« "Public Notice" Problems with Issued Patents |
Main
| Wendy debates MPAA's Fritz Attaway on DRM »
June 15, 2006
Joyce vs Joyceans
Posted by Alan Wexelblat
There's a brouhaha going on over the works of James Joyce, and the attempts by the author's grandson (and sole surviving heir) to control the use and publication of the author's novels, letters, and other output.
D. T. Max has a piece in the mid-June New Yorker chronicaling some of the antics of Joyce’s grandson, Stephen Joyce as we approach the 102nd Bloomsday. Max describes the current state of the relationship between Stephen Joyce and the community of scholars as "dysfunctional" and notes that the heir has acted to suppress publications he doesn't like, and may well have destroyed correspondence of interest to scholars.
These and other actions have led the Stanford Center for Internet and Society’s Fair Use Project to file a lawsuit against Stephen Joyce, as noted in Lessig's blog. That entry links to the PDF of the complaint itself, and commenters there have linked to some of their own writings on the various legal contests that have occurred in the past few years.
Thanks to copyfighter Branko Collin for pointing me in the direction of these stories.
Comments (4)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Abuse
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Like YouTube for Business Documents
- › No You Can't
- › Like A Stack of Books 348 Feet Tall
- › How Much Potter Does Rowling Own?
- › Like Hope, But Different
- › It's More Complicated, And More Interesting
- › Can E-Zines Succeed?
- › Bye Bye (Buy?) Baidu
1. Neo on June 15, 2006 4:46 PM writes...
Seems like copyright abuse to me. (So do most software company EULAs.) If the copyright hasn't expired, he has the right under that law to control the *publication* of those works, all right, but not to control the *use* of those works (other than public performance of the works). How he (and software companies) get the notion copyright gives them cart blanche to dictate post-sale use (other than redistribution or public performance) I can't imagine. Apparently none of them have heard of "first sale". And neither have the courts that variously ignore, only mildly curtail, or even sometimes endorse (Blizzard v. BnetD) these behaviors.
And the Copyright Industry thinks its us consumers that need "educating" on the rights and wrongs of copyright law! The nerve!
P.S. you still haven't gotten around to fixing "Remember Me?". Please do so at your earliest convenience.
Permalink to Comment2. Neo on June 17, 2006 9:26 AM writes...
It's time the bugs were fixed. Not only is the remember me thing still not working, but I've noticed that "blinks" always show as having 0 comments, even when they have comments, meaning every one has to be individually checked daily to avoid missing any rather than just seeing if the number changed...
Permalink to Comment3. Anonymous on June 30, 2006 1:35 AM writes...
What is "good"? That there are bugs (I hope not) or that someone is speaking up about them? Or that a light is being shed on another instance of copyright abuse? Or the whole blog in general?
This is why one-word "me too" answers are generally frowned upon -- they don't add much to the discussion and may be ambiguous.
Permalink to Comment4. Zergo on August 3, 2006 1:27 AM writes...
What happened to the fourth comment here? There were four before -- apparently, a "me too" post in addition to the three I see, though I don't remember clearly. Also, why do blinks always show as having zero comments, even when they have some? Why is there a "remember me?" radio button that apparently does nothing? Why has this blog become much less active in the past few months -- in fact, it seems to have only one contributor now, where it used to have several. Is it dying? Even when the issues it deals with remain a continuing and serious concern for all of us?
Permalink to Comment