PIPA/SOPA

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.034  Monday, 30 January 2012

 

[1] From:         Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 29, 2012 12:49:18 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA 

 

[2] From:         Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 29, 2012 8:52:06 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 29, 2012 12:49:18 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA

 

Larry Weiss thinks that

 

>The scope of copyright protection (although

>not its duration) is the same it was when the

>current Act was adopted in 1976 and pretty much

>the same as it was under the prior law,

>enacted in 1909.

 

This comment is contradicted by the judgement in “Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.” (1999), which established that in the US a photograph of an artwork is not itself a new work that enjoys copyright.

 

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998), on the other hand, criminalizes the circumvention of digital locks for the purpose of accessing locked material even when that material itself enjoys no copyright protection.

 

So, the situation has changed substantially since 1909.

 

In case anyone thinks that all this has little bearing on Shakespearian scholarship, I’ll mention just one relevant application. EEBO images derived from microfilms of books in the Huntington Library retain the library’s assertion of its rights over those images. The validity of that assertion depends upon complex judgements about the amount of creativity embedded in microfilm reproduction and subsequent digitization.

 

Far from being the settled matter Weiss thinks it is, copyright law is the battleground upon which is being fought, right now, the contest for the world’s cultural heritage.

 

Gabriel Egan

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 29, 2012 8:52:06 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA

 

>I might point out that things previously unthinkable are now commonplace 

>in post-9/11 America. Maybe if SOPA/PIPA fails of passage the 

>government will use another method with which it has already had such 

>great success: the CIA tracks down the offenders and the president 

>orders them killed.  

 

We all know that has happened; but I wonder which of the deaths Bob Projansky prefers not have occurred -- bin Laden? Awaki?

PIPA/SOPA

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.033  Sunday, 29 January 2012

 

[1] From:         Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 27, 2012 9:44:10 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA 

 

[2] From:         Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 27, 2012 6:38:37 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: PIPA/SOPA 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Larry Weiss <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 27, 2012 9:44:10 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: PIPA/SOPA

 

Jim Marino says:

 

And while Larry Weiss seems to sniff at Gabriel Egan as a copyright violator, surely it should be acknowledged that the scope of what is “protected” by copyright has grown enormously in the recent past, and the domain protected by fair use has correspondingly shrunk, driven in almost every case by the agenda of deep-pocketed plaintiffs. Copyright piracy is not what it used to be; rather, it is now a great many more things than it used to be. That expansion of property rights has been defined by what one set of parties, the owners, decide to be reasonable. PIPA/SOPA would enforce those parties’ opinions of their own deserts with the full power of the law. That, surely, is unreasonable.

 

This most assuredly is not the case.  The scope of copyright protection (although not its duration) is the same it was when the current Act was adopted in 1976 and pretty much the same as it was under the prior law, enacted in 1909.  As for restriction of fair use, I would appreciate citations to whatever cases supposedly support this notion.  My impression is that cases like the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), expands the doctrine.

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Robert Projansky <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 27, 2012 6:38:37 PM EST

Subject:     Re: PIPA/SOPA

 

I agree that SHAKSPER would have some vulnerability to SOPA/PIPA attack because of the kinds of links Gabriel Egan mentions. Real vulnerability, however, would depend on the political activities of Hardy and SHAKSPER members. If, with a SOPA/PIPA law to arm it, there were a US Government perception that this website is of any political use to opponents of the security state and its so-called “war on terror”, SHAKSPER would be history forthwith. 

 

I might point out that things previously unthinkable are now commonplace in post-9/11 America. Maybe if SOPA/PIPA fails of passage the government will use another method with which it has already had such great success: the CIA tracks down the offenders and the president orders them killed.  

 

Best to all,

Bob Projansky

 

Nichol Williamson Dies December 16

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.032  Sunday, 29 January 2012

 

From:         R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 27, 2012 2:58:34 PM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Nichol Williamson

 

I saw Nichol Williamson in “I Hate Hamlet” in New York the night after the big event. It seems that the previous evening, Williamson had an extra drink or two and decided to slap one of the other players on the butt with the broadside of his sword. The affronted actor departed the stage, walked up the aisle and out the doors to the street. If memory serves the theater was on 44th or 6th a few doors off Times Square. The next night, the night I attended, there was some splainin to do, the understudy played and the show went on. Williamson was pretty entertaining in his role and in his apology. The night of the big event I saw “Will Rogers Follies” with Keith Carradine. I wish I had set my schedule in reverse order, but you can’t win ‘em all. The Will Rogers show was the better of the two, but the Hamlet was pretty entertaining all in all. 

PIPA/SOPA

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.031  Friday, 27 January 2012

 

From:         Jim Marino <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 26, 2012 3:53:02 PM EST

Subject:     Re: PIPA/SOPA

 

I would echo Gabriel Egan’s concerns about the proposed PIPA/SOPA law. Although Larry Weiss evidently finds Gabriel’s worries about a “Star Chamber proceeding” alarmist, that alarm is exceedingly well-founded. The chief thrust of the PIPA/SOPA legislation is to create extra-judicial “remedies” for those who wish to pull the plug on a given web site, remedies that utterly circumvent due process and misplace the burden of proof. It is in fact a bill designed to create Star Chamber proceedings, and this such proceedings are not incidental but the primary goal. (The unspoken mottoes of the bill are “No more YouTubes” and “No more inconvenient requirement to sue.”)

 

The objection that the law “is unlikely to pass . . . in anything like its present form” strikes me as no reason not to oppose the present form of the law. The proposed law does have powerful sponsors, both inside and outside Congress, who seem deeply committed to passing the elements of the law which seem most objectionable. Passage of those noxious measures, sooner or later, is not only possible but probable unless such measures are actively resisted. Nor does the implication that the law will eventually pass in some as-yet-unknown but more palatable compromise version, about which we need not worry, have any genuine value as an argument. No such compromise legislation exists, and so appeals to its reasonable nature are simply appeals to Larr Weiss’s imagination.

 

And while Larry Weiss seems to sniff at Gabriel Egan as a copyright violator, surely it should be acknowledged that the scope of what is “protected” by copyright has grown enormously in the recent past, and the domain protected by fair use has correspondingly shrunk, driven in almost every case by the agenda of deep-pocketed plaintiffs. Copyright piracy is not what it used to be; rather, it is now a great many more things than it used to be. That expansion of property rights has been defined by what one set of parties, the owners, decide to be reasonable. PIPA/SOPA would enforce those parties’ opinions of their own deserts with the full power of the law. That, surely, is unreasonable.

 

Jim Marino

Nichol Williamson Dies December 16

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.030  Friday, 27 January 2012

 

[1] From:         Thomas Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 26, 2012 1:56:57 PM EST

     Subject:     Re: Nichol Williamson

 

[2] From:         Michael Zito <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         January 27, 2012 9:32:14 AM EST

     Subject:     Re: Nichol Williamson

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Thomas Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 26, 2012 1:56:57 PM EST

Subject:     Re: Nichol Williamson

 

The 1969 Hamlet film isn’t a great film, but it’s a truly great performance. Williamson’s “Nay, I know not: is it the King?” is one of the most thrilling lines I’ve ever heard. And Williamson is the only Hamlet I’ve seen where I actually believed he was seeing his father’s ghost. 

 

Tad Davis

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:         Michael Zito <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         January 27, 2012 9:32:14 AM EST

Subject:     Re: Nichol Williamson

 

My favorite Macbeth.  I'm sorry to hear about this.  Even Nixon, in his book of memories, in a paragraph succeeding one about Sinatra performing at the White House, recalls having enjoyed Williamson recite from Hamlet for him and Mrs. Nixon . . . 

 

Williamson’s dagger speech and banquet scene are, to me, the best and most convincing in the business . . . . 

 

To the very echo,

mz

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.