making an ass out of herself.

Mike -

Whether one agrees with Hsieh's motivation in her position, the issue regarding rights will be whether purchasing the audio of the lecture granted you performance rights (and if so, whether those rights expired along with expiration of TAS' copyright). The customary answer to both of those questoins is . . . no. Watch a DVD you have purchased, for instance, and read that fine print from Interpol and the other nice folks at the beginning --- you have the right to private viewing (or some such term).

I do not know what the rights situation is on the TOC audios. I just glanced at some of my CD-ROMs from The Atlas Society, and don't find anything which would addresss the matter.

Alfonso

[Philip Coates]

This is not a complicated issue. When someone's lecture is recorded with their permission, the abilty to *play* the recording ...to oneself or to one's group... never expires.

If you were trying to make additional copies and sell them, charge for them, in competition with her in some way, that would be a different matter.

Why on earth would TOC -pay- its speakers to be able to record and sell (or even give away) recordings if they retained the right to say "don't play this" at a later date.

This ain't rocket science folks.

Imagine if the Beatles decided they didn't like how their music was being used by people smoking pot in their living rooms so they tried to say you can only play our music at these listed events....

:-) :-)

Diana, get a grip....

[Bill P]

Philip Coates, on Apr 22 2008, 10:12 AM, said:

This is not a complicated issue. When someone's lecture is recorded with their permission, the abilty to *play* the recording ...to oneself or to one's group... never expires.

If you were trying to make additional copies and sell them, charge for them, in competition with her in some way, that would be a different matter.

Why on earth would TOC -pay- its speakers to be able to record and sell (or even give away) recordings if they retained the right to say "don't play this" at a later date.

This ain't rocket science folks.

Imagine if the Beatles decided they didn't like how their music was being used by people smoking pot in their living rooms so they tried to say you can only play our music at these listed events....

:-) :-)

Diana, get a grip....

Philip -

I don't there's much dispute about something expiring. The issue is whether the purchase of the audio contains the rights to public performance. It emphatically does NOT for some products - for instance, DVDs of movies purchased by individuals.

Consider the Beatles music example, for instance: A radio station can purchase a CD by the Beatles. But that doesn't give them the rights to publicly broadcast the White Album without a further payment to Apple Music. Are we not all agreed on this being the legal situation, at least in the USA?

I hope this helps to understand.

Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alfonso,

It depends on what "public" means here. If admission is being charged or the meeting is being held in a public place like a shopping mall or public building, that is one thing. If it is a small group of friends meeting at someone's house, that is another.

Just as a person is entitled to play purchased records, CD's and DVD's at parties and private social gatherings, he has the same right to play recorded lectures. On the contrary to Ms. Hsieh's shaky explanation about her intellectual property rights and either-or crap, if she tried to impede Mike for playing her lecture at a private event, she would be guilty of trying to violate HIS property rights, not protect hers. If she complained about it in public and called it a legal infraction, she would even be guilty of libel.

He bought the course and paid his money for it. He fulfilled his part of the contract. She offered it for sale. Nobody forced her. I don't care what her contract is with TAS. Even if their contract expired, TAS still has the right to sell left-over stock unless the contract specifically states that all copies manufactured up to the point of termination of the contract are to be destroyed. AND EVEN THEN, someone who bought a unit has the right to resell it at any time he damn well pleases and the purchaser gets all private performance rights transferred to him when he buys it.

So it is no longer Ms. Hsieh's right to tell Mike with whom or where he may use his property privately.

There is an ugly non-PC name for that. It is called Indian giver. Our laws do not sanction such a policy and neither does Objectivist morality. Ms. Hsieh should be clear on that if she isn't (and it doesn't sound like she is).

Clarity can be found in the nature of the group Mike has set up. If it is at a stage where it can be seen as a private gathering, there is no problem at all with playing the material for the group—not even if he made some publicity (such as making public announcements, like here in the Events forum). No income would be involved, not even indirect income. And the event would not be open to the public, except to the extent a private party could be reasonably understood as open to the public. If it is a public meeting with the characteristics of a public event, especially if it included advertising, like placing ads in newspapers and so forth, and charging admission or limiting entrance by use of tickets, etc., or if the CD were used in a place of public commerce owned or operated by Mike like a restaurant or clothing store, or even broadcast on radio, TV or the Internet, then this goes off into performance rights and Hsieh would have a legitimate grievance. Mike bought the CD for private use, not public use. She did not sell those rights to him.

Now if somebody thought all this was academic because so few people give a damn about an obscure philosophy course hardly anyone wants to listen to by an obscure Internet author, and he just wanted to drive Hsieh nuts and tempt her to embark on a long intense moral condemnation spree, he could produce a video mash-up using parts of her voice from the course as audio under images of wild savages juxtaposed with lavish coronation scenes from silent movies and gags from the Three Stooges and post this on YouTube, or use her voice sampled on a gangsta rap song about wasting all the motherfuckin' pig enemies or something like that. All this falls within fair use and is perfectly legal depending on the size of the excerpt.



Hmmmmmmm...

(pause... thinking... looking off in the distance with a small degree of inner pleasure...)

Nah... I've got too much on my plate right now as it is...



Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

gratuitous remark withdrawn

This post has been edited by Wolf DeVoon: 22 April 2008 - 12:24 AM

[Bill P]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Apr 22 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

Alfonso,

It depends on what "public" means here. If admission is being charged or the meeting is being held in a public place like a shopping mall or public building, that is one thing. If it is a small group of friends meeting at someone's house, that is another.

Just as a person is entitled to play purchased records, CD's and DVD's at parties and private social gatherings, he has the same right to play recorded lectures. On the contrary to Ms. Hsieh's shaky explanation about her intellectual property rights and either-or crap, if she tried to impede Mike for playing her lecture at a private event, she would be guilty of trying to violate HIS property rights, not protect hers. If she complained about it in public and called it a legal infraction, she would even be guilty of libel.

He bought the course and paid his money for it. He fulfilled his part of the contract. She offered it for sale. Nobody forced her. I don't care what her contract is with TAS. Even if their contract expired, TAS still has the right to sell left-over stock unless the contract specifically states that all copies manufactured up to the point of termination of the contract are to be destroyed. AND EVEN THEN, someone who bought a unit has the right to resell it at any time he damn well pleases and the purchaser gets all private performance rights transferred to him when he buys it.

So it is no longer Ms. Hsieh's right to tell Mike with whom or where he may use his property privately.

(snip)

Michael

Michael -

I'm not certain we have disagreed. My point is that PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of a movie, audio work, etc... is not something you automatically get when you purchase a DVD, audio, etc... That one needs to check what rights were purchased to know the answer. Many people get confused on this point.

What I have indicated as open to questoin is whether the rights to PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of the audio were included with purchase of the physical media. I don't know the answer - only an examination of the packaging for the product, or perhaps a license statement which might have been available online at the time of purchase, can tell.

But I know of NOTHING which would give the seller (or someone who sold the product to the seller!) the right to terminate any rights once purchased. ONly if the original agreement were something like "PUrchaser is procuring the right to private performance of the work in perpetuity, and public performance for the next 3 years" would such be the case. An EXPLICIT termination date, stated at the time of purchase, for whatever rights were granted as part of the purchase at time of purchase.

Alfonso

[Kat]

I think she is just being a bully. I wouldn't play her stuff just because I don't like her and she is someone I would never sanction. I think, as long as your group is fairly small, something like this would be akin to playing music at a party. I'm not a lawyer though. You are correct to contact TAS if they hold the copyright. If the copyrights of TAS tapes are held by their respective authors (in this case Diana) you may need to change your plans.

Kat

[Mike Renzulli]

Thanks, Kat and to everyone who posted. I also replied to her e-mail asking her to provide any documentation to back up her claim. While I am kinda fuzzy on the sanction issue, it was/is still a good lecture. None the less, if I have to change my plans, okay by me. Theres plenty of other lectures I can play.

Kat, on Apr 21 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

I think she is just being a bully. I wouldn't play her stuff just because I don't like her and she is someone I would never sanction. I think, as long as your group is fairly small, something like this would be akin to playing music at a party. I'm not a lawyer though. You are correct to contact TAS if they hold the copyright. If the copyrights of TAS tapes are held by their respective authors (in this case Diana) you may need to change your plans.

Kat

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Alfonso, on Apr 21 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

I'm not certain we have disagreed. My point is that PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of a movie, audio work, etc... is not something you automatically get when you purchase a DVD, audio, etc... That one needs to check what rights were purchased to know the answer. Many people get confused on this point.

What I have indicated as open to questoin is whether the rights to PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of the audio were included with purchase of the physical media.

Alfonso,

We have not disagreed. I'm sorry. Sometimes I find a subject interesting and off I go without realizing that people don't have certain information.

I used to work in the copyright field in Brazil, so this is an area I am familiar with. Of course the CD did not come with performance rights. That never happens with simple over-the-counter CD sales. I forgot that people don't know how many rights can be charged for an audio product (mechanicals, performance, inclusion, neighboring, etc.).

In practice, the CD would be a lot more expensive if performance rights were included. Also, a contract or release would have to be involved in such a purchase.

You were correct to point out that this exists. The general public is not aware of it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf DeVoon, on Apr 21 2008, 11:01 PM, said:

gratuitous remark withdrawn

Wolf,

Why?

It was a good one.



Michael

[Bill P]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Apr 22 2008, 02:29 PM, said:

Alfonso, on Apr 21 2008, 11:09 PM, said:

I'm not certain we have disagreed. My point is that PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of a movie, audio work, etc... is not something you automatically get when you purchase a DVD, audio, etc... That one needs to check what rights were purchased to know the answer. Many people get confused on this point.

What I have indicated as open to questoin is whether the rights to PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of the audio were included with purchase of the physical media.

Alfonso,

We have not disagreed. I'm sorry. Sometimes I find a subject interesting and off I go without realizing that people don't have certain information.

I used to work in the copyright field in Brazil, so this is an area I am familiar with. Of course the CD did not come with performance rights. That never happens with simple over-the-counter CD sales. I forgot that people don't know how many rights can be charged for an audio product (mechanicals, performance, inclusion, neighboring, etc.).

In practice, the CD would be a lot more expensive if performance rights were included. Also, a contract or release would have to be involved in such a purchase.

You were correct to point out that this exists. The general public is not aware of it.

Michael

Michael -

Yes. I've had involvement in the music industry myself, and some very famous artists I know are QUITE WELL informed on this matter. Even though folks from outside the industry often misunderstand.

A related matter: When someone "purchases software" they are really (as they note if they read the license) typically purchasing the RIGHT TO USE the software on X computers (where X is defined in the license). They don't "own the software" - and the agreement makes that clear. I have seen people irately complain that they should have received source code when they "bought the software" because it was their right (in their view of things). (If someone wants the right, they should negotiate for it. They will find Microsoft Office to be quite a bit more expensive...)

Sigh...

Alfonso

[Bill P]

Wolf DeVoon, on Apr 22 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

gratuitous remark withdrawn

Wolf -

If we all start withdrawing gratuitous remarks, then what will happen?

Alfonso (laughing)

[Greybird]

Here's something gratuitous, to make up for Wolf {g}

I've wondered about screws being loose in that woman since the time (pre-Mrs.-Hsieh days) she posted elaborate rationalizations for doing Web design work for the Florida government.

It was an anti-smoking site paid for by what was extorted from the tobacco companies under the "settlement" — that's stretching things, with the legal bludgeonry involved — with forty-odd states' attorneys general.

I wondered at the elastic range of her scruples, especially with Rand's iconic use of the cigarette, but in regard to any such exaction from productive business folk. She never really responded fully to my questions. (I think this was back on Atlantis I.)

Since then, the range of her O-related bombast has been astonishing and nearly unrivaled. And unlike some others, such as Perigo, it's at least expressed with a verbal range and avoidance of stupid acronyms that makes it readable, in the few samplings I've run across. (Though, in such matters as Chris Sciabarra, hardly at all just.)

[sjw]

What does "public performance" mean? Is it "public" if you invite your friends? If you let them invite theirs? If you invite friendly people into your living room?

I don't see a true Objectivist using the word "public" to qualify copyright statements, it is non-objective. Nor do I see one who has moral egg on her face becoming the loudest moral condemner in all the land. The proper response to sanctioning the kind of people she claims to have been sanctioning is to stop doing it, apologize, hang her head in shame, and try to do something productive.


Shayne

[Mike Renzulli]

You know I might have considered not playing it if Hsieh had asked me not to. However, instead, she decides to punch me in the face.

This reminds me of something Leonard Piekoff did to a rockband that named themselves Atlas Shrugged. I believe Piekoff threatened to sue the band if they did not change their name.

While Piekoff was right I didn't like the way he went about it and the band wasn't too happy either.

Like the saying goes, you can accomplish more with honey than with vinegar. If ARIans choose vinegar over honey, its no wonder that, up until recently, ARI didn't go very far in terms of their furthering Objectivism.

On a more positive note I got a phone call from Ed Hudgins today in which the attorney he consulted on this issue was out on vacation. He offered to send me a similar course at TAS expense since he didn't think he would have an answer by Thursday.

I replied I think I might have another and thanked him very much for the offer.

sjw, on Apr 22 2008, 06:43 AM, said:

What does "public performance" mean? Is it "public" if you invite your friends? If you let them invite theirs? If you invite friendly people into your living room?

I don't see a true Objectivist using the word "public" to qualify copyright statements, it is non-objective. Nor do I see one who has moral egg on her face becoming the loudest moral condemner in all the land. The proper response to sanctioning the kind of people she claims to have been sanctioning is to stop doing it, apologize, hang her head in shame, and try to do something productive.


Shayne

[Philip Coates]

Some of these points (not all) have been made, but I think it's important to get the legal nuances right: I've now had a chance to do some more research. While I'm not a lawyer, the laws and rights of the various parties are pretty clear [my sources include: ASCAP for sound recording rights, various presentations of copyright law, wikipedia summary/restatement of the preceding].

1. "When a work is "made for hire", within the meaning of the Copyright Act, the employer or commissioning party, who pays for creation of the work, is deemed the author, rather than the employee or commissioned party who actually conceives and fixes the expression (or causes its fixation)... the employer or commissioning party, who paid for the work and took the economic risk of it, is deemed the author for copyright purposes."

The party commissioning the speeches at summer conferences [and paying Diana, myself, of any other speaker] would be TAS or ARI or whoever is putting on the conference and paying our expenses, room and board, travel etc.

2. TAS's copyright has not 'expired' as Diana Hsieh maliciously and falsely claims -- copyrights last for more than 75 years.

If the copyright had 'expired' [or, more precisely, been transferred] she would have certainly been able to quote and email the specific passage in which TAS relinquished its rights. That she didn't do so when it would have been easy to document her strong claim tells you what you need to know about this woman's objectivity and sense of personal responsibility.

I also was a summer conference speaker on three different occasions. I signed multiple contracts with TOC-TAS as a speaker approximately during the period when Diana signed those short, straightforward, boilerplate contracts. I don't have a copy handy [Roger or Robert Campbell or Barbara, do you have one???]. But, if I recall correctly, they were pretty simple in language and were all the same, allowing them to record and sell my talks. Nothing about this right 'expiring' in only five or ten years, which there would have been no reason for them to grant and would have seriously damaged their ability to continue to sell or provide recordings of the summer conferences.

3. If anyone had the right to restrict playing or "performance" of a taped lecture once it had been sold, it would be the party who hired the speaker and/or commissioned the work.

But in this case, -even they- have no such right:

"'Fair use' is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review...'fair use' [including use] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

4. In addition, there is a distinction between personal or private or "home use" and "public performance": "To perform or display a work "publicly" means to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."

Note the qualifying word, 'substantial': The purpose of this provision is to prevent significant market competition [such as 'piracy' done by video pirates of movies overseas] that lowers the value or possible sales of the product, determining "whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original".

5. Furthermore, a lot of latitude is allowed in copyright law for educational and scholarly use as opposed to going into commercial competition. For example, "Section 110 (1) of the law appears to allow the classroom use of video programs" and "face-to-face teaching".

Any one of these points allows one to replay taped lectures for a small group at any time you wish without asking anybody for permission. Neither TAS nor the original speaker (nor ARI nor Leonard Peikoff for his taped lectures) have any say in the matter.

If they wanted to disallow uses they didn't like they should have put that restriction in the contract. And even then, fair use precludes them from some unreasonable restrictions.

[Jonathan]

Greybird, on Apr 22 2008, 05:53 AM, said:

Here's something gratuitous, to make up for Wolf {g}

I've wondered about screws being loose in that woman since the time (pre-Mrs.-Hsieh days) she posted elaborate rationalizations for doing Web design work for the Florida government.

It was an anti-smoking site paid for by what was extorted from the tobacco companies under the "settlement" — that's stretching things, with the legal bludgeonry involved — with forty-odd states' attorneys general.

I wondered at the elastic range of her scruples, especially with Rand's iconic use of the cigarette, but in regard to any such exaction from productive business folk. She never really responded fully to my questions. (I think this was back on Atlantis I.)

Since then, the range of her O-related bombast has been astonishing and nearly unrivaled. And unlike some others, such as Perigo, it's at least expressed with a verbal range and avoidance of stupid acronyms that makes it readable, in the few samplings I've run across. (Though, in such matters as Chris Sciabarra, hardly at all just.)

Not only did Hsieh do some work for an anti-smoking campaign for the state of Florida, but she also accepted brief freelance employment from an environmental organization called ECO in which she repaired their broken website. After she denounced TOC, I had asked her about her professional relationship with ECO (which, at the time, was listed on her online resume). You can find my questions and her replies in the A2 archives from April 6, 2004, beginning with my message # 9196 (also see posts 9197, 9223 and 9228 for the full conversation).

I thought that her generous lack of self-condemnation, while being quite frantic and harsh in her judgments of others, was interesting, not to mention typically Objectivist, and my interest in it led me to ponder the issue further here during the earlier days of OL.

J

[Chris Grieb]

The Phil made was what I had been told about the TOC speaker's contracts. His point about copyrights is also true.

Mike; I might suggest you tell Dinah to stick her legal opinions where the sun don't shine.

This post has been edited by Chris Grieb: 22 April 2008 - 02:36 PM