Comments on: Amusing Ourselves to Death

By: Queen Street Mall, March 2013 – Or, “Why I fear the Internet is ruining us.” | Post-It Notes Didn't Cut It

Mon, 13 May 2013 17:35:11 +0000

[...] has since been taken down (glad I have a hard copy in the ‘vault’), I wished to credit Mr.McMillen for quite aptly summing up the idea of the two extremes; deprivation/control of information, versus [...]

By: Миллионы, подсевшие на клик

Миллионы, подсевшие на клик — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:26:02 +0000

[...] убрать его с сайта — об этом он пишет здесь. Впрочем, сам напросился. Запись опубликована в [...]

By: Donald Snyder

Donald Snyder — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:59:22 +0000

I too share the comic with my Media and Communication Studies students every semester. This semester I am having them read Postman’s Introduction and first chapter, along with this blog post, the original comic strip (still available online – it is kind of like when Danger Mouse received cease and desist warnings from the Beatles and Jay-Z’s lawyers), and an essay by Henry Jenkins on Convergence Culture. From this we discuss the relevance of Postman’s argument, and the rights of consumers to claim ownership over the culture that surrounds them. While I can’t deny the economic fear of lawsuit, I do think that this example falls under the protections of fair use. It is a question that we really need to grapple with or there will be serious limits on creativity and discourse. What I wonder is how far it goes. In this specific case you retain the rights over your drawings but did you get permission from the holders of Apple’s 1984 superbowl advertisement to replicate the image of big brother on the screen controlling his masses? Did the creators of that commercial get the rights from the estate of Huxley?

By: Kathy Patterson

Kathy Patterson — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:35:57 +0000

I am sad this is no longer easily available but I respect your respect of the ‘copyright holders’. Every year I shared your comic with my students and it typically creates more discussion than nearly anything else. It is very wise commentary and often students have read these works in high school which makes the discussion more meaningful. Thank you for creating it and I hope you find a way to post it again in the future. (btw, it’s not impossible to find online, dare I say).

By: Florian

Florian — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 14:55:16 +0000

I loved this work.
sad |-:

By: John Rooke

John Rooke — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:48:42 +0000

Which all seems to show that the biggest threat is neither state oppression nor media distraction, but the extension of private property until even our thoughts are owned by someone else.

By: Stan

Stan — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:33:49 +0000

So, the copyright holders are his relatives. I wonder about that. Why? Did they create the book? What is the purpose of copyright? To make creation property or to support and encourage creation? I can see why someone who writes a book (or cartoon), writes a song, or does any of the creative things we all benefit from should get the income their creation generates. But I fail to see why copyright is transferable. I am sure it allows for the creation of lots more income, but that was not the purpose of copyright, as far as I know (I acknowledge that I am not an expert) and even if it were, I should disagree with the mobility of its protections as, in the case presented in the original post, there are costs associated with the protections. Copyright is not meant to hamper the free flow of ideas but to encourage it.
I disagree with a second point. The theme of the book. or any book, is not, to me, subject to copyright, especially when the original is cited. Credit is given where due and all profits (none, in this case) are protected (perhaps even enhanced, if readers of the comic buy the book). So, what were the comic’s violations of the protection? The title? The one line? Are these damages that amount to a violation of the law. Perhaps lawyers would argue that they are, but lawyers make little money without violations of law and, I am afraid, their material interests often cloud their vision of justice. I think most reasonable people would not feel that an injustice had been committed.

By: seb

seb — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:01:35 +0000

I honestly think if the comic was called something different that didn’t reference the book directly there wouldn’t be an issue.
Artist are always influenced by the works around. If that’s not the case then someone better tell Kate Bush to remove Cloudbusting because it based on the book “a Book of dreams” about Wilhelm Reich.