The organisation of (UNESCO’s) Amsterdam World Book Capital will hold a symposium called “The Book in the Internet Era: Copyright and the Future for Authors, Publishers and Libraries” on the 21st and 22nd of April 2008 at the new central Public Library of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The language of the symposium will be English. The entrance fee will be 350 euro, though some authors, and some citizens from economically disadvantaged countries are eligible for a discount.
Among the invited speakers are Dr. Ernst Hirsch Ballin (Dutch Minister of Justice), Paul Goldstein (Professor of Law at Stanford University), Richard Charkin (thief), and James Boyle (Professor of Law at Duke University).
Of these I find Hirsch Ballin and James Boyle the most remarkable. The Dutch Department of Justice rarely concerns itself with copyright (mostly only with the Windows-CDs-from-car-boots stuff); what is a cop doing in a kindergarten? James Boyle is one of those rare copyright scholars who believe that there must be actual reasons for having a copyright law, and that the effects of copyright should be measured where possible. I know—what a nutter!
Moderator’s note: Fascinating post. But the above reference to Richard Charkin is Branko’s personal opinion and might even be even libelous if presented as a fact without the full background. Richard Charkin is a reputable publishing executive who “stole” Google laptops to make a point about copyright. See my comment. – David Rothman
Hi, Branko. Glad to see you posting. But I do think it would be cool to say why you feel that Richard Charkin is a “thief.” Or is that a mistake? It’s a pretty strong statement to make without support. A reference to his fun with the Google laptop? If so, then some context would be helpful–maybe even a hyperlink, so people won’t think he’s a burglar or whatever. The present use of the term thief might even be libelous; I see him as a reputable publishing executive with whose views on Google, etc., you disagree. Since he has a mischievous streak in him, which I enjoy, I might invite him to drop by to give his side. If that happens, be civil. Thanks. David
Fun with a Google laptop? I was unaware that intent matters so much to a court of law. Why was Charking never prosecuted again?
Does the word “theft” still mean anything? First it was applied to copyright infringement, which is not theft at all, now it is defined (by Charkin and you) as a harmless prank, how on earth could anybody claim the word “thief” is libelous if it has become bereft of all meaning? I realize you guys like Newspeak; but it helps if you don’t keep changing the definitions.
(Remember that word, Newspeak? It’s from a book, a plain case of plagiarizing Zamyatin’s We according to some, that should have been in the PD by now. Indeed is, in most of the jurisdictions of the world.)
"Amazon has replaced several defective items for me or given me credit for them. This includes replacing two Kindles which were out of warranty. When ..."
"Amazon is not only customer-centric regarding service, they always have their customers in mind when developing new products and services, as all companies should.
Out of ..."
The organisation of (UNESCO’s) Amsterdam World Book Capital will hold a symposium called “The Book in the Internet Era: Copyright and the Future for Authors, Publishers and Libraries” on the 21st and 22nd of April 2008 at the new central Public Library of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The language of the symposium will be English. The entrance fee will be 350 euro, though some authors, and some citizens from economically disadvantaged countries are eligible for a discount.
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
Hi, Branko. Glad to see you posting. But I do think it would be cool to say why you feel that Richard Charkin is a “thief.” Or is that a mistake? It’s a pretty strong statement to make without support. A reference to his fun with the Google laptop? If so, then some context would be helpful–maybe even a hyperlink, so people won’t think he’s a burglar or whatever. The present use of the term thief might even be libelous; I see him as a reputable publishing executive with whose views on Google, etc., you disagree. Since he has a mischievous streak in him, which I enjoy, I might invite him to drop by to give his side. If that happens, be civil. Thanks. David
Fun with a Google laptop? I was unaware that intent matters so much to a court of law. Why was Charking never prosecuted again?
Does the word “theft” still mean anything? First it was applied to copyright infringement, which is not theft at all, now it is defined (by Charkin and you) as a harmless prank, how on earth could anybody claim the word “thief” is libelous if it has become bereft of all meaning? I realize you guys like Newspeak; but it helps if you don’t keep changing the definitions.
(Remember that word, Newspeak? It’s from a book, a plain case of plagiarizing Zamyatin’s We according to some, that should have been in the PD by now. Indeed is, in most of the jurisdictions of the world.)