I saw something today about Mein Kampf going into public domain soon, and concerns that it would be misued. It got me to thinking: it's book is written by one of history's most notorious figures and its most influential leaders. It's an insight into his mind before the Holocaust, before invading Poland, before even he became Chancellor. It talks about the plans he would later put into terrible effect. The book must have been a goldmine for WWII historians, right? What parts were they able to use as a historical document and was anything simply too biased? Also, how have people misused it, and how will that be different when the copyright expires? (If that's not against the no current events rule.)
I'm going to give one, fairly well known to historians, example. A.J.P. Taylor famously did not read Mein Kampf, and discounted both its importance for understanding Hitler and any correlation between what Hitler wrote and his later actions.
I should note that this is an example of misuse by non-use. Taylor, to make a very hefty book short, argued that Hitler was not really the central cause of the Second World War, and moreover, that his ideology was not "that" important. If I'm remembering correctly, he used an analogy about a car accident to describe the outbreak of war.
Taylor not using Mein Kampf was such a big deal that Burk went out of his way to show conclusively that Taylor had not even read it. The book was and is indeed a gold mine of sorts, but only insofar as one is intent upon examining Hitler. This is why Taylor was pilloried to the extent he was: he essentially devoted a book to Hitler's innocence (in starting the war, Taylor in no way denies or diminishes the Holocaust or Hitler's role in it) but could only do so by ignoring key evidence (Mein Kampf) or alternating between claiming Hitler was lying, and not really serious at various points. If you ignore Mein Kampf, such an approach is indeed feasible, if still incredibly flawed. However, if you include Mein Kampf, the approach just sort of implodes immediately. Hitler was quite proud of being a warmonger...it was one of the only consistent and non-contradictory things in Mein Kampf. So for Taylor to argue that a warmonger who was actively seeking a war in order to overturn the established order and build a race based empire, was actually not really that keen on war, caused no small amount of scoffing in the halls of history faculties.
As for how it will be different. I don't really see a "My Struggle, and Zombies" or any other light hearted stuff as being viable. A big part of that is of course, the book is awful. I don't just mean that in the message, plenty of books have hateful messages. Hitler was a good performer, and maybe a great deal is lost in translation, but that book reads like a rambling cavalcade of idiocies.
The first time I read it, I was so disappointed. I had steeled myself, reminding over and over that no matter how convincing or brilliantly the argument might be made, racism, anti-Semitism etc. are simply too easy and weakminded approaches to have in life. When I'd finished I was utterly confused. How could this book convince any even semi-educated person that Hitler was the star to hitch a wagon upon? I very suddenly understood how initially, educated Germans, much of the Jewish population, and those outside Germany honestly thought Hitler was some kind of comedian. Read seriously, the book is childish, riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, and simply bad. Read as an intentionally paranoid cry for justice, blaming any party but oneself, the book is actually quite funny.
One use I could see for the book, which I'm claiming right now and will demand royalties for if it should happen to appear on the market, is toilet paper. Nothing could be more suiting or proper than to read a bit of Mein Kampf, and then do with it exactly what ought to be done.