Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

rouesolaire · rouesolaire@yahoo.fr | Group Member  - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups
evola_as_he_is · EVOLA AS HE IS

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 121
  • Category: Spirituality
  • Founded: Nov 19, 2004
  • Language: English

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
The cost of the cost of knowledge   Topic List   < Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Reply  | 
The cost of the cost of knowledge

In all fairness, Mr Blaine did not claim that 'copyright' was a
Semitic notion.

Yet, as recalled by an author who has studied the history of
copyright, a history in which, as far as we are concerned, we are
deeply interested, but not necessarily for the same reasons, "an
unusual early attempt at something like copyright was the notice
attached to the ha- Shirim asher li-Shelomo by the composer Salomone
Rossi, a setting of the Psalms which was in fact the first music to be
printed with a Hebrew type-face text (1623). It set out a rabbinical
curse on anyone who copied the contents".

Jews, as is well-known, have always been forerunners in everything
which is linked with economy, and one should not mistake typical
Western ideas and inventions with ideas and inventions born in the
West under the influence of the 'cultural parasite' which the Jew is.
Jews, as was well-documented by de Poncins and other authors of the
XVIIIth, XIXth and XXth centuries, were behind the French revolution
and, in general, behind the whole so-called 'Enlightenment' : as a
coincidence, it is in the Age of the Enlightenment that the notion of
'intellectual property', completely unknown until then and utterly
absurd from a traditional standpoint, originated. Beaumarchais, a
writer and an adventurer, a designer and a trafficker, set up in 1777
the first Publishing Rights Society. On the 19th of January 1791, a
law was voted which stated that "the most sacred,, the most personal
of all proprieties is the fruit of the thought of a writer". Until
then, and since the advent of the printing press in the XVth century,
the printer and the publisher had the monopoly of the use of a given
work in the shape of printing licences and privileges, granted, in
accordance with public right, by the sovereign. The writer lived off
patrons' generosity. Beaumarchais and Jacobins turned all this upside
down, by emancipating the writer, the artist, the designer.
Henceforward, any author could negotiate, while remaining in control
of it, the right to use his work. Here, 'negotiate' is the key word.
Let's take two examples of earliest 'copyright' disputations, which
should allow our readers to figure out the essential difference
between 'copyright' as a legal right and what can be identified as
early forms of copyright in pre-modern societies :

"One of the earliest copyright disputes reputedly took place sometime
in the sixth century A.D. between Abbot Finnian of Moville and St.
Columba over St. Columba's copying of a Psalter belonging to an Abbot.
The dispute over ownership of the copy led to a battle where many men
were killed. In 1556, the English monarch, Mary I, chartered a London
guild of printers, bookbinders, and booksellers known as the
Stationers' Company, probably in an attempt to prevent the spread of
the Protestant Reformation. Only Guild members were allowed to
practice the art of printing and the master and wardens of the society
were empowered to search, seize, and burn all prohibited books, and to
imprison any person found to be printing without a license. In return
for their role in preventing the publication of books deemed heretical
or seditious, the Guild's members enjoyed the economic benefits of a
monopoly over the printing industry. From 1556 to 1641, the English
Crown exercised authority over printing and the Stationers' Company
through the Star Chamber. After the abolition of the Star Chamber in
1641, the English Parliament continued to extend the Stationers'
Company's censorship/monopoly arrangement through a series of
ordinances and Licensing Acts between 1643 and 1692"

"Most early Italian enactments in regard to literature were framed not
so much with reference to the protection of authors as for the purpose
of inducing printers (acting as publishers) to undertake certain
literary enterprises which were believed to be important to the
community. The Republic of Venice, the dukes of Florence, and Leo X
and other Popes conceded at different times to certain printers the
exclusive privilege of printing for specific terms (rarely exceeding
14 years) editions of classic authors; not so much to secure profits
for the printers, but rather to encourage, for the benefit of the
community, literary ventures on the part of the editors and printers".

Throughout history, "the moral rights of the author who created a
work, the economic rights of a benefactor who paid to have a copy
made, the property rights of the individual owner of a copy, and a
sovereign's right to censor and to regulate the printing industry",
were always recognised, as well as the right to secure some commercial
control of the property purchased. Modern copyright has been
influenced by this array of older legal rights. These rights can be
divided in moral rights (i.e., the right of paternity, the right of
respect of the integrity of the work) and rights relating to personal
assets (the right of reproduction, the right of representation, which,
as they are considered as part of the patrimony of the author, allow
him to gain economic profits from his work). For the purpose of these
short considerations on the notion of copyright from a non-liberal
standpoint, moral rights and rights relating to personal assets must
be clearly distinguished. When Abbot Finnian of Moville disputed the
right of St. Columba to copy a Psalter belonging to an Abbot, did he
take action on the basis of rights relating to personal assets? He did
not. Were laws in regard to literature enacted by the Republic of
Venice in order to protect the authors economically? They were not.
When Plato complained that transcripts of his speeches were spread
without his permission in Sicily, did he think of the intellectual
prejudice or of the financial loss that the unauthorised circulation
of those transcripts caused him? What mattered to him here was his
right of paternity on his work.

On the other hand, what characterises modern copyright, or simply
copyright, since 'modern copyright' is a pleonasm, is that, in it, the
stress is laid almost exclusively on the economic and commercial
moment. This should not come as a surprise to those who are aware of
the nature of modern mentality. This the first point, which, once it
is made, should allow us to see exactly what we are talking about, and
to avoid making the same confusions by which Mr Blaine's challenging
considerations are marred. One of the reasons most people don't find
the answer to their questions is that they don't formulate them clearly.

You explained yourself very well, we fully understand your position.
However, it seems that, in your latest message, you haven't taken in
consideration the strongly founded objections we raised to your
arguments, and, in any case, you persist in taking things out of
context. When you point out that "Individual profit should be a wholly
secondary consideration", we agree with you in principle, but, as far
as Evola's work is concerned, this argument is null and void, for the
simple reason that, as previously mentionned, a publisher hardly make
any individual profit on the books of Evola he publishes. It ensues
from this that the main reason we refuse to let anyone put online the
booklets we have published of Evola refers to our moral rights as
publishers. The second reason is closely akin to the one rightly
pointed out by J. Christiansen : at the risk, which is taken
willingly, of crushing the fantasies of certain ladies who like to
think they know a lot about esotericism and the occult, without the
income generated by the sales of 'Three Aspects of The Jewish
Problem', 'The Elements of Racial Education', instead of having been
published in 2005, would have been published in five years, and,
without the income from the sales of these two booklets, 'Heathen
Imperialism' would have been published in 2012. Without funds, without
money, a book cannot be published, it's as simple as that, and it's
also true of 'Men among the Ruins'. If its publisher had not invested
funds to have it translated, to have it proof-read, to have its
lay-out done, to have it printed, how would you have been able to put
it online, to start with? Have you thought about that? Here, we stress
that we are only referring to books which are not out of copyright and
that we fully approve of your putting online books which are out of
copyright. In the same way, we are sensitive to your good will and to
your enthusiasm, we are only asking you to think coldly of the
consequences which they may have.

Besides, our position on copyright is rather closely akin to Evola's,
judging from an episode of his life we mentionned a few months ago on
this forum, and which we will recall now. In the 1960's, he heard that
pirate copies of some of his books on race had been published and were
being sold on the sly, books whose republication, for reasons he never
explained, he refused after WW2. He made this refusal public in an
Italian paper to which he collaborated, and the last sentences of his
'warning' say a lot about the true reason he was not happy about those
various republications : in substance, he wished the 'publisher' had
contacted him and asked him permission, before even thinking of
republishing those books, so that he could have eventually brought
some changes to them. Thus, Evola acted on the basis of his right of
paternity, which no one could seriously question. Incidentally, that
'publisher' was also Italian, he was even a member of the S.S during
the war ; following the publication of Evola's 'warning', he sent him
a letter of apologies ; Evola's reply started with these words : "A
member of the S.S. does not apologise". There are strong grounds for
thinking that Evola did not live on love alone, and that the royalties
he received from the sale of his books and from the publication of his
articles in various Italian and German papers were his main source of
income. In other times, a man of his league did not need to 'earn a
living'. But he was born and 'chose' to be born in the XIXth century,
with all the consequences that this birth has on the contingent plane.
So did Guénon who, in Cairo, like your 'bookeepers', spent some of his
days writting letters to his Parisian publisher to ask what was due to
him, and what the latter, according to Jean Reyor, Guénon's
'secretary' for a long time, jibbed at giving him, all the while
lecturing people about 'metaphysical detachment' and 'selfishlessness'
: his emoluments. Guénon didn't live on love alone either, neither in
Paris, nor in Cairo, where her wealthy lady-love stood him up in
February 1930.

"Had these authors been able to see the advent of the internet, I
doubt very much that many of them would have objected to the free
dissemination of their books and articles". As far as we are
concerned, we don't have a clue, and we tend to refrain from playing
the game which consists in answering, instead of them, questions which
they haven't been asked or which they have not answered. One thing is
for sure, Evola had no sympathies for proselytism and, consistent as
he was, he was not a proselyte. Unlike you, Evola never expressed the
thought that "Ideas need to reach the people who might respond to
them". Quite the contrary, in a normal balance of power, people who
might respond to some ideas have to reach them. A magnet attracts
metals, provided that these metals, by their nature, are receptive to
it, and not the other way around. "Telling someone that such-and-such
an author is a great read, and they should really check
him out, is one thing. Getting that person to actually go out and
purchase the book is quite another". It is. But, why is it that you
want so much to drag someone into Evola's work? To inform him of its
existence is enough, let him exercise his 'free will', provided that
he still has a 'free will'.

You are not naive enough not to realise that Anglo-Saxon White
Nationalist movements have been aware of the existence of Evola's
work, including of his racial work, for a few years. It's not our
fault if, according to you, they 'woke up' two weeks ago, probably,
let's face it, because the latest far-right author which they helped
to become fashionable is no longer fashionable, and that they are
trying to make another author fashionable.






--- In evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Blaine"
<throw_the_zoom@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry if my attitude towards book publishing seems cavalier. I
> think I just didn't explain myself well enough for you to understand
> my position.
>
> If you believe that Evola, or any other particular author, is a
> valuable thing for people to read -- that certain books have the
> possibility to transform the world we live in if their ideas could be
> widely disseminated and appreciated -- then I believe it is of utmost
> importance to make those texts readily available. Individual profit
> should be a wholly secondary consideration. You talk of publishing
> more Evola books. Well, I have been reading in the White Nationalist
> genre for two years now, and it wasn't until a couple of weeks ago
> that I even *heard* the name Evola. Telling someone that
> such-and-such an author is a great read, and they should really check
> him out, is one thing. Getting that person to actually go out and
> purchase the book is quite another. Enthusiasm for a suggestion is
> typically short-lived. It passes, is forgotten. The book never makes
> it into the reader's hands. But if the text can be obtained
> immediately, and you one dive right in and start to see what it's
> about, then you have a convert.
>
> I'm sorry, but I just don't have any sympathy for people who want to
> monopolize information that is potentially salutary to the world
> situation. Julius Evola is dead. He isn't getting any more
> royalties. Had these authors been able to see the advent of the
> internet, I doubt very much that many of them would have objected to
> the free dissemination of their books and articles. The people who
> object are publishers, and what they object to is the loss of a
> certain small profit margin in the short-term. But if they'd think a
> little more about it, they'd see that they stand to make more money in
> the long run if Evola himself were to become more common currency.
> Which will not happen if his works are hoarded. Unknown and unread
> except by those "in the know."
>
> We need more people in the know. Ideas need to reach the people who
> might respond to them. I put books online for free. I don't charge
> anybody for the labor of proofing and formatting them. For the cost
> of maintaining an internet site. It's all free. If people just
> started acting that way, things really would be all free.
>
> Think about it. How many people are involved when you go to pay your
> electricity bill? You put a check in an envelope and the envelope in
> the mailbox, and some guy comes and picks it up and takes it to the
> post office. Where it's sorted and routed to some other guy, who
> takes it to the utility company. Where it's opened, and the check is
> examined, and stamped, and a little entry is made in a computer, and
> the check put in another envelope, to be delivered to the bank where
> the customer has his account. There the check is examined again, and
> another entry is made by another person in another computer ... and so
> on and so forth. We're a nation of bookkeepers. Most people spend
> their days figuring out how much other people owe them. Literally.
> It's not, in any sense of the word, productive. In reality, there's
> like this one guy down at the power station who monitors the machines
> that keep my lights on. All these other people are just taking up
space.
>





Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:47 pm

evola_as_he_is
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 | 
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

I'm sorry if my attitude towards book publishing seems cavalier. I think I just didn't explain myself well enough for you to understand my position. If you...
Martin Blaine
throw_the_zoom Offline Send Email
Feb 18, 2007
10:05 am

This dispute is academic, because the writings of POLITICAL interest are not the ones that the Jewish firm Inner Traditions is reprinting....
Rowan Berkeley
rowan_berkeley Offline Send Email
Feb 18, 2007
8:28 pm

Actually, Mr. Blaine, we understood your position perfectly well the first time; it is you who fails to understand much of anything. It is your utter ignorance...
Toni Ciopa
hyperborean Offline Send Email
Feb 18, 2007
8:29 pm

Your tone, Toni, is so entirely condescending as to be baiting. Utterly and unnecessarily pompous. ... amuses us. Yeah, I haven't read them yet. That's true....
Martin Blaine
throw_the_zoom Offline Send Email
Feb 19, 2007
11:05 am

In all fairness, Mr Blaine did not claim that 'copyright' was a Semitic notion. Yet, as recalled by an author who has studied the history of copyright, a...
evola_as_he_is Offline Send Email Feb 18, 2007
10:32 pm

That was an awesome post. I'm just having a hard time understanding your -- what seems to me to be -- elitism. Do you want people to read Evola or not? Or...
Martin Blaine
throw_the_zoom Offline Send Email
Feb 19, 2007
11:07 am

Which disease are we talking about here? :-( ... _________________________________________________________________ Don’t miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of...
Stig Andresen
stigandresen Offline Send Email
Feb 19, 2007
11:37 am

The desease of unintentional mispelling. ... From: Stig Andresen <stig_andresen@...> To: evola_as_he_is@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007...
caleb afendopoulo
afendopoulo Offline Send Email
Feb 19, 2007
12:01 pm

Hence the joke. ... _________________________________________________________________ Don’t miss your chance to WIN 10 hours of private jet travel from...
Stig Andresen
stigandresen Offline Send Email
Feb 19, 2007
5:36 pm

Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines NEW - Help