Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
The issue here is a very simple one. If it is offensive to public policy for Goebbel's estate to receive royalties, the solution is not to unjustly enrich a publisher by allowing them to use these materials royalty free, particularly when they had already agreed to pay royalties. The solution is for the state to appropriate the royalties through proceeds of crime type legislation. Ideally, the funds should then be directed to an appropriate charity, though most governments no doubt simply then route it to consolidated revenue. The second point about important historical documents does need some consideration. SteveEisenberg's example of Irving Berlin's biographers being unable to quote from Berlin's songs is, to my mind, an example of where copyright has obviously gone a step too far. Perhaps there should be a copyright exception for this type of situation, or at the very least a rand-type licensing scheme with minimal royalties for this type of material.
|
Maybe if something is all that offensive in and of itself the publisher should have the integrity not to put it in print.
I mean, if ethics are part of the decision in any way, shape, or form.
Regarding American laws prohibiting criminals from profiting from their crimes...in the case of Goebbles one cannot claim that Goebbles' memoirs are valuable only because of his crimes. So application would be problematic. He was a brilliant public relations strategist and he orchestrated continued support for the war in spite of devastating casualties on the eastern front. So this isn't some murderer who would be uninteresting were it not for his crimes, this is a talented man who had an interesting career...that included included some horrifying crimes against mankind in the midst of it all.
Even if Germany passes laws like those in the US which would prevent the estate from profiting due to Goebbles part in the Holocaust (not that a third party holding the memoirs is the same as heirs or an estate) his other duties and achievements would not be covered by such strictures, because his part in the Holocaust was not the only thing that causes people to read about him.
Somehow Godwin's law should have prevented this thread entirely.