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.
Full Version: Diana Mertz-Hsieh nasty gram
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 I don't know if this premission for TOC to sell can be withdrawn.
QUOTE(Mike Renzulli @ Apr 22 2008, 07:48 AM) 
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.
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
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....
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....
QUOTE(Philip Coates @ Apr 22 2008, 10:12 AM)
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....
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
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
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
gratuitous remark withdrawn
QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Apr 22 2008, 11:33 AM)
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
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
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
Kat
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.
QUOTE(Kat @ Apr 21 2008, 09:40 PM)
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
Kat
QUOTE(Alfonso @ Apr 21 2008, 11:09 PM)
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.
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
QUOTE(Wolf DeVoon @ Apr 21 2008, 11:01 PM)
gratuitous remark withdrawn
Wolf,
Why?
It was a good one.
Michael
QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Apr 22 2008, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE(Alfonso @ Apr 21 2008, 11:09 PM)
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.
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
QUOTE(Wolf DeVoon @ Apr 22 2008, 12:01 PM)
gratuitous remark withdrawn
Wolf -
If we all start withdrawing gratuitous remarks, then what will happen?
Alfonso (laughing)
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.)
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.)
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
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
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.
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.
QUOTE(sjw @ Apr 22 2008, 06:43 AM)
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
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
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.
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.
QUOTE(Greybird @ Apr 22 2008, 05:53 AM)
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.)
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
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.
QUOTE(Jonathan @ Apr 22 2008, 01:53 PM)
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).
To answer the question you raised: It is clearly morally out of bounds to be working for a pro-environmentalism or anti-smoking website, and the defense that you claim Hsieh gave you is clearly of the "I was just following orders" mentality. Committing the sin of working for those sites was bad; rationalizing doing that is far, far worse.
The issue is stark black and white, not gray as Michael makes it out to be.
Shayne
Hsieh did honest work for honest pay, which she considers to be work for a dishonest client, but she claims she did it honestly because she commented about the dishonesty at the time.
She has blasted other people for far less on both sides of the fence, so she uses tribal double standards as her philosophical premises.
yawn...
Who cares?
Michael
She has blasted other people for far less on both sides of the fence, so she uses tribal double standards as her philosophical premises.
yawn...
Who cares?
Michael
*our common law heritage*
Returning to the copyright matter again, I was impressed in my mini-research project today with how rational the law can be. In this case, the subtleties involved in deciding how much of a property right someone has when rights are "split" or shared.
Either between the author, the commissioner, the customer. Or, in an analogous case between, say, the landlord-owner of a piece of property like an apartment and the renter. Some rights are 'sold' and some are retained. Whether it be a matter of intellectual property or real estate property.
Returning to the copyright matter again, I was impressed in my mini-research project today with how rational the law can be. In this case, the subtleties involved in deciding how much of a property right someone has when rights are "split" or shared.
Either between the author, the commissioner, the customer. Or, in an analogous case between, say, the landlord-owner of a piece of property like an apartment and the renter. Some rights are 'sold' and some are retained. Whether it be a matter of intellectual property or real estate property.
Lots of good research here, Phil. Thanks very much. However, is there a difference between performance rights and listening rights?
Diana seems to think so despite the fact that we would listen to her lecture in an enclosed room and she also states that since TOC didn't produce her lectures via anything other than TOC Live that the copright expired and the rights reverted back to her.
Diana seems to think so despite the fact that we would listen to her lecture in an enclosed room and she also states that since TOC didn't produce her lectures via anything other than TOC Live that the copright expired and the rights reverted back to her.
QUOTE(Philip Coates @ Apr 22 2008, 11:44 AM)
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.
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.
Phil,
Good job.
I wish more people would do what you did.
Michael
Good job.
I wish more people would do what you did.
Michael
QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Apr 22 2008, 04:15 PM)
yawn...
Who cares?
Michael
Who cares?
Michael
Did God simply skimp on the the Levitical laws because people would "get it" with the first ten?
Did Armstrong simply stop when he left Earth's gravity?
Did Anon stop with the first DoS attacks?
Did Seinfeld stop with the Pilot?
The LULZ MSK, we care because of the LULZ.
**The Slippery Diana Hsieh (One More Wrinkle to the 'Copyright' Issue)**
Recently on her blog Ms. Mertz Brickell Hsieh has claimed that TOC in the following contract allows the rights to her recording to revert to her and she quotes the exact passage in her contract:
"If TOC fails to produce or arrange the production of the Recording for use as a permanent product carried by The Objectivism Store within 24 months following the delivery of the Work, either party has the right to terminate this portion of the agreement. In case of termination of this agreement under this clause, all rights to the Recording, except the right of TOC to maintain a copy for archival purposes, revert to Speaker."
But she summarizes the above this way in her letter to Mike Renzulli:
"The rights reverted to me after two years, if TOC didn't publish the lectures in some form other than "TOC Live."
Notice the disparity between these two statements?
The slippery little qualification 'in some form other than' at the end suggesting "TOC Live" somehow doesn't count as publishing, as creating a product? TOC Live IS IN FACT THE FORM in which TOC sells the entire "pack" of conference recordings on many occasions. WHY does Diana say that somehow doesn't count? That they are somehow required to -both- sell her lectures separately and as part of the entire conference?
No answer.
.......
For those who have read her blog over the years, her sophistries, and her attacks on her enemies, notice the above little rhetorical device. DMBH is a particularly "slippery" writer, whom you have to watch like a hawk. She often is caught slipping in a qualification or caveat like this which might slip by the attention of many people --- but with no attempt to prove or defend the addendum in any manner whatsoever.
I have noticed that it is frequently a part of her "bag of tricks" as an emotionalist and less than rational, less than scrupulous writer.
.....
Note to Mike R: If you play her lectures, you really should make a disclaimer that she is not an expert, but merely a grad student still learning the philosophy and that listeners should be very careful to examine and check for themselves her representations of Objectivism.
Leonard Peikoff she ain't.
Recently on her blog Ms. Mertz Brickell Hsieh has claimed that TOC in the following contract allows the rights to her recording to revert to her and she quotes the exact passage in her contract:
"If TOC fails to produce or arrange the production of the Recording for use as a permanent product carried by The Objectivism Store within 24 months following the delivery of the Work, either party has the right to terminate this portion of the agreement. In case of termination of this agreement under this clause, all rights to the Recording, except the right of TOC to maintain a copy for archival purposes, revert to Speaker."
But she summarizes the above this way in her letter to Mike Renzulli:
"The rights reverted to me after two years, if TOC didn't publish the lectures in some form other than "TOC Live."
Notice the disparity between these two statements?
The slippery little qualification 'in some form other than' at the end suggesting "TOC Live" somehow doesn't count as publishing, as creating a product? TOC Live IS IN FACT THE FORM in which TOC sells the entire "pack" of conference recordings on many occasions. WHY does Diana say that somehow doesn't count? That they are somehow required to -both- sell her lectures separately and as part of the entire conference?
No answer.
.......
For those who have read her blog over the years, her sophistries, and her attacks on her enemies, notice the above little rhetorical device. DMBH is a particularly "slippery" writer, whom you have to watch like a hawk. She often is caught slipping in a qualification or caveat like this which might slip by the attention of many people --- but with no attempt to prove or defend the addendum in any manner whatsoever.
I have noticed that it is frequently a part of her "bag of tricks" as an emotionalist and less than rational, less than scrupulous writer.
.....
Note to Mike R: If you play her lectures, you really should make a disclaimer that she is not an expert, but merely a grad student still learning the philosophy and that listeners should be very careful to examine and check for themselves her representations of Objectivism.
Leonard Peikoff she ain't.
If Diana doesn't want you to play these tapes--don't play them. It's a matter of courtesy. It doesn't matter if she deserves it or not. Everything else is legal/moral hairsplitting. What's basic is your own comportment. Not hers. She created the lectures whatever their value. If you thought they had value to begin with, you thought she had value, so honor that.
--Brant
--Brant
QUOTE(Philip Coates @ Apr 27 2008, 12:49 PM)
**The Slippery Diana Hsieh (One More Wrinkle to the 'Copyright' Issue)**
Recently on her blog Ms. Mertz Brickell Hsieh has claimed that TOC in the following contract allows the rights to her recording to revert to her and she quotes the exact passage in her contract:
"If TOC fails to produce or arrange the production of the Recording for use as a permanent product carried by The Objectivism Store within 24 months following the delivery of the Work, either party has the right to terminate this portion of the agreement. In case of termination of this agreement under this clause, all rights to the Recording, except the right of TOC to maintain a copy for archival purposes, revert to Speaker."
But she summarizes the above this way in her letter to Mike Renzulli:
"The rights reverted to me after two years, if TOC didn't publish the lectures in some form other than "TOC Live."
Notice the disparity between these two statements?
The slippery little qualification 'in some form other than' at the end suggesting "TOC Live" somehow doesn't count as publishing, as creating a product? TOC Live IS IN FACT THE FORM in which TOC sells the entire "pack" of conference recordings on many occasions. WHY does Diana say that somehow doesn't count? That they are somehow required to -both- sell her lectures separately and as part of the entire conference?
No answer.
.......
For those who have read her blog over the years, her sophistries, and her attacks on her enemies, notice the above little rhetorical device. DMBH is a particularly "slippery" writer, whom you have to watch like a hawk. She often is caught slipping in a qualification or caveat like this which might slip by the attention of many people --- but with no attempt to prove or defend the addendum in any manner whatsoever.
I have noticed that it is frequently a part of her "bag of tricks" as an emotionalist and less than rational, less than scrupulous writer.
.....
Note to Mike R: If you play her lectures, you really should make a disclaimer that she is not an expert, but merely a grad student still learning the philosophy and that listeners should be very careful to examine and check for themselves her representations of Objectivism.
Leonard Peikoff she ain't.
Recently on her blog Ms. Mertz Brickell Hsieh has claimed that TOC in the following contract allows the rights to her recording to revert to her and she quotes the exact passage in her contract:
"If TOC fails to produce or arrange the production of the Recording for use as a permanent product carried by The Objectivism Store within 24 months following the delivery of the Work, either party has the right to terminate this portion of the agreement. In case of termination of this agreement under this clause, all rights to the Recording, except the right of TOC to maintain a copy for archival purposes, revert to Speaker."
But she summarizes the above this way in her letter to Mike Renzulli:
"The rights reverted to me after two years, if TOC didn't publish the lectures in some form other than "TOC Live."
Notice the disparity between these two statements?
The slippery little qualification 'in some form other than' at the end suggesting "TOC Live" somehow doesn't count as publishing, as creating a product? TOC Live IS IN FACT THE FORM in which TOC sells the entire "pack" of conference recordings on many occasions. WHY does Diana say that somehow doesn't count? That they are somehow required to -both- sell her lectures separately and as part of the entire conference?
No answer.
.......
For those who have read her blog over the years, her sophistries, and her attacks on her enemies, notice the above little rhetorical device. DMBH is a particularly "slippery" writer, whom you have to watch like a hawk. She often is caught slipping in a qualification or caveat like this which might slip by the attention of many people --- but with no attempt to prove or defend the addendum in any manner whatsoever.
I have noticed that it is frequently a part of her "bag of tricks" as an emotionalist and less than rational, less than scrupulous writer.
.....
Note to Mike R: If you play her lectures, you really should make a disclaimer that she is not an expert, but merely a grad student still learning the philosophy and that listeners should be very careful to examine and check for themselves her representations of Objectivism.
Leonard Peikoff she ain't.
Philip and others -
I'll point out again the issue I have raised above: Just purchasing the CDs or tapes doesn't necessarily give the right to public performance. That has to be checked in the licensing statement governing the original purchase.
That being said . . . I'll be VERY SURPRISED if TOC failing to meet some terms involving productizing the lectures (as stated one way in the direct quote and then a different way by Hsieh on NoodleFood) were a basis for the rights of those who purchased the tape/CD from TOC being altered.
So, it seems:
1) The primary issue is what rights were actually purchased when the CDs/Tapes were originally purchased.
2) One should NOT confuse having the right to listen to the material with the right to play it at a public gathering.
3) I see no way, unless the original rights statement which was operative at the time of the CDs/Tapes being purchased outlined a method by which the rights could be altered POST-PURCHASE based on action or inaction by TOC, that a FUTURE action or inaction by TOC would alter the rights which the purchaser of the CDs/Tapes acquired by their original purchase.
Alfonso
QUOTE(Brant Gaede @ Apr 27 2008, 02:57 PM)
If Diana doesn't want you to play these tapes--don't play them. It's a matter of courtesy. It doesn't matter if she deserves it or not. Everything else is legal/moral hairsplitting. What's basic is your own comportment. Not hers. She created the lectures whatever their value. If you thought they had value to begin with, you thought she had value, so honor that.
--Brant
--Brant
Brant -
In spite of my immediately previous post which concentrated on the legal issues, I think this is good advice. I don't see where Diana's exposition is of such high value that it should be worth hassling over this.
Alfonso
I could not agree more, Brant.
Even though it looks like Hsieh may not have a legal or moral leg to stand on, she will still carry on as if she is the victim who had her ideas stolen (which is not true).
In other words, I will not lower myself to Hsieh's level.
I tip my hat to you and all the others who posted on this thread in order to clear up the issues that resulted.
Fortunately there are other Objectivist lectures from TAS that I can use and will starting next month.
Brant -
In spite of my immediately previous post which concentrated on the legal issues, I think this is good advice. I don't see where Diana's exposition is of such high value that it should be worth hassling over this.
Alfonso
Even though it looks like Hsieh may not have a legal or moral leg to stand on, she will still carry on as if she is the victim who had her ideas stolen (which is not true).
In other words, I will not lower myself to Hsieh's level.
I tip my hat to you and all the others who posted on this thread in order to clear up the issues that resulted.
Fortunately there are other Objectivist lectures from TAS that I can use and will starting next month.
QUOTE(Alfonso @ Apr 27 2008, 12:03 AM)
QUOTE(Brant Gaede @ Apr 27 2008, 02:57 PM)
If Diana doesn't want you to play these tapes--don't play them. It's a matter of courtesy. It doesn't matter if she deserves it or not. Everything else is legal/moral hairsplitting. What's basic is your own comportment. Not hers. She created the lectures whatever their value. If you thought they had value to begin with, you thought she had value, so honor that.
--Brant
--Brant
Brant -
In spite of my immediately previous post which concentrated on the legal issues, I think this is good advice. I don't see where Diana's exposition is of such high value that it should be worth hassling over this.
Alfonso
Phil,
I agree with your assessment, albeit this issue only has importance due to an inner-subculture prominence Hsieh carved out for herself. To the big picture, it is no more than a sneeze in a hurricane. The world is full of interesting things and, frankly, this is not one of them.
But for the record, if anyone is interested, here are the links to Hsieh's discussion and comments to that post.
For the Record: Phoenix Objectivists
Comments
I admit, I got a kick out of one part in Hsieh's post, and I quote:
Heh.
Let's have some fun.
It looks like someone can't stay away from cesspools if she thinks one is around. What kind of woman hangs around—in all anonymity—what she considers to be a cesspool? I personally avoid places that disgust me. It must be genes or something. In Brazil, they say you can refine taste, but you can't teach it. Another saying is that you can't get a pig to eat caviar—it wants slop.
Speaking of SLOP, not even that site disgusts me enough to consider it a cesspool. I merely have great contempt for the owner.
(Sorry. Not trying to lower the level. The opportunity was just too irresistible and fit a little too well to pass up. The spirit was willing but the flesh was weak. Ah hell, I already know I'm a hillbilly anyway... )
As to the comments thread, if you look at the big picture, it is a perfect example of alienated tribal rallying. The words rational and irrational got used a lot, but I heard clearly the thuds of boots in lockstep. If I ever had to find a good example of behavior I do not ever want to encourage in my projects or be associated with (not even conducting or filming a movie), that thread would be such an example. What's worse, there's nothing particularly offensive in it.
This is my personal choice and evaluation. I prefer people who think with their own minds and stay away from party-lines, despite the accompanying conflicts. I generally can trust people who think with their own minds, no matter how much they may agree or disagree with me. I can never trust tribalists, no matter how cordial (or even rational) they may be.
Michael
I agree with your assessment, albeit this issue only has importance due to an inner-subculture prominence Hsieh carved out for herself. To the big picture, it is no more than a sneeze in a hurricane. The world is full of interesting things and, frankly, this is not one of them.
But for the record, if anyone is interested, here are the links to Hsieh's discussion and comments to that post.
For the Record: Phoenix Objectivists
Comments
I admit, I got a kick out of one part in Hsieh's post, and I quote:
QUOTE(Hsieh)
Last Sunday, I was perusing that Branden-worshipping cesspool of a discussion forum known as "Objectivist Living."
Heh.
Let's have some fun.
It looks like someone can't stay away from cesspools if she thinks one is around. What kind of woman hangs around—in all anonymity—what she considers to be a cesspool? I personally avoid places that disgust me. It must be genes or something. In Brazil, they say you can refine taste, but you can't teach it. Another saying is that you can't get a pig to eat caviar—it wants slop.
Speaking of SLOP, not even that site disgusts me enough to consider it a cesspool. I merely have great contempt for the owner.
(Sorry. Not trying to lower the level. The opportunity was just too irresistible and fit a little too well to pass up. The spirit was willing but the flesh was weak. Ah hell, I already know I'm a hillbilly anyway...
)As to the comments thread, if you look at the big picture, it is a perfect example of alienated tribal rallying. The words rational and irrational got used a lot, but I heard clearly the thuds of boots in lockstep. If I ever had to find a good example of behavior I do not ever want to encourage in my projects or be associated with (not even conducting or filming a movie), that thread would be such an example. What's worse, there's nothing particularly offensive in it.
This is my personal choice and evaluation. I prefer people who think with their own minds and stay away from party-lines, despite the accompanying conflicts. I generally can trust people who think with their own minds, no matter how much they may agree or disagree with me. I can never trust tribalists, no matter how cordial (or even rational) they may be.
Michael
Guys; It is fun to hang around a cess pool. Sounds kind of strange to me. To each his own.
Mike R.; You made the right call.
I'd listen to lectures by Leonard Peikoff on Objectivism, though I never have--I did take live in NYC in 1968 some lectures that became "The Ominous Parallels" 14 years later and after shortly "The Break" a course on logical fallacies also in NYC --because he is learned and rigorous. But why anyone would want to hear lectures by a grad student Objectivist parvenue is beyond me. If they were transcribed I guarantee that I could critically read and annotate the whole thing in a few hours or less. Not so with Peikoff. When I was young--actually starting at about 11--my own intellectual hubris was way ahead of what I really knew and understood--never mind balance, so I understand how a young Diana might create this stuff in the first place. Maybe she doesn't want anyone to listen to this now.
OL is a cesspool? Maybe the observer is contaminating the observation? Quantum philosophy?
--Brant
OL is a cesspool? Maybe the observer is contaminating the observation? Quantum philosophy?
--Brant
QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Apr 27 2008, 02:50 AM)
[...] As to the comments thread, if you look at the big picture, it is a perfect example of alienated tribal rallying. The words rational and irrational got used a lot, but I heard clearly the thuds of boots in lockstep.
The one element I found particularly perplexing, and dismaying, was the presence of Billy Beck, who used to keep his distance from all sides of this sectarian mishigass. Now he's applauding Diana the Shrill. Oh, how the mighty skeptical iconoclasts have fallen!
Mrs. Hsieh doesn't want success for the ideas she supposedly espouses, she merely wants victory for her faction and trashing of her enemies. I'm not sure why she comes across as having nothing but pique in her ... well, maybe because that's all she has, in fact.
*repetition of posting, points previously made*
> One should NOT confuse having the right to listen to the material with the right to play it at a public gathering. [Alfonso]
I thought I already adequately covered this issue when I researched, cited, and quoted the actual copyright law -- and why the word 'substantial' appears in the law -- and why playing for a club is not what the law considers a public performance -- and why the 'fair use' doctrine applies -- and the exemption for educational and scholarly use. See points 3, 4, and 5 of my long post [post #18].
As I argued: "any one of these points allows one to replay taped lectures for a small group"
As an aside, the analogy to -movie- performances (in Paul Hsieh's very selective clips from college websites on Noodlefood) is a very different context and a bit of a smokescreen...as a bit of thought should make clear.
Phil
(Rather than repeat my long post, if one disagrees with what I quoted, or feels I omitted part of the law which trumps what I quoted, one should certainly cite or quote another passage in the actual law and address the individual points which I made.)
> One should NOT confuse having the right to listen to the material with the right to play it at a public gathering. [Alfonso]
I thought I already adequately covered this issue when I researched, cited, and quoted the actual copyright law -- and why the word 'substantial' appears in the law -- and why playing for a club is not what the law considers a public performance -- and why the 'fair use' doctrine applies -- and the exemption for educational and scholarly use. See points 3, 4, and 5 of my long post [post #18].
As I argued: "any one of these points allows one to replay taped lectures for a small group"
As an aside, the analogy to -movie- performances (in Paul Hsieh's very selective clips from college websites on Noodlefood) is a very different context and a bit of a smokescreen...as a bit of thought should make clear.
Phil
(Rather than repeat my long post, if one disagrees with what I quoted, or feels I omitted part of the law which trumps what I quoted, one should certainly cite or quote another passage in the actual law and address the individual points which I made.)
QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Apr 27 2008, 03:50 AM)
I admit, I got a kick out of one part in Hsieh's post, and I quote:
QUOTE(Hsieh)
Last Sunday, I was perusing that Branden-worshipping cesspool of a discussion forum known as "Objectivist Living."
Hsieh gets a lot of mileage out of her uncompromising rectitude. How rarely is she publicly wrong.
Let's say it turns out that the TOC Live products all belong to Atlas Society. Let's say that the owner and retailer encourages playing of its purchased products for private listening and clubs and classrooms.
This puts Diana to the curb, again. It is unseemly for her to insist on rights where none adhere.
TOC sells her 6 tape set now. If I buy such a set and stick up a notice saying the Northern Objectivist Learning Centre is having a meeting at Humble Pie restaurant, to listen and comment over a long lunch, will I get a nastygram from the lady?
The Atlas bunch sell a lot of TOC Talks, but by no means the many recordings of papers and presentations that have been given. I think that the contract as cited reverts the recordings to the speaker after two years if nothing had been done with them. I don't see the benefit of 6 cassettes' worth of Diana's lustrous voice pronating on Objectivist basics, but I can see a benefit to her in having that lustrousness known more widely. Too bad she cuts off her own nose to spite her cesspool critics.
Here again she goes all peevish and picayune and denunciatory in marking out the boundaries of rectitude . . . as always her factionalism trumps her rational mind.
Actually, I was going to let this issue wind down, but something kept nudging in the back of my mind. Orthodox Objectivists have a horrible habit of misquoting law for intimidation purposes. Rand herself started this habit with some monkeyshines through Holzer (which, I am sure, he would never do today).
The word "classroom" in this thread rang a bell in my mind, so I decided to look into the matter a bit deeper. An Objectivist club is essentially an educational organization, something like Sunday School in a church. Although there is no official affiliation with government-licensed educational institutions, this environment is considered "education" in my book. I have not checked, but I would bet good money that the law backs me up. (Note: the section of the law, USC 17, 1, § 110, I discuss below provides a definition for educational institution as given in Paragraph 2, but this does not apply to Paragraph 1). Anyway, the wise and powerful Hsieh made the following wise and powerful statement:
Now that sounds official and everything. Unfortunately, most people reading that will not go to the links. So let's do something. Let's go to the links.
Handy summary: This is a memo entitled "Copyright Guidelines for Showing Movies on Campus" put out by Texas State University. But even that memo states the following:
Link 1: This is a private statement from an organization called the "efilm center." The text that is presented to back up Hsieh's ham-handed misunderstanding of copyright issues is even prefaced by the following (I put in bold the amusing stuff, seeing that Hsieh is presenting this link as a correct summary of "law, a legal opinion or legal advice"):
Link 2: This is an article entitled "Organizing Your Message: Are you a copyright criminal?" by Dave Zielinski on a site called "All Business: A D&B Company." The article is mostly an overview of copyright issues with very little mention of actual law. The general gist uses arguments of the "if you do XXX, you will be guilty of copyright violation..." variety, as if saying it makes it so. Zielinski made it clear that he has a low opinion of the fair use provision. In the only short paragraph where he mentions it, he also stated the following gem:
I would say the dude is biased against the law, but maybe that is just an impression.
Link 3: Minutes of a meeting of the "College Government" body of Wellesley College where copyright was briefly discussed. Nothing technical was actually given except broad brush strokes of some of the legal aspects.
Link 4: "Rules and Tools Handbook" of Mount Holyoke College. This merely gives internal college policy and is not applicable to the issue of legality elsewhere.
So there we have it. I guess this is supposed to be a replacement for the US Code or something. It certainly sounds impressive in the pompous way Hsieh presented it. It's a shame it piffles out into trivial sources. It could have been a good piece of intimidation.
If anyone is interested in the actual law, I suggest he, uhm... look at the actual law. I know this is not in vogue among orthodox Objectivists (they seem to prefer presenting their opinions as law), but what the hell. Let's give it a spin. Let's try, say, Title 17, Chapter 17, Section 110, entitled § 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays. We don't have to go far into the law, either. The first part will do nicely:
I say, check the charter. A real issue is if the Phoenix Objectivist organization can be considered a nonprofit educational institution. If its charter says it is for educational purposes and it is nonprofit, in my opinion it qualifies. Maybe there is some legal counsel out there who disagrees with this.
I cannot leave this topic without mentioning the final piece of claptrap Hsieh wrote:
Two whole lawyers? With no names? Consulted repeatedly?
Heh.
Gotta do better than that. But it was a nice try at a bluff.
Actually to but it bluntly, Hsieh doesn't know what the hell she is talking about and, if she reported her legal advice correctly, she has been advised wrongly (and apparently "repeatedly") by her two anonymous laywers. I would even venture to say that, if they granted support for Hsieh's refusal across-the-board without mention of the above law, such legal advice constitutes gross incompetence.
For the record, let's look at a published lawyer, one who has a name and is not anonymous: Mary Hutchings Reed, a partner in the law firm of Sidley & Austin, Chicago, and counsel to the American Library Association. The following excerpt is from her opinion entitled Library and Classroom Use of Copyrighted Videotapes and Computer Software, written at the request of Donna Kitta, Administrator, American Library Association Office of Copyright, Rights & Permissions (which included the disclaimer: "These papers express the opinion of ALA's legal counsel; individuals and institutions deeply involved in copyright matters should consult their own attorneys.") Although the issue is videotapes, a recorded audio lecture is reasonably covered.
This is Mary Hutchings Reed's interpretation of the law. But then, Reed was never a member of TAS or ARI, I imagine she doesn't know who in hell the Brandens are, so I don't know if her professional competence qualifies for Hsieh as legal counsel. It certainly qualifies for the American Library Association and it qualifies for the US court system.
I put this research together because I sincerely believe that the sloppy research and half-baked legal opinions of people like Hsieh, when presented in the form she presented it, is good faking, but ultimately it gives Objectivism a black eye. If the general public thinks that Objectivists are cultists and crackpots, imagine what real lawyers and judges think if they read that flawed crap presented by Hsieh.
After all this, which I did for the sole reason of setting the record straight and presenting at least one place where legal facts were correct within an Objectivist environment (in light of all the baloney that has been written by Hsieh and her peanut gallery), I endorse Brant's suggestion above. If Hsieh does not want her work to be presented for study, regardless of whether it is because she no longer endorses it or finds it incomplete or flawed, or she simply does not like Objectivists who study Objectivism outside of her tribe, her wishes are reasonable (i.e., aligned with her present values) and the courteous thing to do is honor her wishes.
It is not a matter of law, which she has shown clearly to misunderstand, but simply good manners.
Michael
The word "classroom" in this thread rang a bell in my mind, so I decided to look into the matter a bit deeper. An Objectivist club is essentially an educational organization, something like Sunday School in a church. Although there is no official affiliation with government-licensed educational institutions, this environment is considered "education" in my book. I have not checked, but I would bet good money that the law backs me up. (Note: the section of the law, USC 17, 1, § 110, I discuss below provides a definition for educational institution as given in Paragraph 2, but this does not apply to Paragraph 1). Anyway, the wise and powerful Hsieh made the following wise and powerful statement:
QUOTE(Hsieh)
As for the question of rights to public performance, Paul found this handy summary of the relevant law (and this one and this one and this one and this one) for me. It's very clear that an event open to the public, held in a public venue, and advertised on public message boards and web sites does not qualify as a private performance on par with inviting friends over to watch a movie.
Now that sounds official and everything. Unfortunately, most people reading that will not go to the links. So let's do something. Let's go to the links.
Handy summary: This is a memo entitled "Copyright Guidelines for Showing Movies on Campus" put out by Texas State University. But even that memo states the following:
QUOTE(TSU)
03.04 Even if your proposed showing will constitute a public performance you will not need a license if any of the following is true:
a. Showing the movie in the course of "face-to-face" teaching activities that take place in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction and you have a legitimate copy of the movie. A 'legitimate copy of the movie' includes a copy that you may have purchased or rented from a video store, but does not include a copy that you may have taped from a broadcast.
a. Showing the movie in the course of "face-to-face" teaching activities that take place in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction and you have a legitimate copy of the movie. A 'legitimate copy of the movie' includes a copy that you may have purchased or rented from a video store, but does not include a copy that you may have taped from a broadcast.
Link 1: This is a private statement from an organization called the "efilm center." The text that is presented to back up Hsieh's ham-handed misunderstanding of copyright issues is even prefaced by the following (I put in bold the amusing stuff, seeing that Hsieh is presenting this link as a correct summary of "law, a legal opinion or legal advice"):
QUOTE(efilm center)
(Editor's note...the following is from the ANTI-PIRACY OFFICE of the Motion Picture Association of America. The correctness of the MPAA's assumptions and statements should not be assumed. The contents of this article should not be construed as the law, a legal opinion or legal advice, and should not be relied upon as such. Rather, it is being presented here solely as educational material demonstrating the complexity of the "rights" issue. When in doubt, a smart exhibitor will always seek the advice of counsel.)
Link 2: This is an article entitled "Organizing Your Message: Are you a copyright criminal?" by Dave Zielinski on a site called "All Business: A D&B Company." The article is mostly an overview of copyright issues with very little mention of actual law. The general gist uses arguments of the "if you do XXX, you will be guilty of copyright violation..." variety, as if saying it makes it so. Zielinski made it clear that he has a low opinion of the fair use provision. In the only short paragraph where he mentions it, he also stated the following gem:
QUOTE(Zielinski)
The Copyright Act includes a "fair use" exception, granting the ability to use copyrighted material without written permission from the owner. (See "Fair use: The presenter's quicksand.") But, although fair use appears intuitive, grossly liberal interpretations of the clause constitute misuse.
I would say the dude is biased against the law, but maybe that is just an impression.
Link 3: Minutes of a meeting of the "College Government" body of Wellesley College where copyright was briefly discussed. Nothing technical was actually given except broad brush strokes of some of the legal aspects.
Link 4: "Rules and Tools Handbook" of Mount Holyoke College. This merely gives internal college policy and is not applicable to the issue of legality elsewhere.
So there we have it. I guess this is supposed to be a replacement for the US Code or something. It certainly sounds impressive in the pompous way Hsieh presented it. It's a shame it piffles out into trivial sources. It could have been a good piece of intimidation.
If anyone is interested in the actual law, I suggest he, uhm... look at the actual law. I know this is not in vogue among orthodox Objectivists (they seem to prefer presenting their opinions as law), but what the hell. Let's give it a spin. Let's try, say, Title 17, Chapter 17, Section 110, entitled § 110. Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays. We don't have to go far into the law, either. The first part will do nicely:
QUOTE(US Code)
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:
(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;
(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;
I say, check the charter. A real issue is if the Phoenix Objectivist organization can be considered a nonprofit educational institution. If its charter says it is for educational purposes and it is nonprofit, in my opinion it qualifies. Maybe there is some legal counsel out there who disagrees with this.
I cannot leave this topic without mentioning the final piece of claptrap Hsieh wrote:
QUOTE(Hsieh)
Also, I should mention that I've spoken repeatedly with two lawyers about this matters over the past few days. Both of them used to speak at TOC, and so they are familiar with TOC's "Speaker's Agreements." On both legal and moral grounds, they wholly support my right to refuse permission to play these lectures.
I don't expect any further troubles on this issue -- except more of the usual crap from OL -- but I did wish to set the record straight. To put it bluntly, Mike Renzulli hasn't a legal or moral leg to stand on.
I don't expect any further troubles on this issue -- except more of the usual crap from OL -- but I did wish to set the record straight. To put it bluntly, Mike Renzulli hasn't a legal or moral leg to stand on.
Two whole lawyers? With no names? Consulted repeatedly?
Heh.
Gotta do better than that. But it was a nice try at a bluff.
Actually to but it bluntly, Hsieh doesn't know what the hell she is talking about and, if she reported her legal advice correctly, she has been advised wrongly (and apparently "repeatedly") by her two anonymous laywers. I would even venture to say that, if they granted support for Hsieh's refusal across-the-board without mention of the above law, such legal advice constitutes gross incompetence.
For the record, let's look at a published lawyer, one who has a name and is not anonymous: Mary Hutchings Reed, a partner in the law firm of Sidley & Austin, Chicago, and counsel to the American Library Association. The following excerpt is from her opinion entitled Library and Classroom Use of Copyrighted Videotapes and Computer Software, written at the request of Donna Kitta, Administrator, American Library Association Office of Copyright, Rights & Permissions (which included the disclaimer: "These papers express the opinion of ALA's legal counsel; individuals and institutions deeply involved in copyright matters should consult their own attorneys.") Although the issue is videotapes, a recorded audio lecture is reasonably covered.
QUOTE(Mary Hutchings Reed)
A. In-classroom Use
-------------------
In-classroom performance of a copyrighted videotape is permissible under the following conditions:
1. The performance must be by instructors (including guest lecturers) or by pupils; and
2. the performance is in connection with face-to-face teaching activities; and
3. the entire audience is involved in the teaching activity; and
4. the entire audience is in the same room or same general area;
5. the teaching activities are conducted by a non-profit education institution; and
6. the performance takes place in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, such as a school library, gym, auditorium or workshop;
7. the videotape is lawfully made; the person responsible had no reason to believe that the videotape was unlawfully made.
-------------------
In-classroom performance of a copyrighted videotape is permissible under the following conditions:
1. The performance must be by instructors (including guest lecturers) or by pupils; and
2. the performance is in connection with face-to-face teaching activities; and
3. the entire audience is involved in the teaching activity; and
4. the entire audience is in the same room or same general area;
5. the teaching activities are conducted by a non-profit education institution; and
6. the performance takes place in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, such as a school library, gym, auditorium or workshop;
7. the videotape is lawfully made; the person responsible had no reason to believe that the videotape was unlawfully made.
This is Mary Hutchings Reed's interpretation of the law. But then, Reed was never a member of TAS or ARI, I imagine she doesn't know who in hell the Brandens are, so I don't know if her professional competence qualifies for Hsieh as legal counsel. It certainly qualifies for the American Library Association and it qualifies for the US court system.
I put this research together because I sincerely believe that the sloppy research and half-baked legal opinions of people like Hsieh, when presented in the form she presented it, is good faking, but ultimately it gives Objectivism a black eye. If the general public thinks that Objectivists are cultists and crackpots, imagine what real lawyers and judges think if they read that flawed crap presented by Hsieh.
After all this, which I did for the sole reason of setting the record straight and presenting at least one place where legal facts were correct within an Objectivist environment (in light of all the baloney that has been written by Hsieh and her peanut gallery), I endorse Brant's suggestion above. If Hsieh does not want her work to be presented for study, regardless of whether it is because she no longer endorses it or finds it incomplete or flawed, or she simply does not like Objectivists who study Objectivism outside of her tribe, her wishes are reasonable (i.e., aligned with her present values) and the courteous thing to do is honor her wishes.
It is not a matter of law, which she has shown clearly to misunderstand, but simply good manners.
Michael
The whole deal about educational use of copyrighted films, music, photos and whatnot is critical or scholarly comment, analysis, teaching, study. No one is going to get sued over this. Hsieh made an issue of it to multiply her page hits and name recognition. Take it at face value. Noodle brain.
Somewhere in passing I saw that Brant had good things to say about Peikoff. I don't know why. Nothing would motivate me at any price (or free of charge) to listen to anyone lecture on predicate logic or fallacies or basic principles of Objectivism. In the 70s when I was a younger person, I was shocked at the nerdy sort of people who attended Objectivist club functions. The world at large was a hell of a lot more vital and challenging than university lectures, libertarian dinner parties, and geneological trivia of who used to be who vis a vis a dead person.
There is exactly one test that matters: original work. Not 24 books of recycled hooey. Not received wisdom. I mean original work, preferably fiction, equal to or better than The Fountainhead. Can't do it? Then shut up. You got nuthin. M.A. in bullshit. Dime a dozen at CU, and you know it. (Jeez, where's Billy when you need him?)
Memo to Mike R. - You have a legal and moral right to play anything you want to any nonprofit group for the purpose of thoughtful discussion, period. I recommend Ayn Rand's recorded lectures at Ford Hall Forum. Beg, borrow, or steal them if necessary.
Wolf DeVoon
Somewhere in passing I saw that Brant had good things to say about Peikoff. I don't know why. Nothing would motivate me at any price (or free of charge) to listen to anyone lecture on predicate logic or fallacies or basic principles of Objectivism. In the 70s when I was a younger person, I was shocked at the nerdy sort of people who attended Objectivist club functions. The world at large was a hell of a lot more vital and challenging than university lectures, libertarian dinner parties, and geneological trivia of who used to be who vis a vis a dead person.
There is exactly one test that matters: original work. Not 24 books of recycled hooey. Not received wisdom. I mean original work, preferably fiction, equal to or better than The Fountainhead. Can't do it? Then shut up. You got nuthin. M.A. in bullshit. Dime a dozen at CU, and you know it. (Jeez, where's Billy when you need him?)
Memo to Mike R. - You have a legal and moral right to play anything you want to any nonprofit group for the purpose of thoughtful discussion, period. I recommend Ayn Rand's recorded lectures at Ford Hall Forum. Beg, borrow, or steal them if necessary.
Wolf DeVoon
I wonder how many times Diana had to consult with the lawyers until they told her something she wanted to hear to make her go away?
--Brant
--Brant
Well, Wolf, there are a lot of things I wouldn't do today I did 40-45 years ago, including attending an LP lecture series, or even one lecture. Go abroad to kill communists. (Now we have Bush oil wars.)
--Brant
--Brant
Brant,
Next time I'm out for a drink, I lift my glass in salute. Impractical to get together at present, but glad to have your company here, courtesy of Michael and Kat. I understand the urge to socialize with like-minded people, so I don't blame younger guys for organizing events and promoting whatever they think respectable. I used to attend SMPTE and SPIE conferences to keep abreast of technical developments. Not sure if there are any 'developments' happening in Objectivism.
Note to self: lighten up.
Next time I'm out for a drink, I lift my glass in salute. Impractical to get together at present, but glad to have your company here, courtesy of Michael and Kat. I understand the urge to socialize with like-minded people, so I don't blame younger guys for organizing events and promoting whatever they think respectable. I used to attend SMPTE and SPIE conferences to keep abreast of technical developments. Not sure if there are any 'developments' happening in Objectivism.
Note to self: lighten up.
I was too busy getting ready for final exam week to even notice this little hullabaloo. I can see I didn't miss much
Three thoughts:
(1) The lectures that Diana Hsieh gave back in 2003 were nice, clear presentations of basic Objectivism. I was still on good terms with her at the time, and read and commented on nearly all of her PowerPoint slides before she gave the lectures. She was an accomplished speaker by then, not given to indulging in the vents of superheated rhetoric that we have all become used to. There was nothing new in the content of the lectures, but they were Objectivism 101, so there wasn't supposed to be any.
I suppose there might have been one or two things in there that were too complimentary to David Kelley, or whatever. But the content of the lectures is not really the issue; it's the venue and the organizational affiliation, which have become a serious embarrassment since Ms. Hsieh noisily converted to ARIanism. Even though her actual understanding of Objectivism appears to have changed rather little over the past few years, she cannot afford to admit that she had it pretty well figured out when she was keeping company with assorted "enemies of Objectivism." For ARIans, being an Objectivist is a matter less of philosophical conviction than of tribal affiliation.
So the lectures would have more than sufficed for Mike R's purposes. Peikoff lectures would also be fine--1983 or earlier, with lots of discussion afterward. (Remember, though, that most of Dr. Peikoff's courses ran to 12 lectures.) For good or ill, Leonard Peikoff is responsible for the post-1968 technical development of all parts of the Objectivist epistemology not presented in Ayn Rand's little monograph on the subject.
(2) Nice work by several contributors (esp. MSK and WSS) on the legal issues. I would net them out this way (usual disclaimers apply; I'm sure as hell not a lawyer):
( A ) The Atlas Society is still selling her recordings through The Objectivism Store in 2008, so unless the unedited nature of such "live" items means they aren't "finished products," TAS has been holding up its end of the contract.
( B ) The contract is terminated only when Ms. Hsieh takes action to terminate it--and TOC has not been holding its end up. Ms. Hsieh didn't attempt to terminate the contract until April 23, and even then her contention that TOC hasn't been holding its end up is highly debatable. (Of course, TAS may agree to terminate because Ed Hudgins et al. want shut of her. I couldn't blame them, if that's what they decided to do.)
( C ) Since Mike R (or whoever in the group was going to supply the recording) bought it from TAS/TOC when it was legal for TAS/TOC to sell it, and the alleged "public performance" is the playing of an audiotaped lecture at an informal gathering of an organization whose purpose can plausibly be deemed educational, Ms. Hsieh has no apparent legal basis for trying to stop Mike R from playing the recording. She is just playing the tired old Randian sport of pseudo-legal bullying.
(3) Sorry, I can't agree with Brant here--I don't think anyone owes Ms. Hsieh the courtesy of not playing her lectures at an informal gathering. First, there is nothing wrong with the damn lectures. The pain they will bring to Ms. Hsieh comes from the venue at which they were originally given, the source from which they were purchased, and the presence of heretics in the audience when they are played. It is the pain of a bigot being reminded that she used to be friendly with the targets of her bigotry. Second, the best response to pseudo-legal bullying--unless it will cost you too much money--is getting in the bully's face. Do you think any trial lawyer is going to take Ms. Hsieh's case on contingency?
Robert Campbell
PS. It would be interesting to know whether Ms. Hsieh actually consulted any lawyers. I sure won't take her word for it when she won't name them. True, Bill Perry is a lawyer who used to speak at TOC/TAS gatherings, worked for TAS for a spell, is now aligned with the Leonard Peikoff Institute, and is apparently still on good terms with Ms. Hsieh. But his specialty was criminal law. I wonder how many copyright infringement cases he prosecuted.
Three thoughts:
(1) The lectures that Diana Hsieh gave back in 2003 were nice, clear presentations of basic Objectivism. I was still on good terms with her at the time, and read and commented on nearly all of her PowerPoint slides before she gave the lectures. She was an accomplished speaker by then, not given to indulging in the vents of superheated rhetoric that we have all become used to. There was nothing new in the content of the lectures, but they were Objectivism 101, so there wasn't supposed to be any.
I suppose there might have been one or two things in there that were too complimentary to David Kelley, or whatever. But the content of the lectures is not really the issue; it's the venue and the organizational affiliation, which have become a serious embarrassment since Ms. Hsieh noisily converted to ARIanism. Even though her actual understanding of Objectivism appears to have changed rather little over the past few years, she cannot afford to admit that she had it pretty well figured out when she was keeping company with assorted "enemies of Objectivism." For ARIans, being an Objectivist is a matter less of philosophical conviction than of tribal affiliation.
So the lectures would have more than sufficed for Mike R's purposes. Peikoff lectures would also be fine--1983 or earlier, with lots of discussion afterward. (Remember, though, that most of Dr. Peikoff's courses ran to 12 lectures.) For good or ill, Leonard Peikoff is responsible for the post-1968 technical development of all parts of the Objectivist epistemology not presented in Ayn Rand's little monograph on the subject.
(2) Nice work by several contributors (esp. MSK and WSS) on the legal issues. I would net them out this way (usual disclaimers apply; I'm sure as hell not a lawyer):
( A ) The Atlas Society is still selling her recordings through The Objectivism Store in 2008, so unless the unedited nature of such "live" items means they aren't "finished products," TAS has been holding up its end of the contract.
( B ) The contract is terminated only when Ms. Hsieh takes action to terminate it--and TOC has not been holding its end up. Ms. Hsieh didn't attempt to terminate the contract until April 23, and even then her contention that TOC hasn't been holding its end up is highly debatable. (Of course, TAS may agree to terminate because Ed Hudgins et al. want shut of her. I couldn't blame them, if that's what they decided to do.)
( C ) Since Mike R (or whoever in the group was going to supply the recording) bought it from TAS/TOC when it was legal for TAS/TOC to sell it, and the alleged "public performance" is the playing of an audiotaped lecture at an informal gathering of an organization whose purpose can plausibly be deemed educational, Ms. Hsieh has no apparent legal basis for trying to stop Mike R from playing the recording. She is just playing the tired old Randian sport of pseudo-legal bullying.
(3) Sorry, I can't agree with Brant here--I don't think anyone owes Ms. Hsieh the courtesy of not playing her lectures at an informal gathering. First, there is nothing wrong with the damn lectures. The pain they will bring to Ms. Hsieh comes from the venue at which they were originally given, the source from which they were purchased, and the presence of heretics in the audience when they are played. It is the pain of a bigot being reminded that she used to be friendly with the targets of her bigotry. Second, the best response to pseudo-legal bullying--unless it will cost you too much money--is getting in the bully's face. Do you think any trial lawyer is going to take Ms. Hsieh's case on contingency?
Robert Campbell
PS. It would be interesting to know whether Ms. Hsieh actually consulted any lawyers. I sure won't take her word for it when she won't name them. True, Bill Perry is a lawyer who used to speak at TOC/TAS gatherings, worked for TAS for a spell, is now aligned with the Leonard Peikoff Institute, and is apparently still on good terms with Ms. Hsieh. But his specialty was criminal law. I wonder how many copyright infringement cases he prosecuted.
My favorite entry from the alienated tribal cheering section is here. The previous commenter had bewailed the lack of fealty to the Leonard Peikoff Institute evident among the Arizona Objectivists, as well as the Phoenix Objectivists:
Wouldn't the zealots be disappointed, if they only needed to expel a few people?
Robert Campbell
QUOTE
Friday, April 25, 2008 at 18:28:30 mst
Comment ID: #20 (link)
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
You might start your own. The effort requires calendar time and labor time, but the results might be worth it--if you have strict standards. Nearly fifteen years ago, two people in the Portland area, disgusted by the pseudo-Objectivists here, launched their own group. Now it has grown into this:
http://www.aristotleadventure.com/pao/
Because the gate keeping was strict, only a few people needed to be expelled once admitted.
Comment ID: #20 (link)
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
You might start your own. The effort requires calendar time and labor time, but the results might be worth it--if you have strict standards. Nearly fifteen years ago, two people in the Portland area, disgusted by the pseudo-Objectivists here, launched their own group. Now it has grown into this:
http://www.aristotleadventure.com/pao/
Because the gate keeping was strict, only a few people needed to be expelled once admitted.
Wouldn't the zealots be disappointed, if they only needed to expel a few people?
Robert Campbell
QUOTE(Robert Campbell @ May 1 2008, 05:16 PM)
True, Bill Perry is a lawyer who used to speak at TOC/TAS gatherings, worked for TAS for a spell, is now aligned with the Leonard Peikoff Institute, and is apparently still on good terms with Ms. Hsieh. But his specialty was criminal law. I wonder how many copyright infringement cases he prosecuted.
Robert,
You left out Valliant.
There's two lawyers right there.
Just speculatin' in the wind...
Michael
Michael,
I wondered about Jim Valliant.
He's not an expert on copyright law, either.
Robert Campbell
I wondered about Jim Valliant.
He's not an expert on copyright law, either.
Robert Campbell
QUOTE(Robert Campbell @ May 1 2008, 06:39 PM)
He's not an expert on copyright law, either.
Robert,
I have a feeling that this kind of distinction is totally irrelevant to a tribal Objectivist seeking to intimidate others. It sounds cool and powerful to say: "I will sick my lawyers on you."
Whether the lawyer actually knows anything about copyright beyond his freshman studies is a mere detail. Besides, I learned a trick about lawyers years ago, at least in Brazil. I am beginning to see that this is the same thing here in the USA.
Most lawyers don't read the law after law school. They do "cases" instead. At best they look for jurisprudence to support their case.
In my professional life, I have trapped one lawyer after another, neutralized their cases and seriously embarrassed them by quoting law. This has happened in several fields, too. (It has made me seriously wonder about judges...)
It sure is cool to say, "I will sick my lawyers on you."
Heh.
I think it is cooler to read the law.
Michael
"Expelled" is the wrong verb. Substitute "excommunicated."
--Brant
--Brant
QUOTE(Robert Campbell @ May 2 2008, 07:25 AM)
My favorite entry from the alienated tribal cheering section is here. The previous commenter had bewailed the lack of fealty to the Leonard Peikoff Institute evident among the Arizona Objectivists, as well as the Phoenix Objectivists:
Wouldn't the zealots be disappointed, if they only needed to expel a few people?
Robert Campbell
QUOTE
Friday, April 25, 2008 at 18:28:30 mst
Comment ID: #20 (link)
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
You might start your own. The effort requires calendar time and labor time, but the results might be worth it--if you have strict standards. Nearly fifteen years ago, two people in the Portland area, disgusted by the pseudo-Objectivists here, launched their own group. Now it has grown into this:
http://www.aristotleadventure.com/pao/
Because the gate keeping was strict, only a few people needed to be expelled once admitted.
Comment ID: #20 (link)
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
You might start your own. The effort requires calendar time and labor time, but the results might be worth it--if you have strict standards. Nearly fifteen years ago, two people in the Portland area, disgusted by the pseudo-Objectivists here, launched their own group. Now it has grown into this:
http://www.aristotleadventure.com/pao/
Because the gate keeping was strict, only a few people needed to be expelled once admitted.
Wouldn't the zealots be disappointed, if they only needed to expel a few people?
Robert Campbell
Interesting psychology, Robert. I've known a few people who worked part-time as security/bouncers in night clubs. Their idea of a good deal was to NOT have to expel anybody.
The mindset which finds value in expelling - seems to be one which can't identify objective value, and so instead measures their "trueness to the message" by how many people they can throw out of their circle. "See - I am so pure that I have excommunicated X..."
There is a species of separatist thought in Christian fundamentalism which goes like this:
1) If someone does/says/believes Y then don't associate with them.
2) If someone supports the validity of someone else doing/saying/believing Y then don't associate with them.
3) If someone associates with someone who does/says/believes Y then don't associate with them.
4) If someone supports the validity of associating with someone else doing/saying believing Y then don't associate with them.
5) If someone refuses to break association with someone violating the boundaries listed in 1, 2, 3 or 4 then don't associate with them.
6) If someone refuses to break association with someone who refuses to break association with someone violating the boundaries listed in 1, 2, 3 or 4 then don't associate with them.
and on it goes.... All in the name of an illusory ideological "purity." (Scare quotes intentional.) Hopefully nobody got dizzy reading that...
The sort of separatism I'm seeing (which you cite) doesn't seem to be that different from that. In fact, if I used the word sanction in the right places in the above, . . .
Alfonso
Phil Coates wrote, “DMBH is a particularly "slippery" writer, whom you have to watch like a hawk. She often is caught slipping in a qualification or caveat like this which might slip by the attention of many people”
Later, MSK quotes her:
“Also, I should mention that I've spoken repeatedly with two lawyers about this matters over the past few days. Both of them used to speak at TOC, and so they are familiar with TOC's "Speaker's Agreements." On both legal and moral grounds, they wholly support my right to refuse permission to play these lectures.”
MSK comments, “if she reported her legal advice correctly, she has been advised wrongly (and apparently "repeatedly") by her two anonymous laywers.”
I’ll bet she reported it correctly, and that she has been advised correctly. Phil sure was right!
Notice that she didn’t claim that the lawyers told her that the club NEEDS her permission; rather she claims only that they “support my right to REFUSE permission.”
I hereby refuse permission to use my name in vain! I just spoke with my Mom, and she supports me. She specifically said, “You have the right to refuse that permission.”
Later, MSK quotes her:
“Also, I should mention that I've spoken repeatedly with two lawyers about this matters over the past few days. Both of them used to speak at TOC, and so they are familiar with TOC's "Speaker's Agreements." On both legal and moral grounds, they wholly support my right to refuse permission to play these lectures.”
MSK comments, “if she reported her legal advice correctly, she has been advised wrongly (and apparently "repeatedly") by her two anonymous laywers.”
I’ll bet she reported it correctly, and that she has been advised correctly. Phil sure was right!
Notice that she didn’t claim that the lawyers told her that the club NEEDS her permission; rather she claims only that they “support my right to REFUSE permission.”
I hereby refuse permission to use my name in vain! I just spoke with my Mom, and she supports me. She specifically said, “You have the right to refuse that permission.”
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.