I’ve started work on the second edition of Tomorrow’s Songs Today, my history of filk music. The information is on a page rather than a blog post on this website, so it won’t fade as quickly. The page includes a form where you can submit any bits of information you think are useful.
The new version, like the current one, will be available as a free download.
My article on Goethe’s dramatic ballad “Die erste Walpurgisnacht” (the first Walpurgis Night) and Mendelssohn’s musical setting of it is up on the Liberty Fund website.
After an unpleasant online discussion yesterday, I’m more convinced than before of the need to push back against “phobia” as an epithet. The amount of sheer rage directed at those who question the term — it seems I’m a promoter of “genocide” — shows that something important is going on.
A phobia, as I’ve said before, is a habitual, involuntary, irrational fear. Acrophobia is fear of heights; people with it get dizzy when looking down from high places. Claustrophobia is fear of enclosure in a small space; it can lead to a panic attack when stuck in an elevator that stops moving (or for some, being in an elevator at all). And so on. The involuntary aspect is central. The refusal to think is wrong because it’s irrational and voluntary, and it’s an entirely different case. People aren’t morally responsible for their phobias, though they can be responsible for the degree to which they let them control them.
(more…)
Reports about a copyright lawsuit by Ed Townsend’s estate against Ed Sheeran recently caught my attention. The suit claims that Sheeran’s song “Thinking Out Loud” infringes on “Let’s Get It On,” usually attributed to Marvin Gaye but co-authored by Townsend. The claim was that Sheeran improperly used “harmonic progressions” and “melodic and rhythmic elements” from the earlier song, but a federal court has ruled there was no copyright violation. That got me thinking about the whole issue of song copyrights.
To start by making my own views clear, I’m in favor of copyright. Some libertarians argue that creative works aren’t tangible objects and thus shouldn’t be subject to property rights, but I think the concept of ownership is as applicable to creations of the mind as to physical creations. Copyright prevents one person (or corporation) from taking someone else’s creation and profiting without getting consent or offering compensation. I think 95-year copyrights are inappropriate, but living creators should enjoy protection against the appropriation of their work.
(more…)
Since I’ve commented on the 2023 China Worldcon and the bid for one in Egypt, I should mention that the odds of my attending the 2024 Glasgow Worldcon, which were already low, have dropped to near zero.
The government of the UK has stomped on the right of mere commoners to criticize “His Majesty,” just when the world’s eyes were on it. I’m not calling for a boycott, but I don’t feel like setting foot in the UK if I don’t have to.
Security Minister Tugendhat declared, “The coronation is a chance for the United Kingdom to showcase our liberty and democracy, that’s what this security arrangement is doing.” The showcase has included suspicionless detention, bans directed at specific people, and restrictions on Internet speech. Volunteers in a women’s safety program were arrested for handing out rape alarms, because they could in principle be used to disrupt events. The charge: “Conspiracy to commit public nuisance.”
(more…)
The Mastodon site fandom.ink came to my attention because it hosts the account for Pemmi-Con, the 2023 North American Science Fiction Convention. I looked at it a bit to see what other interesting accounts it might have and examined its terms of service. Most of the points are the usual attempts to maintain civil discussion, but one item is disturbing, and it’s part of a trend toward speech policing which I’ve mentioned in other connections.
Item #2 under “Inappropriate Behaviour” is: “expressing or defending derogatory, harmful, and/or contemptuous views of marginalized persons or groups, including in the context of playing ‘devil’s advocate’ (‘it’s not really racist because…’).” (Boldface added, italics as in the original.) This constitutes a prohibition on defending people against some types of accusations. Letting accused people have their say and letting others speak in their defense is a bedrock principle of a liberal society, but it’s one which some people on the political left dislike. In an especially notorious example, Harvard booted professor Ron Sullivan from a position as faculty dean of an undergraduate house because he’d provided legal defense services for Harvey Weinstein. Users on fandom.ink can make groundless accusations without worrying that someone will challenge them. If they get accused in return, then I suppose both are presumed guilty.
(more…)
“Protected Identity Harm” sounds like revealing that Clark Kent is Superman. At Stanford, it means anything that offends somebody. An associate dean and another person filed a report of “Protected Identity Harm,” the harmful incident being a Snapchat picture of a student reading Mein Kampf. In making their complaint, they urged students to turn in others whom they see engaging in similar “harm.”
It’s not clear whether the supposed harm came from reading the book or from showing it being read on a social media site. Fortunately, Stanford did not punish anyone. A Stanford spokesperson said, “At the request of the student organization, we have been engaged in conversation with a number of students, seeking to provide support and foster communication. However, there has been no requirement that any student meet with or report to a university official to discuss the matter.” It could have been worse, but the university’s response still was not good. It should have just told the complainers to get a life and not given any of them “support.” The biggest share of the blame goes to the dean who decided it was fun to make life a little more unpleasant for a student.
(more…)