From mlockey at honson.com Sat Dec 4 00:07:40 2004 From: mlockey at honson.com (Michael Lockey) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 03:07:40 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa Message-ID: <41B1704C.20500@honson.com> Hi: Unaware of this list, I've been doing my own private plotting, and would like to run my thoughts past you. (This comes with the standard Canadian Disclaimer about not stepping on feet, embarrassment at being egotistical enough to make suggestions, etc., etc., etc) I've been proofreading and mentoring at DP-INT and -EU for 16 months or so, and have shared many of the fears and uncertainties about the future of Public Domain. It is interesting and frightening to see how one (relatively) small country can unilaterally change Copyright, then cajole their 'friends' until a global result is achieved, despite the opposition of most. (I note parentherically that most of the world is Life+50.) I have, consequently, incorporated Distributed Proofreaders of Canada as a for profit concern; I also own dp50.net. (Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our endeavours.) I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power. Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or individual, as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for damages. My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary. Where I, personally, want to be challenging is by claiming, (as our charter does), rights of use for any material- globally- that is currently in the Public Domain in Canada. (As, for example, an individual or corporation may claim mineral rights without doing any work on them for up to 15 years.) Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto: THE BOOK STOPS HERE Cheers, Vasa (Michael Lockey) From darryl at moores.ca Sat Dec 4 08:36:22 2004 From: darryl at moores.ca (Darryl Moore) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:36:22 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa In-Reply-To: <41B1704C.20500@honson.com> References: <41B1704C.20500@honson.com> Message-ID: <41B1E786.3070107@moores.ca> Hello Vasa, welcome. I'm a newcomer as well. I see PG Canada both as a useful tool for fighting wrong headed copyright reforms and as an extremely valuable social institution in it's own right. In fact the former is true only because the latter is! I believe PG Canada becoming a registered charity will improve both its ability to deliver its core service and its respectability when commenting on pending legislation. Your strategy of using a for profit corporation is interesting, however unless you can show significant lost income you will have a difficult uphill battle. Additionally there is no Charter right to a profit. There is however a NAFTA one. You might consider making your company an American entity. Then you would be able to sue for expropriation under the terms of NAFTA in a way that you could not as a Canadian company. But again, you'd have to show some significant lost profits. Best of luck to you. cheers, darryl Michael Lockey wrote: > Hi: > > Unaware of this list, I've been doing my own private plotting, and would > like to run my thoughts past you. (This comes with the standard > Canadian Disclaimer about not stepping on feet, embarrassment at being > egotistical enough to make suggestions, etc., etc., etc) > > I've been proofreading and mentoring at DP-INT and -EU for 16 months or > so, and have shared many of the fears and uncertainties about the future > of Public Domain. > > It is interesting and frightening to see how one (relatively) small > country can unilaterally change Copyright, then cajole their 'friends' > until a global result is achieved, despite the opposition of most. (I > note parentherically that most of the world is Life+50.) > > I have, consequently, incorporated Distributed Proofreaders of Canada as > a for profit concern; I also own dp50.net. (Quite frankly, I don't > think we should be jingoistic in any of our endeavours.) > > I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help > us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must > fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power. > > Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a > corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work > from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the > downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or individual, > as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly > receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be > established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials > currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for damages. > My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary. > > Where I, personally, want to be challenging is by claiming, (as our > charter does), rights of use for any material- globally- that is > currently in the Public Domain in Canada. (As, for example, an > individual or corporation may claim mineral rights without doing any > work on them for up to 15 years.) > > Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: > I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe > I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: > and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto: > > THE BOOK STOPS HERE > > > Cheers, Vasa (Michael Lockey) > _______________________________________________ > Project Gutenberg of Canada > Website: http://www.projectgutenberg.ca/ > List: pgcanada at lists.pglaf.org > Archives: http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/pgcanada/ > From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Sat Dec 4 08:55:04 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:55:04 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa Message-ID: <14c60c14dc1b.14dc1b14c60c@ncf.ca> I'm not sure what the market would be for per-download books, although it might well be something to try for at least the most perennially popular of titles. There's another way to generate an economic interest in PD e-texts though, and that's to continue to give them away, but promote the hell out of their use for coursepacks, esp. in areas like CanLit, history, and other social sciences. Universities, individual faculties, departments, professors, or TAs, might come to value the availability of these materials and the consequent reduction in the gelt they would owe to Excess Copyright. I hesitate posting this on an openly-archived list (Excess Copyright et al. ARE probably reading; hi, guys!), but I think this might be one very clever way of generating some real vested interests in a vigorous public domain in Canada. From hart at pglaf.org Sat Dec 4 08:57:41 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:57:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa In-Reply-To: <41B1704C.20500@honson.com> References: <41B1704C.20500@honson.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Michael Lockey wrote: > Hi: > > Unaware of this list, I've been doing my own private plotting, and would like > to run my thoughts past you. (This comes with the standard Canadian > Disclaimer about not stepping on feet, embarrassment at being egotistical > enough to make suggestions, etc., etc., etc) > > I've been proofreading and mentoring at DP-INT and -EU for 16 months or so, > and have shared many of the fears and uncertainties about the future of > Public Domain. > > It is interesting and frightening to see how one (relatively) small country > can unilaterally change Copyright, then cajole their 'friends' until a global > result is achieved, despite the opposition of most. (I note parentherically > that most of the world is Life+50.) I'm not sure you want to know the history of the current copyright extensions, but I think it goes back to the mid-60's, even before the United States was working up it's extension from 28 + 28 years to 95 years without any renewal. Not only is the current history of copyright extension longer, and also more far flung, than any of us probably realize, but it is backed by more billions and more centuries of tradition than any of us may realize either. > I have, consequently, incorporated Distributed Proofreaders of Canada as a > for profit concern; I also own dp50.net. (Quite frankly, I don't think we > should be jingoistic in any of our endeavours.) [Sorry, that parenthetical remark about jingoism when right over my head.] > I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help us!- > are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must fight them > on their grounds: money, control, and power. I have always thought that the public domain was the GREATEST CIVIL RIGHT. Yet we see that "the pen is mightier than then pen" when the leaders of country after country after country sign laws that rape and pillage the public domain rights to a million books here and a million books there. And with no mention by the major press or major media whatsoever. . . . I wonder if it is because they think their own existence is dependent on copyrights to things that were copyrighted a century ago??? I think the more likely explanation is that they simply don't want ANY competition to their wares, they want it ALL TO BE "PAY-PER." We have moved from the "PAPERLESS revolution" to the PAY-PER revolution. * They want a "piece of the action" AND "editorial control" over everything, and the governments don't resist because they get more taxes this way. Not to mention that the publishers' cartels are among the longest standing lobbiests in the history of governments. How do you think copyright got started in the first place?!?!?! > Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a corporation > may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work from DP-CAN > (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the downloader, to any > registered or non-registered operation or individual, as a charitable > donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly receive any money, though > both a gross and net income may be established. If, then, the government > tries to reprivatize materials currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be > able to sue for damages. My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme > Court, if necessary. Verrry interesting! However, I hope this is something that will be kept on the DP side of things and not spill over into the PG side, as I have sincere reservations about the idea of going to court in this kind of environment. It is my own opinion that Larry Lessig, et. al., have done the most harm to copyright law of anyone. . .more details on request. These cases, which were once cases with my own name on them, are being lost in a manner that sets the public domain back much further than if the cases had not been brought at all. Not only are they losing more severely than if they had made no legal arguments whatsoever, but they are insuring these cases will NOT BE HEARD IN THE NEXT CENTURY. . .and then who will remember what it was like before the public domain was sold up the river. > Where I, personally, want to be challenging is by claiming, (as our charter > does), rights of use for any material- globally- that is currently in the > Public Domain in Canada. (As, for example, an individual or corporation may > claim mineral rights without doing any work on them for up to 15 years.) My best wishes with that. . .just don't lose, eh? I think Lessig & Co., would have done much better if they had hired some retired jurists the same age and inclination as the US Supreme Court and tried their case several times in such "moot court" practice sessions, and then known they had to go back to the drawing boards before hurting more than helping. By the way, US lawyers get the same "credit," as it were, for appearing before the Supreme Court whether then win or lose. . . . I told them that if they wanted to go in my name, they had better be prepared for the "Super Bowl of Supreme Court Cases". . .but they not only ignored that, they ignored ALL of the briefs I spent hundreds of hours writing for them over a period of 5 months. That's why I fired them. And, INHO, why they lost by a far greater margin than if they had said nothing at all. I think they had 5-4 going in, and came out losing 7-2. . . . > Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: I'm > working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe I'll need > to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: and fight I > will. Hence the Company's Motto: > > THE BOOK STOPS HERE Love it!!! Of course, their might be something said in addition: Your support needed, or THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOK STOPS HERE. My apologies, I sorted through several ways to say that, and have not yet come up with the right one. . .any help? > > > Cheers, Vasa (Michael Lockey) > _______________________________________________ > Project Gutenberg of Canada > Website: http://www.projectgutenberg.ca/ > List: pgcanada at lists.pglaf.org > Archives: http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/pgcanada/ Many thanks! Michael S. Hart From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Sat Dec 4 09:19:01 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:19:01 -0500 Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa Message-ID: <14ae9814e1e6.14e1e614ae98@ncf.ca> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Hart Date: Saturday, December 4, 2004 11:57 am Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa > They want a "piece of the action" AND "editorial control" over > everything,and the governments don't resist because they get more > taxes this way. In Canada, there's a good reason for the governments to resist: a lot of that "more taxes" will just have to go straight back into the publicly-funded education system (and government administrations, and everyone else in the public sector who's getting dinged by the collectives) to pay for that "more copyright". > Not to mention that the publishers' cartels are among the longest > standing lobbiests in the history of governments. That's very interesting... Every media industry -- every single one -- starts out as copyright "pirates", and ends up as copyright hardasses. I've been doing a lot of research using the various digital newspaper sites that are out there, and back in the 19th century, papers throughout the world gleefully, and openly, pilfered each other's content. Manually at first, then the practice exploded with telegraph lines, and went through the roof when the submarine cables linked the continents. "The Timbucktoo Desert Weekly reports that..." would report the Des Moines Mudflats, and proceed to reproduce the article verbatim. My researches keep finding the same article on a given subject reproduced in some of the most unlikely cities. It's wonderful: if the OCR, usually of poor quality, doesn't pick up the original article in the Halifax, Nova Scotia, Daily Citizen, it might find a reference or a pirated full-text version in the Boulder, Colorado, Bee. The lack of respect for copyright back then, and the lack of copyright in the work now, means that the people (me!) who still have a human or intellectual interest in that work can actually find the damn thing. This practice was, in my opinion, critical to the history of the newspaper. It provided them with the content to generate reader interest and make the most out-of-the-way places feel connected to the world. Eventually, of course, it was formalized as wire services and syndicates and so on, and once that happened the trend in newspapers moved away from their status as "users" and they became "creators" lobbying for more more more more more more and more protection. > However, I hope this is something that will be kept on the DP side > of things > and not spill over into the PG side, as I have sincere > reservations about > the idea of going to court in this kind of environment. The other thing I'd worry about with this is the closure-of-the-commons idea and the chill it could have on the users. Paper of Record, bless 'em; they have revived a valuable body of content, make this licensing claim: "You are licensed to use the Content for personal or professional research, and may download Content only as search results relevant to that research. Resale of a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique data elements which are part of a unique family history or genealogy. Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or both. You may use access software provided on POR only while on line and may not download, copy, reuse or distribute that software, except where it is clearly stated in connection with software that it is made available for offline use and a license for that use is provided in connection with that software." There's a serious violation of "nemo dat" going on here: if the underlying work is public domain, anyone can reproduce it in any way they so choose, on line or otherwise. PoR has, at best, a "thin" copyright in its PDF files, and no right to estop anyone from using the underlying work, since they have no property right in the work itself. There's little point in reviving defunct works if a chill is placed on their use, expressly or implicitly. From mlockey at honson.com Sat Dec 4 11:55:38 2004 From: mlockey at honson.com (Michael Lockey) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 14:55:38 -0500 Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa In-Reply-To: References: <41B1704C.20500@honson.com> Message-ID: <41B2163A.4080600@honson.com> Thanks for all the early feedback. I've responded (more or less) to Mr. Hart's comments since this whole gig really is his. Michael Hart wrote: > I'm not sure you want to know the history of the current copyright > extensions, > but I think it goes back to the mid-60's, even before the United > States was > working up it's extension from 28 + 28 years to 95 years without any > renewal. > My limited understanding is that it's every time 'Steamboat Willy' is about to enter PD that we realize the 'need' to protect Copyright. >> (Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our >> endeavours.) > > > [Sorry, that parenthetical remark about jingoism when right over my > head.] > -I don't like DP-Canada, or PG-US, or anything that smacks of nationalism. What we do is for the world, no ifs, ands, or buts. If folk approve of my aims, I MUST fight here in Canada, and on the grounds that this is Canadian, since that's the battleground, and hence the company name: but even so, the site will be DP50, because that's what the fight's ABOUT. I love DP-EU, and am trying to do my bit towards making it a success. But it's going to be a lot harder to fight the EU, which is already supra-national. Here in Canada, we can fight these constraints at the NATIONAL level, not only for us, but for the rest of the Life+50 world. The other sides have established 'precidents' to justify their behaviour: we MUST do the same, and this locale is our best shot at it. >> I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God >> help us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think >> we must fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power. > > > I have always thought that the public domain was the GREATEST CIVIL > RIGHT. > > Yet we see that "the pen is mightier than then pen" when the leaders of > country after country after country sign laws that rape and pillage the > public domain rights to a million books here and a million books there. > Bingo. So let's fight. Another issue that seems important to me is that PD has no RESPECT. Again, using the evil rat's empire as an example: they feel at liberty to not only USE but ABUSE PD. Aside from their not repecting Copyright themselves (reluctant to pay for The Lion Sleeps Tonight), I'm upset by their immoral use of PD material. Hercules, with Hera as his mother, when she was his worst enemy? (Remember- it may be dead now, but we are talking of a religion, even if it is now extinct.) Pocahantas? Turning a particularly vicious piece of history on it's head: rather like some fascist writing a movie about Saint Hitler and his missionary work among the Jews. Winnie-the-Pooh, a Canadian symbol, that can't be used without the rodent's permission? I could go on, but why bother? The simple fact is that those who would deny us our heritage, are those who feel the greatest 'right' to steal and pervert the little we have saved. This in turn raises an issue I've been trying to get my head around- we need to identify the stakeholders in all this. Owners of Copyright and Defenders of the Public Domain are obvious: but what about the works themselves? Who speaks for them? Copyright NEVER 'protects' the work. In a Darwinian sense, the works are best preserved through dissemination, which Copyright actively seeks to inhibit. Though the ostensible fight is over GWTW, the true victims are the millions of booksw doomed to extinction because the Copyright owner has no monetary interest in republication. This, again, may provide fertile ground for a counterattack. Laws on Copyright were established to protect Copyright holders, true. But these are not Criminal, but Civil Laws, and based on a Quid Pro Quo. In exchange for legal protection, which imposed a hard cost to society (administration and enforcement), the public received a benefit- PD. This is a Contract, to which both sides must adhere. They want to chage the rules? -Fine; though I don't agree. But to change them retroactively is to break the contract: had I money enough, I'd fight on the grounds that Copyright no longer exists, and that all works are now PD. Can't do that, of course: but again, and fighting on THEIR grounds, I would argue that, since there is no intent to fulfil their side of the bargain, Copyright should be paid for, in recompense for the costs associated with enforcing it. I hold patents, and have to pay through the nose for them. I own my house; and must pay my title fees to protect my interests. I see no difference with Copyright. (And NOT after the work has established a market value: that's 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' reasoning.) > And with no mention by the major press or major media whatsoever. . . . > Well, try reading Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' to figure out that little conundrum... > I wonder if it is because they think their own existence is dependent > on copyrights to things that were copyrighted a century ago??? > > I think the more likely explanation is that they simply don't want ANY > competition to their wares, they want it ALL TO BE "PAY-PER." > > We have moved from the "PAPERLESS revolution" to the PAY-PER revolution. > Greed, plain and simple. I note someone else using the term I've stuck by for years: it's the closing of the electronic commons. > >> Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a >> corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a >> work from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by >> the downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or >> individual, as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never >> directly receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be >> established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials >> currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for >> damages. My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if >> necessary. > > > It is my own opinion that Larry Lessig, et. al., have done the most harm > to copyright law of anyone. . .more details on request. > > These cases, which were once cases with my own name on them, are being > lost in a manner that sets the public domain back much further than if > the cases had not been brought at all. > Yes please; more details. If we must fight, lets not make mistakes. > > By the way, US lawyers get the same "credit," as it were, for appearing > before the Supreme Court whether then win or lose. . . . Not, mercifully, true in Canada where, I also think, the courts are more likely to be sympathetic anyway, what with the various 'fair use' decisions. >> Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet >> viable: I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on >> here, maybe I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured >> this to FIGHT: and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto: >> >> THE BOOK STOPS HERE > > > Love it!!! > > Of course, their might be something said in addition: > > Your support needed, or THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOK STOPS HERE. > > My apologies, I sorted through several ways to say that, > and have not yet come up with the right one. . .any help? A slogan should be terse, which is why I like my version- but I'm most assuredly open to change. I was fighting alone simply because I WAS fighting alone. If there's others in this, great. I am most willing to turn over all my assets in this to anyone else, and will totally withdraw from any executive position if there is any suggestion that my ego or personal interests are involved. But I really do think we must fight; fight hard, fight without mercy, and fight to win. Perhaps we could have a face-to-face here in TO (other places, too!) to try and refine our goals and strategies. And, once more, the Canadian disclaimer (maybe we should boilerplate it?) Michael Lockey (Vasa) PS: Ultimate Canadian Joke: 'I'm sorry I don't have anything to apologize for Today.' From mlockey at honson.com Sat Dec 4 13:24:40 2004 From: mlockey at honson.com (Michael Lockey) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:24:40 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Planning the Battle: In-Reply-To: <41B1E786.3070107@moores.ca> References: <41B1704C.20500@honson.com> <41B1E786.3070107@moores.ca> Message-ID: <41B22B18.2070205@honson.com> Darryl Moore wrote: > Your strategy of using a for profit corporation is interesting, > however unless you can show significant lost income you will have a > difficult uphill battle. Additionally there is no Charter right to a > profit. There is however a NAFTA one. You might consider making your > company an American entity. Then you would be able to sue for > expropriation under the terms of NAFTA in a way that you could not as > a Canadian company. But again, you'd have to show some significant > lost profits. Thank you foir an interesting and appealing strategy. With all respects to PG, I think their value added concepts (millions and millions of downloaders, infinite distribution time) are nebulous and non-enforceable. I'd rather go with their actual download list: at $1/download, 'Hand Writing on the Wall', has already generated $70K 'profit' since September. (Incidently, could I get a one-time complete list of downloads- not just the top 100?) Contrary to the idealistic approach of PG, these figures are by definition quantifiable. I think the idea of a pipe back to the States could well precipitate a NAFTA issue: we would already be in a position to argue that blocking GWTW is already NAFTA-restrainable! (Incidently, while I intend to stress adherence to national copyright regulation, the first two books I want to list are GWTW, and Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience'.) The one possible objection to this strategy would be that PG and DP-INT might consider it trespass on their grounds. I want to make it quite clear- to /anyone/ who may be monitoring these threads- that my efforts are purely commercial, even though I may chose to give away all my profit. This means that I must not trespass on the pre-existing rights of other organizations, groups to which Distributed Proofreaders of Canada has no formal links, rights, or obligations. This is one reason why DPC solicits advice and assistance from other parties that may wish to stake a claim to any properties under PD. We'll be content with our share. Once we have reached concensus on DPC's status within the overall context of handling PD, voting shares will be issued, and a proper Board of Directors voted in. Our commercial success can only be achieved through active cooperation with others, though: so please do give advice- even negative advice will be appreciated and considered. Vasa From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Sat Dec 4 13:23:47 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:23:47 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Planning the Battle: Message-ID: <14d87a153ab8.153ab814d87a@ncf.ca> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Lockey Date: Saturday, December 4, 2004 4:24 pm Subject: [PGCanada] Planning the Battle: > I think the idea of a pipe back to the States could well > precipitate a > NAFTA issue: we would already be in a position to argue that > blocking > GWTW is already NAFTA-restrainable! The danger here is that it might mobilize a NAFTA Europeanunion- style "harmonization" drive, and as bad as the Canadian copyright law is, and as worse as the US copyright law is, Mexico is much, much, much much worse. From mlockey at honson.com Sat Dec 4 15:46:00 2004 From: mlockey at honson.com (Michael Lockey) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:46:00 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Planning the Battle: In-Reply-To: <14d87a153ab8.153ab814d87a@ncf.ca> References: <14d87a153ab8.153ab814d87a@ncf.ca> Message-ID: <41B24C38.9080702@honson.com> Wallace J.McLean wrote: >>I think the idea of a pipe back to the States could well >>precipitate a >>NAFTA issue: we would already be in a position to argue that >>blocking >>GWTW is already NAFTA-restrainable! >> >> > >The danger here is that it might mobilize a NAFTA Europeanunion- >style "harmonization" drive, and as bad as the Canadian copyright law >is, and as worse as the US copyright law is, Mexico is much, much, much >much worse. > > > Yes; but the ones who don't at least stake out a position are guaranteed to lose. Don't forget we've got that cultural thingy attached to NAFTA. If we don't use it, do you think anyone else will? Michael From hart at pglaf.org Sun Dec 5 12:58:17 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:58:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa In-Reply-To: <41B2163A.4080600@honson.com> References: <41B1704C.20500@honson.com> <41B2163A.4080600@honson.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Michael Lockey wrote: > Thanks for all the early feedback. I've responded (more or less) to Mr. > Hart's comments since this whole gig really is his. Well. . . . > > Michael Hart wrote: > >> I'm not sure you want to know the history of the current copyright >> extensions, >> but I think it goes back to the mid-60's, even before the United States >> was >> working up it's extension from 28 + 28 years to 95 years without any >> renewal. >> > My limited understanding is that it's every time 'Steamboat Willy' is about > to enter PD that we realize the 'need' to protect Copyright. As per your comments about slogans below: How about: THE PUBLIC DOMAIN STOPS HERE! and then a picture of Mickey Rat or just a generic mouse trap. . . . BTW. . .why no more Mighty Mouse? >>> (Quite frankly, I don't think we should be jingoistic in any of our >>> endeavours.) >> >> >> [Sorry, that parenthetical remark about jingoism when right over my head.] >> > -I don't like DP-Canada, or PG-US, or anything that smacks of nationalism. > What we do is for the world, no ifs, ands, or buts. If folk approve of my > aims, I MUST fight here in Canada, and on the grounds that this is Canadian, > since that's the battleground, and hence the company name: but even so, the > site will be DP50, because that's what the fight's ABOUT. That's why I'm going on both directions at full Steamboat Bill speed. National and regional PGs for the preservation of certain cultures, PG Consortia Centers for each of the various copyright terms. > I love DP-EU, and am trying to do my bit towards making it a success. But > it's going to be a lot harder to fight the EU, which is already Yes, and the EU seems to be going more conservative, right out of the gate. The EMP who invited me to speak at the EU Parliament was already defeated. > supra-national. Here in Canada, we can fight these constraints at the > NATIONAL level, not only for us, but for the rest of the Life+50 world. The > other sides have established 'precidents' to justify their behaviour: we MUST > do the same, and this locale is our best shot at it. Let's face it, the copyright cartels are pretty much global in concern, not just multi-national. . . . In fact, _I_ don't see ANY way to fight them other than to take the Gandhi approach that wiped out the British Empire. . .it's that big a thing, and at least as important. . . . I don't think the courts will EVER make more than the SLIGHTEST token decisions on behalf of the public domain, nor will the lawmakers, nor will the executive branch. . .after all, the last two US extensions were signed by Democrat Presidents. . . . > >>> I don't think that Disney Corporation- or even Margaret Atwood, God help >>> us!- are ameniable to the rights of humanity, or such: I think we must >>> fight them on their grounds: money, control, and power. >> >> >> I have always thought that the public domain was the GREATEST CIVIL RIGHT. Hmmm. . .no comment there?!? >> Yet we see that "the pen is mightier than then pen" when the leaders of >> country after country after country sign laws that rape and pillage the >> public domain rights to a million books here and a million books there. >> > Bingo. So let's fight. Another issue that seems important to me is that PD > has no RESPECT. Again, using the evil rat's empire as an example: they feel > at liberty to not only USE but ABUSE PD. Aside from their not repecting > Copyright themselves (reluctant to pay for The Lion Sleeps Tonight), I'm Totally agree, not to mention Mark Twain, Jules Verne, Alexandre Dumas [and the trademarking of "Hunchback of Notre Dame. . .plastic model that was already in existence for decades before the Disney movie.] > upset by their immoral use of PD material. Hercules, with Hera as his > mother, when she was his worst enemy? (Remember- it may be dead now, but we > are talking of a religion, even if it is now extinct.) Pocahantas? Turning History is written by the victors. . .as in the history of copyright, which no one knows. . .or pays attention to. > a particularly vicious piece of history on it's head: rather like some > fascist writing a movie about Saint Hitler and his missionary work among the > Jews. Winnie-the-Pooh, a Canadian symbol, that can't be used without the > rodent's permission? I could go on, but why bother? The simple fact is that > those who would deny us our heritage, are those who feel the greatest 'right' > to steal and pervert the little we have saved. Mickey Rodent? Protected by satire laws? > This in turn raises an issue I've been trying to get my head around- we need > to identify the stakeholders in all this. Owners of Copyright and Defenders > of the Public Domain are obvious: but what about the works themselves? Who > speaks for them? Copyright NEVER 'protects' the work. In a Darwinian sense, > the works are best preserved through dissemination, which Copyright actively > seeks to inhibit. Though the ostensible fight is over GWTW, the true victims > are the millions of booksw doomed to extinction because the Copyright owner > has no monetary interest in republication. For each book these new laws "protects". . .there are a thousand it dooms to not being read. A million books have been taken out of public domain circulation by the new copyright extension. . .more than ANY book burning effort. . .ever! !!! > This, again, may provide fertile ground for a counterattack. Laws on > Copyright were established to protect Copyright holders, true. But these are > not Criminal, but Civil Laws, and based on a Quid Pro Quo. In exchange for > legal protection, which imposed a hard cost to society (administration and > enforcement), the public received a benefit- PD. This is a Contract, to > which both sides must adhere. They want to chage the rules? -Fine; though I > don't agree. But to change them retroactively is to break the contract: had > I money enough, I'd fight on the grounds that Copyright no longer exists, and You can still do it on a philosophical basis. . .a la Gandhi, Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King. . .etc. > that all works are now PD. Can't do that, of course: but again, and fighting > on THEIR grounds, I would argue that, since there is no intent to fulfil > their side of the bargain, Copyright should be paid for, in recompense for > the costs associated with enforcing it. I hold patents, and have to pay > through the nose for them. I own my house; and must pay my title fees to > protect my interests. I see no difference with Copyright. (And NOT after > the work has established a market value: that's 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' > reasoning.) This is the difference when laws are written by the people they are supposed to control. . . . "He who has the gold, rules!" "Greed Is Good!" "Ignorance is Strength!" "Freedom Is Slavery!" "War Is Peace" "War Is Profitable!" "War makes people forget how bad things are at home." "Victory Gin!" > >> And with no mention by the major press or major media whatsoever. . . . >> > Well, try reading Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' to figure out that little > conundrum... I'd LOVE to hear something about that. . .I could never read Chomsky, sorry. > >> I wonder if it is because they think their own existence is dependent >> on copyrights to things that were copyrighted a century ago??? >> >> I think the more likely explanation is that they simply don't want ANY >> competition to their wares, they want it ALL TO BE "PAY-PER." >> >> We have moved from the "PAPERLESS revolution" to the PAY-PER revolution. >> > Greed, plain and simple. I note someone else using the term I've stuck by > for years: it's the closing of the electronic commons. Every time a "media commons" has developed, it's been voided by copyright!!! Think about that for a moment. . .the ONLY reason copyright ever becomes an issue is when the rich are NOT the only ones who can copy everything! >>> Which is why DP-CAN is a for-profit operation. (Remember that a >>> corporation may give away any amount of its profit.) To download a work >>> from DP-CAN (www.dp50.net) will cost $1/download, payable, by the >>> downloader, to any registered or non-registered operation or individual, >>> as a charitable donation. In this way, DP-CAN will never directly >>> receive any money, though both a gross and net income may be >>> established. If, then, the government tries to reprivatize materials >>> currently in PD, we will suffer a loss and be able to sue for damages. >>> My lawyer and I are prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary. >> >> >> It is my own opinion that Larry Lessig, et. al., have done the most harm >> to copyright law of anyone. . .more details on request. >> >> These cases, which were once cases with my own name on them, are being >> lost in a manner that sets the public domain back much further than if >> the cases had not been brought at all. >> > Yes please; more details. If we must fight, lets not make mistakes. Ooof! Not a subject near and dear to my heart, but I will continue to give details. > >> >> By the way, US lawyers get the same "credit," as it were, for appearing >> before the Supreme Court whether then win or lose. . . . > > Not, mercifully, true in Canada where, I also think, the courts are more > likely to be sympathetic anyway, what with the various 'fair use' decisions. That's what .au said three years ago. . .hee hee! No offense meant. . .just meaning it's going to be TOUGH when an armada of lobbyists disembarks in Canada wearing suits, etc., that cost more than the average monthly pay check. . .perhaps more than two months. More than three months, if you count computers, etc. >>> Anyway- that's what I've been working on. My sites are not yet viable: >>> I'm working alone, so far. Given the activities going on here, maybe >>> I'll need to change some directions. But I've structured this to FIGHT: >>> and fight I will. Hence the Company's Motto: >>> >>> THE BOOK STOPS HERE >> >> >> Love it!!! THE DEATH OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN STOPS HERE! >> Of course, their might be something said in addition: >> >> Your support needed, or THE PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOK STOPS HERE. >> >> My apologies, I sorted through several ways to say that, >> and have not yet come up with the right one. . .any help? > > A slogan should be terse, which is why I like my version- but I'm most > assuredly open to change. I was fighting alone simply because I WAS fighting > alone. If there's others in this, great. I am most willing to turn over all > my assets in this to anyone else, and will totally withdraw from any > executive position if there is any suggestion that my ego or personal > interests are involved. > > But I really do think we must fight; fight hard, fight without mercy, and > fight to win. THE REAL PIRATES ARE THOSE WHO STOLE OUR PUBLIC DOMAIN MICKEY PIRATE > Perhaps we could have a face-to-face here in TO (other places, too!) to try > and refine our goals and strategies. And, once more, the Canadian disclaimer > (maybe we should boilerplate it?) Hee hee. . .we haven't even had that conference call yet. . . .! > > Michael Lockey (Vasa) > > PS: Ultimate Canadian Joke: 'I'm sorry I don't have anything to apologize for > Today.' > Sounds like what Bush said about never making mistakes. . . . From hart at pglaf.org Sun Dec 5 13:00:22 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: !@!!@! #2 Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa (fwd) Message-ID: I was hoping for some feedback to this one before I replied. mh ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 11:55:04 -0500 From: Wallace J.McLean Reply-To: Project Gutenberg of Canada To: Project Gutenberg of Canada Subject: Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa I'm not sure what the market would be for per-download books, although it might well be something to try for at least the most perennially popular of titles. There's another way to generate an economic interest in PD e-texts though, and that's to continue to give them away, but promote the hell out of their use for coursepacks, esp. in areas like CanLit, history, and other social sciences. Universities, individual faculties, departments, professors, or TAs, might come to value the availability of these materials and the consequent reduction in the gelt they would owe to Excess Copyright. I hesitate posting this on an openly-archived list (Excess Copyright et al. ARE probably reading; hi, guys!), but I think this might be one very clever way of generating some real vested interests in a vigorous public domain in Canada. _______________________________________________ Project Gutenberg of Canada Website: http://www.projectgutenberg.ca/ List: pgcanada at lists.pglaf.org Archives: http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/pgcanada/ From hart at pglaf.org Sun Dec 5 13:00:59 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 13:00:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: !@!!@!Re: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa (fwd) Message-ID: And to this one. . . . ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:19:01 -0500 From: Wallace J.McLean Reply-To: Project Gutenberg of Canada To: pgcanada at lists.pglaf.org Subject: Re: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Hart Date: Saturday, December 4, 2004 11:57 am Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa > They want a "piece of the action" AND "editorial control" over > everything,and the governments don't resist because they get more > taxes this way. In Canada, there's a good reason for the governments to resist: a lot of that "more taxes" will just have to go straight back into the publicly-funded education system (and government administrations, and everyone else in the public sector who's getting dinged by the collectives) to pay for that "more copyright". > Not to mention that the publishers' cartels are among the longest > standing lobbiests in the history of governments. That's very interesting... Every media industry -- every single one -- starts out as copyright "pirates", and ends up as copyright hardasses. I've been doing a lot of research using the various digital newspaper sites that are out there, and back in the 19th century, papers throughout the world gleefully, and openly, pilfered each other's content. Manually at first, then the practice exploded with telegraph lines, and went through the roof when the submarine cables linked the continents. "The Timbucktoo Desert Weekly reports that..." would report the Des Moines Mudflats, and proceed to reproduce the article verbatim. My researches keep finding the same article on a given subject reproduced in some of the most unlikely cities. It's wonderful: if the OCR, usually of poor quality, doesn't pick up the original article in the Halifax, Nova Scotia, Daily Citizen, it might find a reference or a pirated full-text version in the Boulder, Colorado, Bee. The lack of respect for copyright back then, and the lack of copyright in the work now, means that the people (me!) who still have a human or intellectual interest in that work can actually find the damn thing. This practice was, in my opinion, critical to the history of the newspaper. It provided them with the content to generate reader interest and make the most out-of-the-way places feel connected to the world. Eventually, of course, it was formalized as wire services and syndicates and so on, and once that happened the trend in newspapers moved away from their status as "users" and they became "creators" lobbying for more more more more more more and more protection. > However, I hope this is something that will be kept on the DP side > of things > and not spill over into the PG side, as I have sincere > reservations about > the idea of going to court in this kind of environment. The other thing I'd worry about with this is the closure-of-the-commons idea and the chill it could have on the users. Paper of Record, bless 'em; they have revived a valuable body of content, make this licensing claim: "You are licensed to use the Content for personal or professional research, and may download Content only as search results relevant to that research. Resale of a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique data elements which are part of a unique family history or genealogy. Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or both. You may use access software provided on POR only while on line and may not download, copy, reuse or distribute that software, except where it is clearly stated in connection with software that it is made available for offline use and a license for that use is provided in connection with that software." There's a serious violation of "nemo dat" going on here: if the underlying work is public domain, anyone can reproduce it in any way they so choose, on line or otherwise. PoR has, at best, a "thin" copyright in its PDF files, and no right to estop anyone from using the underlying work, since they have no property right in the work itself. There's little point in reviving defunct works if a chill is placed on their use, expressly or implicitly. _______________________________________________ Project Gutenberg of Canada Website: http://www.projectgutenberg.ca/ List: pgcanada at lists.pglaf.org Archives: http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/pgcanada/ From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Sun Dec 5 19:16:35 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:16:35 -0500 Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa Message-ID: <161e7b16417b.16417b161e7b@ncf.ca> > I don't think the courts will EVER make more than the SLIGHTEST token > decisions on behalf of the public domain, nor will the lawmakers, > nor will the executive branch. . .after all, the last two US > extensionswere signed by Democrat Presidents. . . . That's probably true of the US courts, and unfortunately (and for what it's worth) we don't have a constitutional guarantee of a public domain in Canada. On the other hand, our courts have been very generous on the fair use and other metes and bounds to the scope of copyright. From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Sun Dec 5 19:18:15 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:18:15 -0500 Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa Message-ID: <167263164d8d.164d8d167263@ncf.ca> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Hart Date: Sunday, December 5, 2004 3:58 pm Subject: Re: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa > Mickey Rodent? > > Protected by satire laws? You know, a lot of our supposed creator's rights groups want our CR law "harmonized" with the US.... yet youse have a "parody and pastiche" exemption to infringement... we don't. From mlockey at honson.com Sun Dec 5 22:16:31 2004 From: mlockey at honson.com (Michael Lockey) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:16:31 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Ok: Good Talk: What to do? In-Reply-To: <161e7b16417b.16417b161e7b@ncf.ca> References: <161e7b16417b.16417b161e7b@ncf.ca> Message-ID: <41B3F93F.4060607@honson.com> A number of folk have been kind enough to respond to my suggestions. (I can't help it: personally I hate people who come out of the blue and start giving advice to people who have done so much- all I can say is that, by preference, I am a shy person.) (Checking his credibility at the door.) A number seem ready to fight; others seem to think we're already doomed. Personally, I think we CAN fight, but we gotta get organized- which goes against a lot of PG's ethos. Too bad. To stand alone on the field of sanctity is to doom ourselves as the latest Children's Crusade. The trouble is that, with so many different, intelligent, voices, we can get bogged down in administrative trivia and hissy fights. I really think we need to eyeball and discuss plans. In someplace like TO we can get a concensus among a great number of people: as long as we understand that this is for convenience only, and no more important than a lone supporter in Kitimat, I can't see any harm in it. But we gotta (IMHO) come up with a strategic directive to our fight. My immediate and (almost) irrevocable need is to define and- in some cases, staff- the different stakeholders involved here. I see them as the following: Holders of Copyright: well represented, highly funded, and inimicable to the other stakeholders, who are: Representatives of the Public Domain, (non-existant?) who should be arguing, IN TERMS OF POWER, CONTROL, and FINANCES, for the correct exploitation of PD; and Representatives of works covered under Copyright. This is more difficult to visualize, but the reality is that Copyright is contrary to the wellbeing of the created works, and they should have representation, in the way that equal abstracts such as scenic beauty, endangered wildlife, or such, have their advocates. But if we want to be thirty or forty individuals sitting around debating the whereness of the why, we'll at least be in a position to discuss how they haul our heritage away... Michael Lockey From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 6 09:59:08 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:59:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa In-Reply-To: <167263164d8d.164d8d167263@ncf.ca> References: <167263164d8d.164d8d167263@ncf.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Wallace J.McLean wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Hart > Date: Sunday, December 5, 2004 3:58 pm > Subject: Re: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa >> Mickey Rodent? >> >> Protected by satire laws? > > You know, a lot of our supposed creator's rights groups want our CR > law "harmonized" with the US.... yet youse have a "parody and pastiche" > exemption to infringement... we don't. I think parody is one of our most powerful weapons. For example, we could parody this [or just quote it] "The 1982 statement to a congressional committee by Jack Valenti, then head of the MPAA, that the VCR is to Hollywood what the Boston Strangler was to a woman alone, still stands as the ne plus ultra of exaggerated claims." We could do a kind of "the boy who cried wolf" thing. . . . After all, Hollywood profited GREATLY from the VCR and DVD thing, but the public domain was decimated. . . . If you don't think this kind of thing has staying power, just look into the root of the word "gerrymander". . . . ;-) Michael From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Mon Dec 6 10:17:08 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:17:08 -0500 Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa Message-ID: > If you don't think this kind of thing has staying power, > just look into the root of the word "gerrymander". . . . I'm all too familiar with that one. And I've shocked a good number of politically-interested people outside the US, with single-member electoral regimes, when I show them the process, and the outcomes, of the Congressional redistricting regimes in most of the States. From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 6 10:50:13 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:50:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: !@!Re: [PGCanada] Introducing... Vasa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Wallace J.McLean wrote: >> If you don't think this kind of thing has staying power, >> just look into the root of the word "gerrymander". . . . > > I'm all too familiar with that one. And I've shocked a good number of > politically-interested people outside the US, with single-member > electoral regimes, when I show them the process, and the outcomes, of > the Congressional redistricting regimes in most of the States. Be sure not to miss this year's HUGE fight in Texas, where the Democrats hid out in Oklahoma to keep from a quorum count that would have killed off some of their districts. . . . .!!! From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 6 11:41:44 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:41:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] Public Domain Loses Again! Message-ID: JUDGE REJECTS COPYRIGHT CHALLENGE A federal judge has rejected a challenge to several parts of copyright law that plaintiffs in the case said unnecessarily keep certain works out of the public domain. The nonprofit Internet Archive and the Prelinger Archives argued that so-called orphan works--books that are out of print, old films, and academic articles without significant commercial value--should be easier to archive and make publicly available. At issue in the case was the plaintiffs' contention that current law fundamentally alters the scope of copyright because it does not require owners of works to apply for copyright protection, instead granting protection irrespective of whether it is sought. The judge in the case disagreed, issuing her ruling without hearing arguments. Jennifer S. Granick, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University, which was involved on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the judge's ruling was improper and that the plaintiffs would appeal. Chronicle of Higher Education, 30 November 2004 (sub. req'd) http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/11/2004113003n.htm From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 6 11:32:28 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:32:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] Public Domain Loses Again! Message-ID: JUDGE REJECTS COPYRIGHT CHALLENGE A federal judge has rejected a challenge to several parts of copyright law that plaintiffs in the case said unnecessarily keep certain works out of the public domain. The nonprofit Internet Archive and the Prelinger Archives argued that so-called orphan works--books that are out of print, old films, and academic articles without significant commercial value--should be easier to archive and make publicly available. At issue in the case was the plaintiffs' contention that current law fundamentally alters the scope of copyright because it does not require owners of works to apply for copyright protection, instead granting protection irrespective of whether it is sought. The judge in the case disagreed, issuing her ruling without hearing arguments. Jennifer S. Granick, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University, which was involved on behalf of the plaintiffs, said the judge's ruling was improper and that the plaintiffs would appeal. Chronicle of Higher Education, 30 November 2004 (sub. req'd) http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/11/2004113003n.htm From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 6 11:34:49 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:34:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] More Copyright Bias Message-ID: BRITISH PROGRAM TEACHES SCHOOLCHILDREN ABOUT COPYRIGHT British Music Rights (BMR), a group that represents songwriters and composers, is sponsoring a program to educate British schoolchildren between the ages of 11 and 14 about copyright and music piracy. The group has put together education packs that include lessons about copyright, royalties, and downloading music on the Internet, as well as how these issues affect the creation of original work. Music piracy in the United Kingdom is blamed for a steady decline in recent years in CD sales and for significant financial losses to recording companies and to artists and songwriters. In addition to limiting copyright violations, the education packs, which have been requested by more than 1,600 schools, are designed to prepare children for possible careers in the music industry. Guy Chambers, one of the songwriters who has publicly supported the BMR campaign, said the education packs will help shield young people who might pursue a career in the music industry from "unscrupulous" individuals. BBC, 30 November 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4055753.stm From russell at flora.ca Wed Dec 8 14:55:57 2004 From: russell at flora.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:55:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [PGCanada] Copyright revision.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am curious if we want to bring resources together. PG has a pretty clear mandate, to get public domain works into the hands of the public who can then do amazing things with them. When it comes to copyright reform, I wonder if it is best to move those conversations to a forum dedicated to that? I know I'm a bit biased as the Webmaster for Digital-copyright.ca, but I believe our general discussion forum and Drupal-based website is ideal for this type of work. I guess I worry if we have too many forums with overlapping work that less will get done than if we kept to project-based forums. -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Have you, your family, your friends (, your enemies) signed the Petition to the Canadian Parliament for Users' Rights in Copyright? http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/ From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Wed Dec 8 15:00:20 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:00:20 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Copyright revision.... Message-ID: <561f655502.55502561f6@ncf.ca> ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell McOrmond Date: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 5:55 pm Subject: [PGCanada] Copyright revision.... > I guess I worry if we have too many forums with overlapping work > thatless will get done than if we kept to project-based forums. The process of deciding this-topic-belongs-in-this-forum is, in itself, work. Too much structure is itself a time-waster. Real-life conversations are allowed to meander; I have no objections to on-line ones doing the same, within reason. Projects Gutenberg are tied at the waist to copyright issues; let's not try to divorce the topics. I think we can all walk and chew gum at the same time. That being said, yes, I second the plug for PG-ers who are interested in CR issues to join the DCC or other lists. From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Thu Dec 9 17:41:08 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 20:41:08 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Movement? Message-ID: <14f5316c82.16c8214f53@ncf.ca> So... how quickly can we establish a public domain e-library, operating under Canadian copyright rules, on Canadian soil? I guess 2004 is out... how soon into 2005 can we do it? What are the first steps? I will foolishly volunteer to do CR clearances for existing PG texts under Canuckistan CR law. How do we start processing new works that are eligible under Canadian rules, esp. those that aren't under PG/US rules? I'm not a techie, just an idea guy. Techies? End of January? I have some other things to say, but again: openly-archived lists. I'm not going to draw fire from enemies of the public domain, not just yet. From traverso at dm.unipi.it Fri Dec 10 00:47:45 2004 From: traverso at dm.unipi.it (Carlo Traverso) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:47:45 +0100 Subject: [PGCanada] Movement? In-Reply-To: <14f5316c82.16c8214f53@ncf.ca> (ag737@freenet.carleton.ca) References: <14f5316c82.16c8214f53@ncf.ca> Message-ID: <200412100847.iBA8ljm4018164@posso.dm.unipi.it> >>>>> "Wallace" == Wallace J McLean writes: Wallace> So... how quickly can we establish a public domain Wallace> e-library, operating under Canadian copyright rules, on Wallace> Canadian soil? Wallace> I guess 2004 is out... how soon into 2005 can we do it? Wallace> What are the first steps? Wallace> I will foolishly volunteer to do CR clearances for Wallace> existing PG texts under Canuckistan CR law. Wallace> How do we start processing new works that are eligible Wallace> under Canadian rules, esp. those that aren't under PG/US Wallace> rules? Wallace> I'm not a techie, just an idea guy. Techies? Wallace> End of January? You might consider to cooperate with PG-EUROPA, that is located in Serbia, under life+50 rules. They plan starting in a few days. Contact Zoran Stefanovic Carlo Traverso From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Fri Dec 10 08:36:35 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:36:35 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Movement? Message-ID: <1f3ba21171.211711f3ba@ncf.ca> ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlo Traverso > You might consider to cooperate with PG-EUROPA, that is located in > Serbia, under life+50 rules. They plan starting in a few days. > Contact Zoran Stefanovic Carlo, a big grazie for the heads-up on the Serbian effort. Zoran, would you be interested in at least lurking on the pgcanada list, or otherwise keeping me (or us) up to speed as to what you are doing in those last remaining islands[A] of life+50 in Europe? Hvala! [Footnote A: Actually, I've been doing some interesting research on the breakdown, which countries are life+70 or more, which are life+50 or less. The life+70 club is actually barely 20% of the world's population, and that's counting some countries which have promised, but not yet actually legislated, life+70. Life+50 is about 55%, and counting India, with its eccentric life+60, and the few countries with shorter terms, 2/3 of the world lives -- and creates -- with less than life+70 years of copyright. The international standard is not, despite what the propogandists will have you believe, life+70.] From hart at pglaf.org Fri Dec 10 10:28:39 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:28:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] Movement? In-Reply-To: <1f3ba21171.211711f3ba@ncf.ca> References: <1f3ba21171.211711f3ba@ncf.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Wallace J.McLean wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carlo Traverso > >> You might consider to cooperate with PG-EUROPA, that is located in >> Serbia, under life+50 rules. They plan starting in a few days. >> Contact Zoran Stefanovic > > Carlo, a big grazie for the heads-up on the Serbian effort. > > Zoran, would you be interested in at least lurking on the pgcanada > list, or otherwise keeping me (or us) up to speed as to what you are > doing in those last remaining islands[A] of life+50 in Europe? Hvala! I talked with Zoran about this earlier this week and he is very interested. > [Footnote A: Actually, I've been doing some interesting research on the > breakdown, which countries are life+70 or more, which are life+50 or > less. The life+70 club is actually barely 20% of the world's > population, and that's counting some countries which have promised, but > not yet actually legislated, life+70. > > Life+50 is about 55%, and counting India, with its eccentric life+60, > and the few countries with shorter terms, 2/3 of the world lives -- and > creates -- with less than life+70 years of copyright. The international > standard is not, despite what the propogandists will have you believe, > life+70.] I think there are nearly 75 countries doing +50, I can send a list, that is probably outdated already, if you like. Michael From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Fri Dec 10 11:06:47 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:06:47 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] Movement? Message-ID: <22e76281a7.281a722e76@ncf.ca> > I think there are nearly 75 countries doing +50, I can send a list, > that is probably outdated already, if you like. I have just over 75; my list (culled from the web) is, like you suggest, probably outdated, and I've been trying to supplement it with research at the WIPO and UNESCO web sites. From hart at pglaf.org Fri Dec 10 11:29:52 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:29:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] (no subject) Message-ID: volume book scanning "in-library" project at the University of Toronto. http://www.archive.org/texts/collection.php?collection=toronto From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 13 08:28:54 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:28:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] !@!Re: [Upd-discuss] New report recommends tough action to tackle piractes Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, James Davis wrote: > I won't particularly go into detail this press release from the British > Film Council, that's a bit off topic here. For the full press release > visit. > > http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/news/ > > What's of note, is the recommendation of the report... > > "Increasing co-operation with the EU and international trade organisations > to encourage better intellectual property rights across the world." > > I can imagine that in the near future we'll see the UK Film Council > pushing for the extension of copyright. "Better" copyright ALWAYS equals "LONGER" copyright in contexts written by WIPO and the publishing industry. What WE need to do is introduce "copyright reform" to enourage the preservation of culture / the public domain. Without copyright reform nothing in the future will go into the public domain. From ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca Mon Dec 13 08:33:52 2004 From: ag737 at freenet.carleton.ca (Wallace J.McLean) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:33:52 -0500 Subject: [PGCanada] !@!Re: [Upd-discuss] New report recommends tough action to tackle piractes Message-ID: <5fb435acda.5acda5fb43@ncf.ca> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Hart Date: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:28 am Subject: [PGCanada] !@!Re: [Upd-discuss] New report recommends tough action to tackle piractes > > What WE need to do is introduce "copyright reform" to > enourage the preservation of culture / the public domain. > > Without copyright reform nothing in the future will go > into the public domain. Then this is a political battle, and we need allies and foot-soldiers. The foot-soldiers should and could be the people who have an interest in preserving and promoting public-domain works. For this reason -- among many others -- we really need to set up a worldwide network of PG-50, PG-60, and PG-70 libraries, and SOON. Like, five years ago soon. From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 13 07:49:09 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:49:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] !@!Re: [Upd-discuss] New report recommends tough action to tackle piractes [sic] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, James Davis wrote: > I won't particularly go into detail this press release from the British > Film Council, that's a bit off topic here. For the full press release > visit. > > http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/news/ > > What's of note, is the recommendation of the report... > > "Increasing co-operation with the EU and international trade organisations > to encourage better intellectual property rights across the world." > > I can imagine that in the near future we'll see the UK Film Council > pushing for the extension of copyright. "Better" copyright ALWAYS equals "LONGER" copyright in contexts written by WIPO and the publishing industry. What WE need to do is introduce "copyright reform" to enourage the preservation of culture / the public domain. Without copyright reform nothing in the future will go into the public domain. From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 13 10:36:38 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:36:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] Re: [BP] Australian Copyright changes clear parliament In-Reply-To: <200412131808.NAA05630@digital.lib.upenn.edu> References: <200412131808.NAA05630@digital.lib.upenn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Tony Kline wrote: > Steve Thomas wrote: >> THE final element of the Australia-US free trade agreement (FTA) has >> passed through federal parliament. > > >> The term of protection for copyright material was extended by 20 years. > > > > > I like the way they call it a FREE Trade Agreement Steve, and then extend > the copyrights. Nice one, mate! Freedom Is Slavery! Ignorance Is Strength! Economic War Is Peace! Copyright = National Security From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 13 10:40:06 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 10:40:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] !@!Re: [BP] Australian Copyright changes clear parliament In-Reply-To: <200412131805.NAA05387@digital.lib.upenn.edu> References: <200412131805.NAA05387@digital.lib.upenn.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Tony Kline wrote: > Steve Thomas wrote: >> THE final element of the Australia-US free trade agreement (FTA) has >> passed through federal parliament. > > >> The term of protection for copyright material was extended by 20 years. > > > > > I like the way they call it a FREE Trade Agreement Steve, and then extend > the copyrights. Nice one, mate! FREE trade means THEY can trade, and WE can't. Just as when the Age of Exploration was for THEM, but not for US. Not to mention the Age of Reason. . . . From hart at pglaf.org Mon Dec 27 08:39:15 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:39:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] Re: copyright happenings in China (fwd) Message-ID: Thought that you would be interested in this as we have Peter Rabbit books in the PG library. Court stops sales of Peter Rabbit books Despite two separate appeals, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Press will not be allowed to continue publishing Peter Rabbit books. Officials from the publisher said the decision that it will keep its books of the famous character off the shelf was contradictory. Court ruling The Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court ruled yesterday that the press did not violate nine of 11 trademarks owned by British Frederick Warne & Company Ltd, which owns Petter Rabitt. Still, the court did not rule on whether the Chinese press had violated the other two trademarks. Instead, it referred to a previous judgment last week which upheld the administrative decision to pull the books off the market. The case started last year when Warne & Company complained the Chinese press violated its trademarks. In April 2003, the Chinese press published 19 stories created by American writer Beatrix Potter. Books seized The local bureau of industry and commerce seized more than 20,000 Peter Rabbit books and fined the publisher 358,000 yuan (US$43,000) in August 2003. But the publisher hit back, suing both the bureau and Warne & Company. Last week, the court upheld the decision of the Xicheng Branch of the Beijing Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce. In effect, the court said the Chinese publisher violated copyright. Late American writer Beatrix Potter, who died in 1943, created Peter Rabbit. Between 1994 and 1997, the British company registered the 11 trademarks on Potter's creation, two of which are on Peter Rabbit and another nine on related characters. According to the Chinese law, copyright ends five decades after the death of the author. Source: China Daily From sly at victoria.tc.ca Mon Dec 27 10:16:48 2004 From: sly at victoria.tc.ca (Andrew Sly) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:16:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] Re: copyright happenings in China (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It appears that whoever wrote this article needs some clarification that copyright and trademarks are two different spheres of influence. It sounds as if this particular case is more complex and involved than a short article like this can describe. Andrew On Mon, 27 Dec 2004, Michael Hart wrote: > Thought that you would be interested in this as we have Peter Rabbit books in > the PG library. > > Court stops sales of Peter Rabbit books > > > > Despite two separate appeals, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Press > will not be allowed to continue publishing Peter Rabbit books. > Officials from the publisher said the decision that it will keep its books of > the famous character off the shelf was contradictory. > > > Court ruling > > The Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court ruled yesterday that the press > did not violate nine of 11 trademarks owned by British Frederick Warne & > Company Ltd, which owns Petter Rabitt. > Still, the court did not rule on whether the Chinese press had violated the > other two trademarks. > > Instead, it referred to a previous judgment last week which upheld the > administrative decision to pull the books off the market. > The case started last year when Warne & Company complained the Chinese press > violated its trademarks. > > In April 2003, the Chinese press published 19 stories created by American > writer Beatrix Potter. > > > Books seized > > The local bureau of industry and commerce seized more than 20,000 Peter > Rabbit books and fined the publisher 358,000 yuan (US$43,000) in August 2003. > But the publisher hit back, suing both the bureau and Warne & Company. > Last week, the court upheld the decision of the Xicheng Branch of the Beijing > Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce. In effect, the court said > the Chinese publisher violated copyright. > > Late American writer Beatrix Potter, who died in 1943, created Peter Rabbit. > Between 1994 and 1997, the British company registered the 11 trademarks on > Potter's creation, two of which are on Peter Rabbit and another nine on related > characters. > > According to the Chinese law, copyright ends five decades after the death of > the author. > > Source: China Daily > > _______________________________________________ > Project Gutenberg of Canada > Website: http://www.projectgutenberg.ca/ > List: pgcanada at lists.pglaf.org > Archives: http://lists.pglaf.org/private.cgi/pgcanada/ > From hart at pglaf.org Thu Dec 30 10:22:12 2004 From: hart at pglaf.org (Michael Hart) Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:22:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [PGCanada] Lessig: The corporate welfare called copyright extension Message-ID: They're Not Worthy Why extend the copyright on works that no longer have commercial value? By Lawrence Lessig Wired . Issue 13.01 - January 2005 This New Year's Day, a wonderful thing will happen in Europe that won't occur again in the US until 2019: Copyrights on music and television recordings will expire. After a half century of monopoly protection granted artists in exchange for their creative work, the public will get its justly earned free access to an extraordinary range of both famous and forgotten creativity. Libraries, archives, and even other creators can spread and build upon this creativity without asking permission first. Songs from 1953 that seniors across Europe wooed their first loves to can be streamed across the Net for free. Such a yearly event doesn't happen in the US anymore because Congress repeatedly extends the term of existing copyrights. The last extension in 1998 - the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act - was the 11th for existing works in 40 years, delaying any copyrighted song from entering the public domain for another 20 years. This practice is now inspiring copycats in Europe to similar plunder. Sir Cliff Richard - the most successful singles artist in British history - has launched a campaign in the EU to extend the term of copyright for sound recordings from 50 years to 95. Billions will be wiped from the books of European record companies, Richard warns, if governments don't act immediately. If you know anything about this debate, you might wonder why this question has come up again. (And, for that matter, if you know anything about accounting, you might be puzzled why EU record labels get to book value for assets set by law to expire.) When Congress passed the Sonny Bono Act, we were told its purpose was to "harmonize" US law with European law. Turns out - surprise! - that in the most important categories of copyright, the act made US terms longer than those of the EU. Thus the pirates of the public domain are back, arguing that the EU must lengthen its copyrights to harmonize with those of the US. And as Mexico is about to extend its terms beyond those in Europe and the US, no doubt soon we'll be hearing calls to extend our terms to match those of Mexico. This spiral will not end until governments recall a simple lesson: Monopolies are evil, even if they are a necessary evil. We rightfully grant the monopoly called copyright to inspire new creative work. But once that work has been created, there is no public justification for extending its term. The public has already paid. Term extension is just double billing. Any wealth it creates for copyright holders is swamped by the wealth the public loses in lower costs and wider access. The urge to extend terms for commercially valuable work is understandable, albeit from the public's perspective, senseless. But the way that governments extend these terms is even more senseless. Rather than limiting this corporate welfare to those works that are commercially exploited (leaving the forgotten to pass into the public domain so libraries and archives can make them available cheaply), governments uniformly extend the duration of copyrights indiscriminately. The Sonny Bono Act, for example, extended terms for works from as far back as 1923, even though, as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer estimated in Eldred v. Ashcroft, 98 percent of the oldest works are no longer commercially available. It would be easy for governments to narrow term extension to those who want it by requiring copyright holders to pay a small fee. Even a very small fee would filter out the vast majority of works from automatic term extension. Most would enter the public domain immediately. Yet even this idea is ignored. Who can hear reason when billions are about to be wiped from the books? Governments should end this game by tinkering with copyright terms for future works only. But if they're not strong enough to stick to this simple principle, they should at least limit their damage by restricting extensions to those works from which someone might actually benefit. That someone, no doubt, won't be the public. But there's no reason to extend terms when no one - not even record companies - could possibly benefit. Filter the forgotten from term extension, and we might forgive the senselessness that inspires Sir Cliff to sing again. Email Lawrence Lessig at lawrence_lessig at wiredmag.com.