
Wikimedia removes the Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law - rosser
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/02/10/anne-frank-diary-removal/
======
Houshalter
Please read this:
[https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2016/pre-1976](https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2016/pre-1976)

And also look at the graphic on this page:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-
mi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-missing-20th-
century-how-copyright-protection-makes-books-vanish/255282/)

Copyright serves a legitimate purpose. I doubt there would be many big budget
games or movies produced without some degree of protection. The purpose of
copyright is to provide an incentive to produce creative works. But it also
needs to balance the benefits of that with the costs of restricting works from
the public.

I believe that copyright should last 10 years. That sounds really short, but
hear me out. The _vast majority_ of works are not economically relevant after
10 years. And the ones that are, have usually earned 99% of their money within
ten years. It's a power law, the first year gets vastly more money than the
second year, than the third year, and so on. This is especially true for games
and movies which are fast paced industries. It's also true for books and
music, but the power law curve is a bit less steep.

There are exceptions to this, but they are just that - exceptions. The point
is to provide an incentive for creators, not to give giant benefits to the
outliers at the expense of the public.

Also originally copyright law had some additional measures to keep it from
being restrictive. You had to actually register the copyright, not just grant
it automatically, and you had to renew it halfway through. Which cost a few
thousand dollars.

I also am very much in favor of derivative works. Fanfiction shouldn't be
illegal, making a t shirt with your favorite character on it shouldn't be
illegal, etc.

With this system you would be able to use old music, photos, software, books,
movies, etc. As long as they were made before 2006.

Also trademark could handle some of the remaining issues. E.g. "Star Wars"
could be a trademark of george lucas. You could make star wars derivatives,
but you couldn't brand them with star wars. Consumers would be able to tell
apart ripoffs from works by the original creator. Mickey mouse would still be
a trademark of disney, but you could watch steamboat willy cartoons on
youtube.

~~~
kijin
It doesn't even have to be a strict cutoff. The first 10 years might be free
and automatic, but the Copyright Office could charge exponentially increasing
fees for renewals afterward.

For example, $1K for the next 10 years, then $10K, then $100K... This means
that only works that remain truly profitable in the long term will stay
copyrighted. If Disney wants to pay $10B to keep Mickey Mouse copyrighted,
they are welcome to do so. The extension fees could be put to good use
improving the nation's public schools and libraries.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I think this is a generally sensible proposal that would garner much public
support.

However, I would like to see moral rights retained for longer than 10 years -
the right to prevent modification of the work, the right to be named as
author, for example. Extending these to life+X years (but requiring free-
gratis registration) seems fair to me as well.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The ability to create derivative works is one of the primary benefits of works
entering the public domain, so no.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I think you misunderstood - you can make derivatives, you can't sell the work
with your own modifications as if it were the original (you can sell your
derivative though). Neither could you plagiarise works under such a system.

------
eggy
I am more distressed that a work by a German, at the time stateless in the
Netherlands, that long ago, and given the global importance of such a work,
that the U.S. even has the copyright. The explanation in Wikimedia I
understand clearly, but I do not acept it.

~~~
matthewbauer
It's interesting that there's even debate over whether it's public domain in
Europe:

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-02/anne-franks-diary-
goes...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-02/anne-franks-diary-goes-online-
despite-rights-dispute/7064328)

~~~
Esau
Because money.

------
noonespecial
Just like that silly explanation of the width of railroad tracks starting with
the width of a roman horse's ass, the question of "why can't I read the Diary
of Anne Frank" starts with "so there was this cartoon for little kids in the
'20's called Mickey Mouse..."

We reach this ridiculous situation by serious people taking a series of
thoughtful actions a tiny bit at a time. But serious and thoughtful actions
only add upon themselves with each step. Ridiculousness multiplies.

~~~
icebraining
Was it really bit by bit? In most of the world, the Berne convention - signed
in 1886 - implemented a copyright length of author's life + 50 years. This was
a massive leap for most countries.

Even in the US, the people behind the Sonny Bono Act (aka Mickey Mouse
Protection Act) proposed _indefinite_ copyright - MPAA's Jack Valenti actually
suggested "forever less one day" to avoid the Constitutional restriction! The
life + 50 years was the compromise they could reach.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
The contract of copyright is that you'll make works freely available in return
for a time-limited monopoly enforced by the people, the demos, through the
state.

A perpetual copyright would not be a copyright, there's no reason for the
people to support it. If you could pass such an act I think it would show your
regime to be something other than a democracy.

------
raddad
[https://archive.org/details/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl](https://archive.org/details/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl)

Claims it is open source.

The torrent somebody asked for:
[https://archive.org/download/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl/A...](https://archive.org/download/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl/AnneFrankTheDiaryOfAYoungGirl_archive.torrent)

~~~
poizan42
The Internet Archive is absolutely fearless when it comes to risk of
litigation for copyright infringement. One could fear that it will be their
dead.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
They are indeed fearless. They have put up thousands of copyrighted video
games, for example.

------
tome
Lots of rage here against the US government, little rage against the Anne
Frank Fonds that actually asserts the copyright.

If you really feel so strongly then go and rail against the foundation who
could transfer the book into the public domain with least a million times
(literally) less difficulty than it would take to get US copyright law changed
to have the same effect.

[http://www.annefrank.ch/qa-en.html](http://www.annefrank.ch/qa-en.html)

~~~
r0muald
So today rally against the Anne Frank Fonds. Tomorrow against Disney. Then
what? If the law creates an artificial incentive that damages the public good,
are you going to separately criticize each one of those who take advantage of
that, or to ask to change the law?

~~~
Shivetya
there can be no public good if you deprive people of their property rights
because you somehow take offense at their exercise of those rights.

While there should be some limit on how long you can retain copyright I
seriously would not want it to be less than the current and following
generation, if not the third.

------
magicfractal
That's barbaric. That's why civil disobedience is the only adequate answer to
the current overreach of copyright in the united states. It's up to us,
technologists, to create and disseminate tools to help out in the
dismantlement of an absurd system that is obsolete in the digital age.

~~~
slg
This logic is the reason why we have so many archaic laws surrounding the
technology. Too often our community simply decides it is easier to ignore the
law in question than trying to fight it and so we withdraw ourselves from the
debate.

It isn't our job as technologist to build tools to circumvent the law. It is
our job as technologist to educate politicians and the greater population as a
whole why these issues are important. Sure, civil disobedience can be a tool
in that fight, but that alone isn't going to change anything.

~~~
deciplex
If you think that education, or the lack thereof, of politicians anywhere is
the reason for absurd copyright law across the entire globe, you _really_
aren't paying attention.

There is _no argument_ clever enough or convincing enough to overpower the
flood of money and bullshit that keeps copyright law the way it is. You may as
well argue against the law of gravity. The only solution is to deprive the bad
actors of the funds they need to keep the system corrupt, and since most
people (rightly, in my opinion) can't accept simply abandoning large parts of
their culture to that fight, the only option left is to make piracy
widespread, easy, and safe.

~~~
tluyben2
The average person cannot comprehend the effects of what they do unless it is
directly fed back and even then. Thinking macro is hard for the smartest
0.01%: the average Pam and Jim will not understand what happens when the game
plays out. Some politicians are above that, most are not. Sounds elitist and
maybe it is however I am not saying I am better than that I am saying
politicians should be. If they are not and they are not, this battle is indeed
lost and not only because of money but simply because someone didn't think
long enough and their candy crush was not getting enough attention to keep
them focused.

~~~
deciplex
In fact, if piracy really had the deleterious effects on culture and artistic
expression that copyright advocates always claim it does, I suspect you'd see
much more of a social taboo against piracy than exists now. I'm not one to
usually rush to the defense of people reasoning with "their gut" but, in this
case, I think most people know that the copyright regime is bullshit, and they
act accordingly, even if they haven't given it as much thought as the average
HN reader.

------
nness
I find it startling that, with the current terms of copyright, no music I'm
listening to today or even in the last decade will be in the public domain
before I die.

~~~
i573323
It's life of the author + 70 years so even if Disney no longer extends the
copyright it won't be available in the public domain before your children die.

------
empressplay
Available on archive.org (and going nowhere):

[http://web.archive.org/web/20160103110123/https://nl.wikisou...](http://web.archive.org/web/20160103110123/https://nl.wikisource.org/wiki/Het_Achterhuis_\(Anne_Frank\))

~~~
gpvos
Also at
[http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/Het_Achterhuis_%28Anne_Frank%29](http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/Het_Achterhuis_%28Anne_Frank%29)
, and just to be sure there is now also a copy at
[http://archive.is/http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/Het_Achterhuis_%...](http://archive.is/http://wikilivres.ca/wiki/Het_Achterhuis_%28Anne_Frank%29)

------
blueflow
Then just read "Mein Kampf" instead, its already free.

I could laugh if this wasn't for real.

------
Artoemius
That's depressing. As I'm becoming older, I'm beginning to suspect that the
bright sci-fi future isn't really going to come true after all, and we'll have
to live in a sad bleak dystopia.

------
anonymfus
Why, considering that US copyright laws are ones of the worst, Wikimedia
Foundation is still based here? They should move to other jurisdiction.

------
based2
Lawrence Lessig: Re-examining the remix

[http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed](http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed)

------
diziet
But who holds the copyright?

~~~
matthewbauer
I think it's the "Anne Frank Fonds".

[http://www.annefrank.ch/](http://www.annefrank.ch/)

~~~
diziet
Established by Anne's father and editor. Ok. I wonder if the Wikimedia
foundation reached out to the Fond. and tried to get permission for posting of
the content, or does Wikimedia only do certain licenses?

~~~
pmiller2
Yes, the only do "free content licenses," with limited exceptions.

[https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_po...](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy)

------
JohnIcare
Is there other story like the Anne Franck one? Why not boycot the museum in
Amsterdam, the books and speak of others stories? That's cynical? Not more
than the Anne Franck copyright's holders...

~~~
solidangle
You are mistaking the Anne Frank Foundation (Dutch: Anne Frank Stichting),
which maintains the Anne Frank House and monitors racism (specifically anti-
semitism) in the Netherlands, with the Swiss Anne Frank Fonds, which holds the
copyright to her diary. It is currently under discussion whether or not the
Anne Frank Fonds actually holds the copyright, as it has been more than 70
years since the death of Anne Frank copyright should have expired, but the
Anne Frank Fonds claims that Otto Frank (Anne's father) was a co-author of the
book.

------
hartator
This foundation - [http://www.annefrank.ch/](http://www.annefrank.ch/) owns
the copyright. It's meant for charity, but I don't think they realizes they
are doing more damage by holding the copyright than whatever good the
foundation is doing.

------
brooklyndude
Ok, I know, first reaction, utter STUPIDITY of the human race. But don't let
it down OK? There are some good, smart, people out there that care about it
all. They're out there, they really are. Just keep looking. :-)

~~~
smhg
Like the people in the Wikimedia Foundation.

------
XJOKOLAT
_immediately downloads a digital copy as a matter of principle_

------
acd
This relates to Disney and Mickey mouse as follows, everytime the copyright of
mickey mouse was about to expire the copyright law has been extended.

"This law, also known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny
Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)

Mickey mouse copyright vs works of Jewish girl killed by the Nazis.

------
rajneeshgopalan
What a shame.. such stories should be spread widely and rapidly!

------
chris_wot
Wow, that's appalling!

------
killerpopiller
but if it entered public domain in NL who can uphold Copyright in US? How can
US law overrule dutch if it is of dutch origin?

~~~
laurent123456
I think the origin of the book doesn't really matter. The copyright was owned
by her father Otto Frank, who then transferred it to the Ann Frank foundation,
which still owns the copyright and can enforce it worldwide.

~~~
phicoh
The idea is that the copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.
It's really sad that the Anne Frank Fonds, which now hold the rights, claims
that the diary was (partially) written by her father, Otto Frank.

------
ctingom
So, who actually owns it?

------
rocky1138
Does anyone have a copy of it that we could seed on torrent?

~~~
hansen
[http://gen.lib.rus.ec/](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/)

------
throw99182
Good to see the activism regarding copyright. On the other hand, when there is
a _real human_ who suffers like, say, Anne Frank, half of HN blames the
victim.

