Diana Mertz-Hsieh nasty gram

[Mike11]

yawn...

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.

[Philip Coates]

**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.

[Brant Gaede]

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

[Alfonso Jones]

**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.

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

[Alfonso Jones]

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 -

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

[Mike Renzulli]

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.

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 -

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

Edited April 27, 2008 by Mike Renzulli

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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:

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

[Chris Grieb]

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.

[Brant Gaede]

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

[Greybird]

[...] 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.

[Philip Coates]

*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.)

[william.scherk]

I admit, I got a kick out of one part in Hsieh's post, and I quote:

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.

Edited April 27, 2008 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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:

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:

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.

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"):

(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:

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:

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;

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

[Wolf DeVoon]

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

[Brant Gaede]

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 Gaede]

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

Edited April 28, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Wolf DeVoon]

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.

[Robert Campbell]

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.

[Robert Campbell]

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:

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.

Wouldn't the zealots be disappointed, if they only needed to expel a few people?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I wondered about Jim Valliant.

He's not an expert on copyright law, either.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Brant Gaede]

"Expelled" is the wrong verb. Substitute "excommunicated."

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

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:

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.

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

[Jon Letendre]

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.”