東南西北對我棚既comment

以下內容乃copy and paste自'東南西北'網站. '東南西北'網站擁有以下內容之版權.

• [015]  Potential Best Fiction Seller Of The Year Has Been Withdrawn From Market (06/19/2010)

(World Journal)  June 19, 2010

On June 18, New Century Press (Hong Kong) announced that it will not publish the "June 4th Diaries" by Li Peng.  World Journal conducted an interview.

Q: We just heard that New Century Press will not be distributing Li Peng's "June 4th Diaries."  What prompted you to make this decision?
A: In one sentence: it was based upon the copyright information provided before publication by the relevant department.  Under the copyright law in Hong Kong, we have no choice but to cancel publication.

Q: Do you mean that the original author or Li Peng himself came out to state that the copyright does not belong to New Century Press?  Is this what you mean by "copyright information provided by the relevant department"?
A: I am unable to provide you with more detailed information on which "department" or what "information."

Q: Actually everybody recognized that there could be a problem.  So what were your considerations before you decided to go ahead with publication?
A: Our considerations to publish were: First, when we decided to publish, there was no legal issue.  We had reason to believe that Li Peng wrote the book and wanted to publish it, but his publishing rights were denied by a third party (namely, the Chinese Communist Politburo).  The law does not stipulate whether the publisher house can publish or not under these circumstances.  As an independent publishing house, we have to balance the limitations set by the Chinese Communist Politburo on one side and the intention of the author, the historical value of the work and the wishes of general public on the other side.  It was therefore a natural (and careful) decision to proceed.

Q: So those considerations that you mentioned above no longer prevail?
A: The present situation is this: The Chinese Communist Politburo has forbidden the book to the published and the author has to obey.  As a result, the material will have to be sealed up forever and never see the light of day.  The decision to publish had only one purpose: to break the deadlock and liberate the manuscript.  Of course, how can there not be any risks?  For example, the original author may say that he owns the copyright and he had never authorized its publication.  But even if this worst outcome took place, the manuscript will have been liberated and the public will have obtained the historical materials coming from the principals.  Our publishing house is willing to apologize, cease printing and pay royalties as the price.  But many things changed after the media reports appeared.  Regrettably, the opportunity is gone to publish the manuscript that had been analyzed and studied carefully by experts and scholars and that we were willing to accept responsibility for its publication.

Q: Some people say that your manuscript was of unknown provenance and contained a number of inexplicable points of doubt.  You are not confident about the veracity of the book so you want to publish it for the purpose to determining its veracity.  As such, this violates professional ethics in publishing.  What do you say?
A: It is inaccurate to say that "we want to publish this book in order to check its veracity."  We publish the book because we believe the diaries are real and we are willing to be responsible.  But we cannot guarantee that every reader will accept our point of view on the veracity of the book because of the complexity of the material book.  After the book is officially published, the broad masses of readers can read it.  I am sure that some of the doubts of the readers will be gradually dissolve.  Someone once said: "What is real cannot be made false; what is false cannot be made real."  That is what this is.

ESWN Comment:

(World Journal)  Why was Li Peng's June 4th Diaries suddenly canceled.  In Bao Pu's statement, he mentioned two factors: (1) Hong Kong copyright laws; (2) copyright information provided by a relevant department.  According to analysts, the only "copyright information" possible is that Li Peng admitted that the copyright belongs to him.  So if Li Peng did not ask Bao Pu to publish the book, there will be legal troubles.

Well, that is not true because there are other possibilities.

In Bao Pu's original ideal world, he publishes the book first.  If Li Peng protests and threatens/takes legal action, Bao Pu will "apologize, cease printing and pay royalties."  By then "the cat will be let out of the bag" already.

Of course, Bao Pu is being "simple and naïve."  The as-yet-unpublished book began with a media blitz so that everybody knows about it.  Then Li Peng sends a letters, which can be one of two things:

(A) I am Li Peng, the purported author of these so-called diaries.  I never wrote those diaries and I am telling you here and now.  Let me repeat: I DID NOT WRITE THOSE DIARIES!!!  Now that you know this, you will be knowingly and intentionally violating my personal rights if you proceed with publication.

(B) I am Li Peng and I am the author of those diaries.  However, I have never intended them to be published under any circumstances.  You have never received and you will never receive authorization from me to publish those diaries.  I state this in very certain terms.  Let me repeat: I DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE PUBLICATION OF THOSE DIARIES!!!  Now that you know this, you will be knowingly and intentionally violating my personal rights if you proceed with publication.

It makes not difference whether (A) or (B) is true.  The net result: NO PUBLICATION.  Publication means that Bao Pu is knowingly and intentionally violating the rights of Li Peng; in Case (A), Bao Pu would also be committing consumer fraud.

The difference is this.  If Bao Pu had gone ahead with no pre-publication publicity and the book just shows up on the bookstore shelves one morning, Li Peng could only take legal action after the fact.  Then Bao Pu can "apologize, cease printing, withdraw distributed copies and pay royalties/damages."  But this book was preceded by a massive media campaign before publication.  Bao Pu may or may not have wanted it this way, but the media have minds of their own.  So Li Peng sends him a pre-publication letter of advice.  This is probably accompanied by a letter of opinion from a relevant Hong Kong government department that Bao Pu would be "knowingly and intentionally" breaking the law now instead of just "unknowingly and innocently" before.  Publication is indefensible now and the consequences are much more severe.

That is the difference.

I have listed the title of this post as "Potential Best Fiction Seller Of The Year Has Been Withdrawn From Market".  Now I don't know if Li Peng actually wrote these diaries or not.  If Li Peng did not write these diaries, this book is fictional; if Li Peng wrote these diaries, the book is still fictional.  That is because I happen to think that almost all politicians are professional self-serving liars.  Go read Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Winston Churchill, John Howard, Rudi Giuliani, Richard Blumenthal, Christine Todd Whitman, Sarah Palin, Raúl Salinas de Gortari, Adolf Hitler, Chen Shui-bian, ...  [For an exception, try reading Dag Hammarskjöld's Markings.]