Letters to the Editor
Xrandadu Hutman
Published Letters: 2709 Editor's Choice: 52
-
I don't get it -- at all
[Read the article: First Amendment martyr?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So basically this guy refused to turn over his video (which contained evidence related to a felony) because he doesn't feel that citizens should be obligated to aid prosecutions?
I am not convinced. Aren't all citizens required to comply with court orders that say they must turn over evidence related to a crime? I mean, isn't this part of the whole justice process? What did I miss here?
Wolf mentions McCarthyism, but that only applies to testimony. He says he was going to be interviewed regarding the tape, possibly to identify witnesses (not "suspects"). Is identifying people on a tape really the same as outing people for being communists?
This guy is 24 years old and his answers sound like they came from somebody even younger. I am sure he wants to believe he is operating for a noble principle, but he doesn't do a good job of articulating what that principle might be. To me he comes across as stubborn. It's sort of like he was asked, "Why didn't you turn over the tape?" and his answer was "Because I don't have to!"
-
swing4air
[Read the article: "Perfect Stranger"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're kidding, right? Salon has had movie reviews (usually published Thursdays) for as long as I can remember.
-
Dear "Uncurious George"
[Read the article: Tangled up in Seuss]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am responding to the post by Uncurious George, which you can find in the first page of red-starred letters.
Hey Mr. Uncurious George, I enjoyed your letter. But your arguments in favor of the artist in this article got me to thinking. It seems that you are understating the negative effects of such unauthorized art and overstating the benefits.
(By the way, your story is amusing. I visited your website, which seems to be just enough to justify having the domain name, but at least the copy is good.)
Uncurious George writes:
"That said, the owners of the Seuss copyrights and their advisors and attorneys have behaved stupidly here. It is obvious that nobody would ever come across Kevin Ryan's website and as a result buy fewer Seuss books than they would otherwise."
This would be hard to prove one way or the other. But I can think of scenarios where people might end up buying less Seuss material. Say, for example, the Seuss estate decided to authorize a CD of Seuss folk songs, by famous singers. This is not an outlandish possibility (in fact, there are already some excellent "sung" versions of Seuss books out there, my favorite being the kickass Marvin Miller version of "Fox in Socks"). Even if the Bob Dylan parody did not demonstrably result in less sales of the authorized music, its readily-available existence could interfere with marketing efforts, or create consumer confusion enough to be a problem.
"If anything, the opposite is true. Someone coming across Kevin Ryan's website would be reminded of how much they enjoyed the Seuss books as a child and would be more likely to buy a Dr. Seuss book the next time such an age-appropriate gift is called for."
This seems like a possibility. But would this be any less a possibility if the artist had written his own lyrics instead of appropriating Seuss's lyrics? There is something to be said for paying homage, and I don't think it should be illegal to do so. But plagiarism is not homage.
"Not only that, but by responding in this way, the Seuss people have encouraged viral disobedience to their wishes."
This argument is your weakest. It translates to: "By sticking up for their legal rights, the Seuss people are encouraging additional artists to violate their legal rights." This can't be true; I imagine the opposite consequence is more likely. They are discouraging further works, and sending "viral disobedience" further underground.
"And they come off looking mean-spirited, creating bad publicity for themselves and their product."
I am not sure what is so mean-spirited about a standard cease-and-desist letter. Most legal jargon is calculatedly cold because it has to be firm, clear and not send mixed messages. But this coldness does not indicate mean-spiritedness.
"The Seuss people could have chosen a better path. They could have asked Kevin Ryan to sign an agreement that he would not make any profit from this work, and stipulate fees in the event that he did profit."
This is an unreasonable option. The Seuss estate is not obligated to sign contracts with anybody who appropriates their material. This could set a bad precedent and lead to additional artists purposely violating copyright in the hopes of scoring similar "potential profit" set-ups with established artists and copyright holders.
"They could have required a notice on the site acknowleging and thanking Seuss for permission to use the work and and declaring that the work could not be re-posted without permission of Seuss, etc."
Isn't it ironic to presume that their only good option would be to require a post acknowledging permission on a site in which they had not granted permission? Also, considering the way file-trading works, and the fact that they would not "own" the Dylan/Seuss material, they would have little right to demand that the work could not be re-posted without permission.
"But it happens all too often that parties put their rights ahead of their own more subtle best interests."
Maybe this is true. But isn't the copyright holder the one who should be allowed to decide what constitutes his best interests, rather than letting any random artist decide it for him?
-
This is a sad commentary on the situation in Iraq, but....
[Read the article: "Barbwire"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...it is the same thing people have to do in inner-city neighborhoods all over the U.S. When the economy turns, and crime rises, soon all the windows have bars and doors have multiple deadbolts. Drive around parts of central Los Angeles and it looks just like in this video, barbed wire and all.