News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns


Recommended Posts

I haven't asked Barbara about this, but if she had to rewrite the quotes for copyright reasons, then making them sound more literary seems like a convenient way to get around the problem. It isn't comparable to what Harriman and Mayhew have done.

-NEIL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 685
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't asked Barbara about this, but if she had to rewrite the quotes for copyright reasons, then making them sound more literary seems like a convenient way to get around the problem. It isn't comparable to what Harriman and Mayhew have done.

Why are you and others even suggesting that Barbara may have rewritten the quotes? Isn't this far more easily attributed to errors in transcription?

It's even more likely that the transcripts at the Estate's archives have been deliberately altered by the likes of Harriman and Mayhew. They haven't bothered to hide such blatant editing of transcribed Q&A sessions from Rand's Ford Hall Forum appearances. Nor with her journals, letters, marginalia, and — as Scott Ryan once joked — her undoubtedly soon-to-be-released laundry lists.

If Barbara "rewrote" such statements deliberately, that isn't excused by any "copyright reasons," and she did indeed act in the mendacious mode of Harriman and Mayhew. I'd say that the internal and external evidence is that she did not. Methinks that with the "ink" you've rightly spilled defending the Brandens here, Neil, you would say so, as well.

Sheesh, we've had fifty years of swirling controversy around all this, ever since Rand herself called her excision of Nietzschean elements from We the Living mere "editorial line-changes." It's getting truly old and stale. Even Freud's acolytes weren't this destructive to preserving the provenance of his writings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The existence of a professionally run AR archive by the ARI vitiates a great deal of criticism heretofore directed against the person of Leonard Peikoff. With original documents intact and available to scholars any harm done by several inappropriately edited books can and will be undone. Ultimately LP's reputation will be firmly and positively established with respect to Ayn Rand because of this and most of any bad stuff forgotten.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] With original documents intact and available to scholars, any harm done by several inappropriately edited books can and will be undone.

I'll go on the assumption that your post wasn't being facetious — and this isn't always easy to tell:

Why inflict this "harm" in the first place? It will take decades to get past what Harriman, Mayhew, and others have done with their deliberate, admitted obfuscation. That's because it will take decades for enough of a demand to accumulate for non-"official" versions of these materials to be salable. Variorum or scholarly editions of many writers' works can and do take decades to publish, partly because few will buy them who don't run university libraries.

Quite aside from this, Peikoff doesn't care. He, like anyone who has an M.A., let alone a Ph.D., knows how easily the provenance and reliability of archival materials can be compromised. It's like a personal reputation: You only get one chance, usually, to waste it through your own mistakes.

And on top of this, as I noted above, what assures us that this archive has an accurate transcription of Barbara's interviews with Rand? The best way to secure that is for her to pass her set of tapes along to a third party, such as an independent university library.

Unfortunately, as Barbara noted years ago in Liberty magazine, she settled a copyright assertion and possible lawsuit by Peikoff — to me, an absurd threat — by agreeing to transfer her set of tapes to the Rand estate after she passes away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Dr. Burns' statement in her book that Barbara Branden edited or revised what Rand had said in the taped interviews that Barbara used for her biography, I asked her whether she (Dr. Burns) examined the tapes at the ARI Archives or from Barbara Branden's copy. And did she discuss these changes with Barbara, and what was her explanation?

Dr. Burns replied:

"I worked with transcripts at the Ayn Rand Archives. I did not ask Barbara about why she made the changes, but I assume they were done for two reasons: literary style, and because the rights to the interviews are held by Rand's estate, so direct quotes require permission." JB

This is interesting. I did not know that the taped interviews in question (which were originally made in preparation for the 1962 book, Who Is Ayn Rand?) were the legal property of Ayn Rand's Estate. Probably Rand's lawyers made that stipulation when the interviews were arranged, that their contents would remain the property of Miss Rand.

What did I miss here? Why are we asked to assume (or does Dr. Burns assume) that Barbara made changes to Rand's words in the taped interviews? Just because the transcription in the Ayn Rand Archives disagrees? How do we know the transcription in the Ayn Rand Archives agrees with the tapes?

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill P,

Jennifer Burns says that quotations from Ayn Rand, as they appear in The Passion of Ayn Rand, do not match either the transcripts of the interview tapes that are kept in the Ayn Rand Archives—or the tapes themselves. Of the tapes she says:

"Rand never lost either her Russian accent or her awkward sentence structure, and her actual words are full of circumlocutions and jarring formulations. Like the editors of Rand's journals, Branden has created a new Rand, far more articulate than in life." (p. 295)

I presume that the same criticisms would apply to "Who Is Ayn Rand?" I doubt that Dr. Burns paid much attention to it, though. She gives it all of one sentence, calling it a "hagiographic biography" (p. 192).

Robert C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I'm not sure what thread this goes on since I recall you mentioned it in passing:

Did you say recently that you were thinking of re-using OL posts in some manner [e.g., selecting, condensing, repackaging best OL posts and putting them on another site]?

If so, you do realize you can't do that without permission of those who created each post -- since it's a different use than they intended?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Phil, You are trying to teach how to read music to a conductor. Michael

You originally made a somewhat confusing or cryptic original statement about rewriting or repackaging some of people's 'better' posts. When I ask for clarification your answer is, I guess, either evasive or a "put down". It was a simple question - not one to take offense at or be snarky about. You can answer:

YES, I understand that I can't publish, repackage, condense, alter, make a book out of people's posts. -or-

NO, I think I have the right to. Your words are my property now. And I may choose to use them as I wish, re- publish them anywhere, etc.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry, was there a revolution and Phil became the Lord High Judge of OL who can, sua sponte, set law?

Hmmm, I smell a secret judicial activist in out midst.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, It's an issue of intellectual property rights.

Everyone who posts on a website is not automatically giving permission for their posts to have another or unlimited use. To be republished or repackaged to any other audience the host chooses.

They may not wish a wider audience. Their words may not be suited to a very wide non-Objectivist audience. They may wish to edit their words first. They may want to use them themselves in a book or elsewhere. They are not the host's property to re-use indefinitely or as he wishes.

What I'm trying to do is ask Michael to clarify his policy. He -did- say he planned to re-package, re-publish, or re-use posts.

Perhaps I misunderstood. But why don't you just let him answer?

I'm sure he won't evade the question...then we'll all know.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill P,

Jennifer Burns says that quotations from Ayn Rand, as they appear in The Passion of Ayn Rand, do not match either the transcripts of the interview tapes that are kept in the Ayn Rand Archives—or the tapes themselves. Of the tapes she says:

"Rand never lost either her Russian accent or her awkward sentence structure, and her actual words are full of circumlocutions and jarring formulations. Like the editors of Rand's journals, Branden has created a new Rand, far more articulate than in life." (p. 295)

I presume that the same criticisms would apply to "Who Is Ayn Rand?" I doubt that Dr. Burns paid much attention to it, though. She gives it all of one sentence, calling it a "hagiographic biography" (p. 192).

Robert C

I don't think we are assuming anything. We are quoting what Professor Burns said in her new book about what she saw as either inaccuracies or paraphrases presented as actual quotes. In her response to me, she seems to be saying that Barbara Branden needed the legal permission from the Ayn Rand Archives to directly quote what Rand said on the tapes. And that that permission was not given.

However, there is another issue here. Professor Burns does not say how many of the Rand quotes (from the interview tapes) used in The Passion of Ayn Rand were inaccurate or misleading. Is it some or all? If it is maintained that all quotes from the tapes are paraphrased, then an interesting exercise to test this claim would be to compare the relevant sections from The Passion of Ayn Rand with the earlier quotations contained in Who is Ayn Rand? (which was published during Rand's life, when relationships were cordial between the parties, and when that book's contents certainly had her editorial approval). If quotations between the two books match, then accuracy has been established (for those quotes). A caveat to this comparison is that the biographical essay by Barbara Branden in WIAR? is much shorter than the later Passion.

Incidentally, I have several recordings of Rand's lecture presentations, including her responses in Q&A sessions. I also heard her in person at several NBI events, and saw her on several TV programs where she could not have been reading from a prepared text. I list all these occasions to respond to Professor Burns' statement in her book, "Rand never lost either her Russian accent or her awkward sentence structure, and her actual words are full of circumlocutions and jarring formulations." (p.295).

Yes, Rand maintained a Russian accent. But I did not have any problem understanding what she said, nor did I detect in her many personal TV and other public appearances that those interviewing or arguing with her had any difficulty understanding exactly what she was saying. They may not have liked what she said, but they undersood it.

Dr. Burns also states, "Like the editors of Rand's journals, Branden has created a new Rand, one far more articulate than in life." Contrast this, with her earlier discussion of Rand out-arguing (and converting some of) the members of Murray Rothbard's group, "Circle Bastiat."

Additionally, a quotation by Bennett Cerf (which I believe has been quoted elsewhere, but is also in Cerf's autobiography, At Random) which I did not find in Dr. Burns' book, is his statement that, at the many cocktail parties that he had for clients of Random House, which included many of New York's intellectuals, he never saw anybody that could get the best of Ayn Rand in an intellectual argument. This does not sound to me like a person who had a problem with being articulate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

LOL...

You keep getting better and better. And the brevity... Dayaamm!!!

:)

I am coming to the conclusion that Objectivists (not all, but enough) don't like to make money. They may like to receive it, but they don't really care about making it and don't give a damn about learning how.

They prefer to tell others what they can do or not do.

:)

On a serious note, I constantly see that value as a premise in the place where profit should be. Notice that Phil's question was not about how to make money with this material, or if that were even possible. It was if I realized what I could do and not do in an area that I have spent the last 2 years studying day and night—in addition to translating a butt load of legal text governing these matters over a decade—in addition to posting OL's specific policy about this in the OL guidelines, all of which has been discussed quite a bit here on OL.

Phil, to answer your question, I know a little bit about this, but it does not fit your "intention" formulation. I would first refer you to the following:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the USA Constitution.

You don't need to go through all the different copyright acts and treaties (for as fascinating as they are), but a review of Title 17 of the USA Code (special focus on § 107 for fair use) , the Sonny Bono Act and the DMCA would do you good.

Then, if you really have some interest in this, you could look at the Creative Commons approach and the different CC licenses and try to understand the thinking behind all that. (I have posted links to Lawrence Lessig lectures somewhere around here—use the search function.)

You might even see the legal overreach mess some folks are making with a concept called Private Label Rights (trying to inject use restrictions on public domain material, which can, at best, be a request).

Then you could look a bit at all the different things Google does for a really good case study.

Then, in a flash of inspiration, you might ask:

Isn't all this so that people can make money or wealth of some kind with intellectual content?

But you might not...

You might think that making money is not all that important.

You might think that all these laws and copyright approaches by brilliant minds throughout history exist soley so the Phil's of the world can tell others what to do in small venues.

:)

(I'm just poking you in the ribs. I can't help but tease you a little. You set yourself up too well...)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep..he sure does.

Kinda like the difference between T-ball and a 98 mile per hour fastball under your chin thrown by Bob Gibson who basically said its my plate get the f out of the way.

I think one of Ayn's boys said it in Atlas.

I like the Creative Commons approach, additionally, the submission of material on a public forum that you have so aptly established is a "cyber commons" in and of itself.

The NY Times case in the Supreme Court is edifying in this respect.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

Those in attendance at Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum talks (or other public appearances) rarely had trouble following what she was saying.

Still, there is quite a difference between some of Ayn Rand's actual extemporaneous answers to questions and the rewritten answers provided by Bob Mayhew in his compilation.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

Those in attendance at Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum talks (or other public appearances) rarely had trouble following what she was saying.

Still, there is quite a difference between some of Ayn Rand's actual extemporaneous answers to questions and the rewritten answers provided by Bob Mayhew in his compilation.

Robert Campbell

From personal experience - Indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jerry,

There's no reference in The Passion of Ayn Rand to permission being needed, or permission not being received, from the Estate of Ayn Rand to quote from the 1961 Rand interview tapes.

Barbara Branden says (p. xii, n. 1), "When the source is not specified, the quotation is from my interview tapes, or from my conversations with Ayn […]; I have edited such comments only for clarity."

I'm wondering whether the current rules about quoting from the interview tapes apply to Barbara's copies at all. Or whether they began to apply only after Leonard Peikoff threatened a lawsuit, and the current awkward arrangement was adopted as a settlement. That was after Passion was published, wasn't it?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have discussed this with Barbara before, but it's been a while.

I remember her telling me that the cost of a lawsuit over those tapes was her main issue and that, as a compromise, she agreed to keep a copy, but the originals went to the archives. And she kept the right to use them in her own works. I don't remember her saying there were any restrictions on exact quotes.

Maybe she will say something here later.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> permission being needed, or permission not being received, from the Estate of Ayn Rand to quote from the 1961 Rand interview tapes...I'm wondering whether the current rules about quoting from the interview tapes apply to Barbara's copies at all. [Robert]

There is an analogy between this and the question about the rights of posters or writers on a website to the reuse of their own words. [i've been asking Michael about this today, but he hasn't answered clearly and simply, making it seem he intends to try to take away those rights.] A person has the right to the reuse, republication, quoting of their own material, unless they specifically sign it away (as in the case of the taped Rand interviews).

Here is the law and morality involved:

The copyright law "has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used."

For example, if a website owner [such as MSK or Joe Rowlands on RoR] were to decide to cull their hundred best posts and then republish them for commercial use that would be an abrogation of the rights of the creator or creators. Suppose someone has written mini-essays, expressing something exactly the way he wants. He then won't be as able to use his own writings in a book or journal because the website owner has expropriated or taken over his exact words. In the words of the Supreme Court, the published work may not "prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."

Posted words or short essays or commentary written on a website are no different than words printed in a magazine. They are owned by the person who wrote them. In other words, the -creator- not the -host- controls the exploitation of his or her own words. "The right of an author to determine whether and when to publish their work has always been regarded as one of the most important author's rights. "

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This site claims the right to move material around on this site, not publish it elsewhere.

Brant,

Thank you. You obviously have a will to read pertinent literature.

I guess I am being a bit coy, but I am really weary of an epistemological thing that seems to be a constant in O-Land:

1. People use a service provided to them for free.

2. They don't even look to find out where the rules are, much less read them.

3. They start trying to dictate to others rules that exist only in their heads—and want people to discuss their imaginary world as if it had something to do with the real world out here.

To Phil: Why not read the guidelines, posting rules and other stuff in the Corner Office? OL's material is not extensive, nor is it full of legalese. I don't think you are properly qualified yet to discuss copyright law, but reading the rules is a practice I recommend for any site you use. I have over 300 accounts and I read them—at least on the sites I use more often. It's a pain in the butt, but it gets easier over time. Ultimately it's a real time-saver to do that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think I didn't read it? I did: "Objectivist Living and the site owners do not hold the right to reprint this material without permission anywhere else, except as described in the USA fair use copyright laws, nor are they entitled to block publication of it by the author anywhere else, nor are they entitled to any income the author may derive from it." [underlining added]

But the point is you inserted that "exception" clause. That's a very important qualification: you are apparently claiming some type of 'fair use' right to reprint WITHOUT PERMISSION.

So the question is - given your recent comment that you intend to republish or make a profit off people's posts -- is it your INTERPRETATION of "fair use" that you are entitled to do anything you want with people's posts - without their permission?

And is it your intention to do so? Simple question. Again, if I -misunderstood- your recent comment [happens to all of us from time to time!], you can simply point that out without taking offense.

[As Brant points out, moving around material on your own existing website is not the issue here. Nothing wrong with that.]

,,,,,

> I don't think you are properly qualified yet to discuss copyright law

What would you know about what I am qualified to discuss? Remember that I'm a published writer and had my own publication for a time.

By the way, I take your attempt (and that of Adam and others) to make fun of or make a joke out of an honest, legitimate question which a poster would want to know - to be offensive and juvenile. How would you like it if someone did that with you when you were trying to be serious and polite?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

Gimmee a break. Good Lord!

Here is the guideline.

By posting articles and posts on the Objectivist Living forum, the poster grants unlimited free use of this material on the forum for display and handling by the site owners. The copyright of this material, however, belongs to each author. Thus Objectivist Living and the site owners do not hold the right to reprint this material without permission anywhere else, except as described in the USA fair use copyright laws, nor are they entitled to block publication of it by the author anywhere else, nor are they entitled to any income the author may derive from it.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

If you wish to understand fair use law, once again I refer you to the USA Code, Title 17 § 107. Yes, under the law, small portions of intellectual content can be used without permission in specific cases. Guess what? You don't get to control that. Anywhere from anybody. If you do not wish any of your work to be subject to the fair use law, don't publish it anywhere.

Don't you get it? I, or anyone else, can use your writing here, on SLOP, on RoR, on Noodlefood, or anywhere else I wish where you have published content within the fair use bounds and you cannot block it.

I don't know what my final plans are yet, but believe me, I have no wish to make unearned millions in the literature market off your back. It's an enormous temptation, I know, but somehow I think I can resist.

btw - I left out an implied qualification when I said you are not qualified to discuss copyright law. I meant you are not qualified to discuss copyright law competently. Your posts prove it.

Michael

EDIT: Here. Let me open your horizons. Take a look at this site. It's a page rank 6 with an Alexa ranking of 162. Many many many millions of dollars have been made for authors and publishers alike from this site, although the authors submit their work for free. I've been thinking about something along these lines, but trying to do that in the Objectivist-libertarian world is simply not economically interesting to me for a series of business-related reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> small portions of intellectual content can be used without permission in specific cases

Your statement is vague as to what the "specific cases" are. As someone who DOES understand the "fair use" law, let me explain it to you:

To use or incorporate another author's work there are multiple criteria.

You cannot supersede or expropriate or appropriate the original for reasons of personal profit. You must add something new. You can use a -small quantity- for such purposes as review, comment, in the classroom, etc.

"Effect upon work's value - This measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates 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."

"Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.)

...These rules apply to content you pull from the internet as well. "

"The United States Supreme Court has declared this fair use factor the most important element of fair use. Therefore, those who wish to use another's copyrighted materials without permission must decide whether or not their utilization of the copyrighted material is going to harm either the present or potential market for the copyrighted work...especially if the new work becomes a substitute for, or makes the purchase unnecessary of, the appropriated copyrighted work itself. This use would certainly not be sanctioned as fair use. Courts have expressed this standard by finding that the unauthorized use is not fair use if the unauthorized use tends to lessen or negatively impact the potential sale of the original copyrighted work, interferes with the marketability of the work, or fulfills the demand for the original copyrighted work. "

Michael, let me summarize this for you:

..."Section 107 enumerates four "fair use factors" that need to be analyzed in order to determine whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is fair use. These factors are:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now