Anne Frank's Diary a fraud - DMCA

50 views
Skip to first unread message

Shadow

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 1:21:39 PM11/17/15
to

According to the DMCA, Anne Frank's Diary was written by her
father, a sonovabitch that sought to cash in on her death after WW2,
not by "a poor little jew girl".
So the copyright, which would end this year (70 years, it
becomes public domain), will now be extended for another 35 years.
So ... I want my money back. When I bought the book and saw
various films based on it, they said it was authentic. I want my money
back for what I spent and every minute I wasted thinking that it was
real.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

A Friend

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 1:41:58 PM11/17/15
to
In article <sgrm4bl2hp8pa9vgn...@4ax.com>, Shadow
<S...@dow.br> wrote:

> According to the DMCA


<bullshit snipped>


For the more rational people here, Anne's father, Leo Frank, edited the
diary for its first publication in 1947, which is why he held the
copyright. Leo died in 1980. An unexpurgated version of the diary
wasn't published for the mass market until February 2014. Details
here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-things-that-anne-was-really-frank-
about-1359567.html

Barb May

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 1:57:05 PM11/17/15
to
Shadow wrote:

> So ... I want my money back. When I bought the book and saw
> various films based on it, they said it was authentic. I want my money
> back for what I spent and every minute I wasted thinking that it was
> real.
> []'s

Used copies of the book are available on Amazon for 1 cent. Your time is
worth even less.
--
Barb


Rhino

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 2:09:44 PM11/17/15
to
Her father's name was Otto, not Leo. Even the article you cited says so.

--
Rhino

Michael Black

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 2:19:00 PM11/17/15
to
Yes, if I recall, there was concern about privacy, or maybe it was not
wanting to distract from the Diary as an artifact of the Holocaust. While
it's a recording of that, while they were hiding, it's also about
everything else that a young teenager girl might put in a diary. And some
of that other stuff was removed.

IN no way was the diary made up after the fact.

I don't know what to think about this latest point, but as I said
elsewhere, do people really want a neo-nazi version of the book? While
it's in copyright, they can control it, out of copyright, they probably
have little control.

The book is as free as it can get. Endless copies in the libraries,
endless copies cheap on the used markets, it can easily be read without a
bootleg copy or paying full price.

And of course, Miep Gies put out a book about the period, she being one
of those who hid Anne and her family. It can't say much about being
hidden away, but it gives a view that Anne couldn't see, since she was
hidden away. It was made into a tv movie, was it twenty years back?, with
Mary Steenburgen playing Miep Gies. Miep Gies lived to about a hundred,
she died just a few years ago, a long life a just reward for helping Anne
and her family.

In other Holocaust news, Thomas Blatt died at the end of October, though
the story only ran in yesterday's local paper. I'd never heard of him
until that movie "Escape from Sobibor" (which for some reason can be had
very cheap from various places), made for tv about the big concentration
camp break. Thomas Blatt didn't just escape (and live), he had something
to do with the actual escape. 300 got out, but most were either
recaptured or killed, only about 60 living through the end of the war.

He webified one of his books, "Sobibor - The Forgotten Revolt" and
it's online at http://sobibor.net.

The obituary said he started a couple of successfl electronic stores in
California, I wonder what those were.

Michael


Michael Black

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 2:19:56 PM11/17/15
to
Well that doesn't change history.

Michael

Wouter Valentijn

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 2:29:46 PM11/17/15
to
Op 17-11-2015 om 19:20 schreef Shadow:
>
> According to the DMCA, Anne Frank's Diary was written by her
> father, a sonovabitch that sought to cash in on her death after WW2,
> not by "a poor little jew girl".
> So the copyright, which would end this year (70 years, it
> becomes public domain), will now be extended for another 35 years.
> So ... I want my money back. When I bought the book and saw
> various films based on it, they said it was authentic. I want my money
> back for what I spent and every minute I wasted thinking that it was
> real.
> []'s
>


Actually the Swiss based Anne Frank Fund claims that Otto Frank is
co-author of the diary.

https://torrentfreak.com/anne-frank-scandal-an-underreported-copyright-monopoly-abuse-151115/

The Amsterdam based Anne Frank Foundation admits he did some editing
work for a certain edition, but that Anne is the only real author.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/boeken/juridische-botsing-over-auteursrecht-anne-frank-lijkt-onvermijdelijk~a4187985/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/12001720/Anne-Frank-publishers-locked-in-copyright-battle.html


I think it does seem to be about that public domain thing. They want to
postpone it.

Possibly the only edition that will have an extended public domain
status, is that edition that was in part edited by Otto.

Ultimately it will be decided in court.

Which happens a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Frank


--
www.woutervalentijn.net 7^2

liam=mail

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 2:39:11 PM11/17/15
to
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:19:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:

> do people really want a neo-nazi version of the book?

Sadly, yes.

There is no news about the diary; everything about it has
been well-known for years.

A Friend

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 3:42:22 PM11/17/15
to
In article <n2ftta$k1g$1...@dont-email.me>, Rhino
Yes. Sorry. Brainfart. Leo Frank was someone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

A Friend

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 4:01:25 PM11/17/15
to
In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> In other Holocaust news, Thomas Blatt died at the end of October, though
> the story only ran in yesterday's local paper. I'd never heard of him
> until that movie "Escape from Sobibor" (which for some reason can be had
> very cheap from various places), made for tv about the big concentration
> camp break. Thomas Blatt didn't just escape (and live), he had something
> to do with the actual escape. 300 got out, but most were either
> recaptured or killed, only about 60 living through the end of the war.
>
> He webified one of his books, "Sobibor - The Forgotten Revolt" and
> it's online at http://sobibor.net.
>
> The obituary said he started a couple of successfl electronic stores in
> California, I wonder what those were.


From a 1996 interview with Blatt:

"And later [ca. 1970] I went in to my own business, opened a store,
electronics store, car stereo store in California, first in Oxnard, six
months later in Ventura, six months later Santa Barbara and all were
very successful and my intention was to go til the end, to San
Francisco, on the coast and open stores in every little, small town in
the coastline, but when I come to Santa Barbara I realized that I need
to have more money to have the control of all the stores, so I stopped
with the three stores[.]"

http://collections.ushmm.org/oh_findingaids/RG-50.549.01.0014_trs_en.pdf

The stores are described elsewhere as "a small chain," and it seems
like that's true. Can't find a name, though. BTW he's often referred
to in the local press as Tom Blatt and is usually described as a "car
stereo dealer."

A Friend

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 4:06:00 PM11/17/15
to
In article <564b8026$0$23840$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, Wouter Valentijn
<li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:

> I think it does seem to be about that public domain thing. They want to
> postpone it.
>
> Possibly the only edition that will have an extended public domain
> status, is that edition that was in part edited by Otto.
>
> Ultimately it will be decided in court.
>
> Which happens a lot.


I guess this is irony:

"Later this year, the official copyright for Mein Kampf expires�
years after the demise of its author. Since 1945, the Bavarian State
(which owns the copyright) has refused to allow anyone to publish the
volume. But in expectation of the copyright's expiration (and in the
hope of getting a jump on neo-Nazis who may try to publish their own
slanted versions of the text) the esteemed Munich and Berlin-based
Institute for Contemporary History decided some years ago to publish
its own, critically annotated version. The move has generated some
opposition, with some arguing against the release of any new version;
'Can you annotate the Devil?' one critic asks.

"The question is whether anyone will have the strength to lift, let
alone read, the new edition. The volume will be hefty, numbering more
than 2,000 pages媡he result of nearly 5,000 annotations supplied by
scholars. These annotations will critically engage Hitler's
ideologically rooted claims in Mein Kampf, the goal being to prevent
gullible readers from accepting any of them at face value."


https://newrepublic.com/article/121241/what-happens-when-mein-kampfs-cop
yright-expires

anim8rfsk

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 5:06:10 PM11/17/15
to
In article <171120151605574849%no...@noway.com>,
A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

> In article <564b8026$0$23840$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, Wouter Valentijn
> <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
> > I think it does seem to be about that public domain thing. They want to
> > postpone it.
> >
> > Possibly the only edition that will have an extended public domain
> > status, is that edition that was in part edited by Otto.
> >
> > Ultimately it will be decided in court.
> >
> > Which happens a lot.
>
>
> I guess this is irony:
>
> "Later this year, the official copyright for Mein Kampf expires�
> years after the demise of its author. Since 1945, the Bavarian State
> (which owns the copyright) has refused to allow anyone to publish the
> volume.

They have? How come I can buy them all over the place then?

But in expectation of the copyright's expiration (and in the
> hope of getting a jump on neo-Nazis who may try to publish their own
> slanted versions of the text) the esteemed Munich and Berlin-based
> Institute for Contemporary History decided some years ago to publish
> its own, critically annotated version. The move has generated some
> opposition, with some arguing against the release of any new version;
> 'Can you annotate the Devil?' one critic asks.
>
> "The question is whether anyone will have the strength to lift, let
> alone read, the new edition.

The Kindle version weighs nothing.

The volume will be hefty, numbering more
> than 2,000 pages媡he result of nearly 5,000 annotations supplied by
> scholars. These annotations will critically engage Hitler's
> ideologically rooted claims in Mein Kampf, the goal being to prevent
> gullible readers from accepting any of them at face value."
>
>
> https://newrepublic.com/article/121241/what-happens-when-mein-kampfs-cop
> yright-expires

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss2?tag=&url=search-alias%3Daps&field
-keywords=mein+kamf

--
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu......

Michael Black

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 7:51:16 PM11/17/15
to
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, A Friend wrote:

Thanks. For me "electronic store" means "a place that sells electronic
parts", so I wondered if it was along those lines.

So chances are good the name wouldn't mean a thing to me, anymore than any
stereo store here would mean anything to someone elsewhere.

He seems to have done okay, even if he didn't get as large as Radio Shack
(which began as a handful of stores in the Boston area).

Michael

Michael Black

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 7:55:18 PM11/17/15
to
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, A Friend wrote:

> In article <564b8026$0$23840$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, Wouter Valentijn
> <li...@valentijn.nu> wrote:
>
>> I think it does seem to be about that public domain thing. They want to
>> postpone it.
>>
>> Possibly the only edition that will have an extended public domain
>> status, is that edition that was in part edited by Otto.
>>
>> Ultimately it will be decided in court.
>>
>> Which happens a lot.
>
>
> I guess this is irony:
>
> "Later this year, the official copyright for Mein Kampf expires?70
> years after the demise of its author. Since 1945, the Bavarian State
> (which owns the copyright) has refused to allow anyone to publish the
> volume. But in expectation of the copyright's expiration (and in the
> hope of getting a jump on neo-Nazis who may try to publish their own
> slanted versions of the text) the esteemed Munich and Berlin-based
> Institute for Contemporary History decided some years ago to publish
> its own, critically annotated version. The move has generated some
> opposition, with some arguing against the release of any new version;
> 'Can you annotate the Devil?' one critic asks.
>
> "The question is whether anyone will have the strength to lift, let
> alone read, the new edition. The volume will be hefty, numbering more
> than 2,000 pages?the result of nearly 5,000 annotations supplied by
> scholars. These annotations will critically engage Hitler's
> ideologically rooted claims in Mein Kampf, the goal being to prevent
> gullible readers from accepting any of them at face value."
>
>
> https://newrepublic.com/article/121241/what-happens-when-mein-kampfs-cop
> yright-expires
>
I've read that while it sold really well, it's one of those books that few
actually read. Either they felt obligated to buy it, in a nazi kind of
way, or they just wanted to have it around.

I suspect that means it was hard to read in the first place, adding
annotation may not improve it.

I once did set out to read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", but I
found a hardcover copy at a garage sale, and that thing was heavy. I was
worried that I'd drop it on my head as I lay reading it. The history is
important, but the book is full of names and dates that you lose track of,
so later when they prove to have some ongoing role in the book, you have
to go back and reread what was said earlier. I'm not taking a test, I
want an overall picture, not that much detail (but I'm glad the book was
written, some people need/want that detail).

Michael

A Friend

unread,
Nov 17, 2015, 10:48:21 PM11/17/15
to
In article <anim8rfsk-3ABB4...@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <171120151605574849%no...@noway.com>,
> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > "Later this year, the official copyright for Mein Kampf expires�
> > years after the demise of its author. Since 1945, the Bavarian State
> > (which owns the copyright) has refused to allow anyone to publish the
> > volume.
>
> They have? How come I can buy them all over the place then?


That's because the book has been relentlessly pirated since it was
originally published. In fact, my favorite piracy case involves Mein
Kampf. An abridged edition had been published in the United States.
This one left out pretty much all the anti-Semitic stuff, and Hitler's
diatribes were translated and then edited to seem not entirely
unreasonable. Alan Cranston, then a UPI reporter in Germany (he was
later a senator), did his own translation (which included all the bad
stuff) and had it published in the U.S. in 1939 without authorization.
James A. Wechsler, later the editor of the New York Post under the
liberal regime of Dorothy Schiff, was also involved. Hitler's
publisher sued in a Connecticut court and won damages on behalf of
Hitler. I don't know if any damages were ever paid.

anim8rfsk

unread,
Nov 18, 2015, 12:03:20 AM11/18/15
to
In article <171120152248164308%no...@noway.com>,
LOL

--
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu......

Michael Black

unread,
Nov 18, 2015, 1:28:21 PM11/18/15
to
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, anim8rfsk wrote:

> In article <171120152248164308%no...@noway.com>,
> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <anim8rfsk-3ABB4...@news.easynews.com>,
>> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <171120151605574849%no...@noway.com>,
>>> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Later this year, the official copyright for Mein Kampf expires?70
>>>> years after the demise of its author. Since 1945, the Bavarian State
>>>> (which owns the copyright) has refused to allow anyone to publish the
>>>> volume.
>>>
>>> They have? How come I can buy them all over the place then?
>>
>>
>> That's because the book has been relentlessly pirated since it was
>> originally published. In fact, my favorite piracy case involves Mein
>> Kampf. An abridged edition had been published in the United States.
>> This one left out pretty much all the anti-Semitic stuff, and Hitler's
>> diatribes were translated and then edited to seem not entirely
>> unreasonable. Alan Cranston, then a UPI reporter in Germany (he was
>> later a senator), did his own translation (which included all the bad
>> stuff) and had it published in the U.S. in 1939 without authorization.
>> James A. Wechsler, later the editor of the New York Post under the
>> liberal regime of Dorothy Schiff, was also involved. Hitler's
>> publisher sued in a Connecticut court and won damages on behalf of
>> Hitler. I don't know if any damages were ever paid.
>
> LOL
>
When the war came along, the trouble of making the royalty payments to
someone in Germany became a lot of trouble, so they likely waited, and
then when he killed himself thought "Oh well". Maybe they were
groundbreakers, the ancestors of all those people who say now "copyright
should end when someone dies, no money to the leeching descendants".

Michael

Adam H. Kerman

unread,
Nov 18, 2015, 7:06:32 PM11/18/15
to
A Friend wrote:
>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

>>>"Later this year, the official copyright for Mein Kampf expires�
>>>years after the demise of its author. Since 1945, the Bavarian State
>>>(which owns the copyright) has refused to allow anyone to publish the
>>>volume.

>>They have? How come I can buy them all over the place then?

>That's because the book has been relentlessly pirated since it was
>originally published. In fact, my favorite piracy case involves Mein
>Kampf. An abridged edition had been published in the United States.
>This one left out pretty much all the anti-Semitic stuff, and Hitler's
>diatribes were translated and then edited to seem not entirely
>unreasonable. Alan Cranston, then a UPI reporter in Germany (he was
>later a senator), did his own translation (which included all the bad
>stuff) and had it published in the U.S. in 1939 without authorization.
>James A. Wechsler, later the editor of the New York Post under the
>liberal regime of Dorothy Schiff, was also involved. Hitler's
>publisher sued in a Connecticut court and won damages on behalf of
>Hitler. I don't know if any damages were ever paid.

I never knew that story. Thanks.

Are you saying the mistranslated version was authorized? That makes the
decent translation fair use, I suppose.

A Friend

unread,
Nov 18, 2015, 10:35:36 PM11/18/15
to
In article <n2j3q4$88u$2...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
The bowdlerized version was official, yes. Royalties from Cranston et
al.'s translation are still donated to an assortment of charities, so I
gather it's not (yet) p.d.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages