January 2005 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Shakespeare in PG
by John Hagerson 06 Jan '05

06 Jan '05

I have copies of the Yale Shakespeare that were copyrighted in 1922. These are the individual blue-covered volumes for each play. Should I submit these for clearance and scanning? John Hagerson

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] PG-50/70?
by Joshua Hutchinson 06 Jan '05

06 Jan '05

Note: Not trying to be a smart@ss. Why do we need the bulwark specifically in an English-speaking country? Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wallace J.McLean" <ag737(a)freenet.carleton.ca> > > We need a bulwark in the English-speaking world. We really need to set > up a PG-50 in Canada. Soon. Very, very soon. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From Tony Baechler <tb(a)baechler.net> > Date Wed, 05 Jan 2005 06:41:56 -0800 > To traverso(a)dm.unipi.it, Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion > <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> > Subject Re: [gutvol-d] PG-50/70? > > > Hi. Are the new posts from PG Europe going to be announced on > the "posted" > list as is currently done with books from PG of Australia? Also, what > about getting a gutenberg.eu or gutenberg.int domain? > > At 12:07 PM 1/5/2005 +0100, you wrote: > > Project Gutenberg Europe is starting at http://pge.rastko.net ; it is > > located in serbia, hence will work as life+50 soon: currently it is > > just a mirror of PG, new material from DP-EU will be uploaded quite > > soon. > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Project Gutenberg Original Directory Structure
by Joshua Hutchinson 06 Jan '05

06 Jan '05

No disrespect, but ... That seems like a collosal waste of time. I could *perhaps* see a benefit to a directory structure that organized the texts by original paper publication date, but the date we got around to it? I really don't see a benefit there. Especially since as the years went on, we got "ahead" of the game and had things being posted in an entirely different time frame than what we were reporting them as being posted. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jared Buck" <JBuck814366460(a)aol.com> To: "Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion" <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject: [gutvol-d] Project Gutenberg Original Directory Structure Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:14:23 -0800 > > Hi all, It's Jared :) I'm a college student down here in California, and I've > been with PG for some time as a DP and more recently as one of the newsletter > editors. Prof. Hart and I have been talking about (by email) the possibility > of reviving the old directory structure (ie etext 03, etext94, etc) as perhaps > a classic PG website or at least an alternative site for users to browse > etexts the way they did before, with the etexts organized by year. It's the > structure I am most used to, and in discussions with Hart and Greg Newby, I > believe a project of this scale can be undertaken (to create a separate site > housing the etexts under the old directory structure. > > Prof. Hart also tells me there has been some discussion on this issue on the > mailing list recently, but I only just joined the gutvol list a few days ago. > Perhaps someone wouldn't mind filling me in on what I missed? > > Jared Buck > ---------------------- > Project Gutenberg editor http://www.gutenberg,net > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] PG-50/70?
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

In a message dated 1/4/2005 1:17:05 PM Mountain Standard Time, joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: <<I'm confused. Is there a problem with PG-Australia <<(life+50) or PG-Europe (life+70)? Josh, the best I can tell right now, Australia is life+50 BUT a law has just been passed, though not to my knowledge ratified or else ratified but not yet going into effect, to put Australia in the same area as the other countries. Also to the best of my knowledge, other countries have now moved to life+95, and if the US hasn't done so yet it is in the process of doing so. Even speaking as a writer, guarding my copyrights fiercely because I think that if the publisher and the illustrator are still making money from my creation I also should make money from it, I think life +95 is absurd. Life +25 should be quite adequate for anybody. There are many people in this community who consider even that to be absurd. If my reply is incorrect, please somebody correct me. Flaming is not necessary. Really. Anne

7 11

Re: [gutvol-d] !@!Googleberg eBooks
by D. Starner 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

"Michael Hart" writes: > Obviously, any scholar will be able to figure out which editions we > have used without much effort, and those who are not scholars won't > care which editions we used because they don't care if it is: There are huge differences between some editions, including major plot changes between the two editions of Frankenstein, and major bowlerdization in editions of other books. Yes, non-scholars care. I personally don't demand typo for typo, but I don't want a portmanteau of texts that the author never saw and no editor ever wrote. > "To be or not to be." > "To be, or not to be." > "To be; or not to be." > or > "To be: or not to be." That's a strawman. In reality, there are large differences in Shakespearean text depending on which original text you take it from, and many people could be interested in which edition it was from. > To them, that is not the question, and a discussion of that question > would shuffle them off this mortal coil into the land of dreams. Behold the power of skimming and outright skipping of boring text. > As for this example, the person who did it first may not have had > any idea of the difference in the second That's all the more reason to always keep edition information. > We did this with Darwin, Shakespeare, etc., Really? Because I don't see it for Shakespeare, except for the first folio editions. (Now I see that the Collins editions have the name in the header but why not put the year? The introduction? The editor name? All things of interest to the non-scholar reader.) (I think I know the answer here, but can we get rid of the World Library Editions? We have replacement editions, and if we need more, there's numerous editions of Shakespeare we could use. Say the word, and I'll start scanning new editions of Shakespeare for DP to replace these.) > but I don't see > the need to do it in cases in which the differences are all > likely to be in typographical errors, margination, pagination, > and other publishing items, rather than in the source material. The major question, how can we tell the difference? I don't insist on pedantism, but I'd rather add the information to many books, so we get the "Leaves of Grass" and the "20000 Lieues sous les mers" right, instead of only adding to the books we know for sure had distinct editions and missing those books. In the same direction, non-scholarly readers want to know when the book they were reading was published and sometimes where. Is this Civil War novel written after WWI, with a view of the horrors of war? Was it written shortly after the Civil War and was published in New York, or Atlanta? Was it written during the Civil War, and then New York or Atlanta would really make a difference. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

4 4

Re: [gweekly] Pt2 Project Gutenberg Weekly Newsletter
by D. Starner 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

> And from David Widger, about #14568, Sir Gawayne and the Green Knight: > > NOTE: The Old English "yogh" characters have been translated both upper > and lower-case yoghs to digit 3's. There are Unicode allocations for > these (in HTML Ȝ and ȝ) but at present no font which implements > these. Substiting the digit 3 seemed a workable compromise which anybody > can read. The linked html "Old English 'yogh' file" uses Ȝ and > ȝ representations, and is included for users with specialist fonts. Yes, there are fonts that implement these. Even a quick search should have revealed that. Try <http://www.engl.virginia.edu/OE/junicode/junicode.html> or <http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=DoulosSIL_…> or <http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium> or <http://members.tripod.com/Thryomanes/fonts.html> or <http://www.scholarsfonts.net/cardofnt.html>, not to mention Code2000 <http://home.att.net/~jameskass/> which has pretty much every character in Unicode. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] PG-50/70?
by Wallace J.McLean 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

Robert Shimmin wrote: > The sad truth is that when approached from an economic point of view, > the optimal length is so short that it seems absurd, and nobody takes > you seriously after they hear the result. Here's the analysis: > > interest copyright > rate term > 2% 35.0 yr That's very interesting... I've done other analyses, based on other grounds. On the "widows and orphans" theory, that copyright income should be protected not only for the poor starving artists/authors, but also their widows/orphans, life+about 35 years is where the law of diminishing returns kicks in: life+35 years is enough to guarantee the majority of copyrights will actually outlive the majority of the poor orphans that were left behind, assuming western lifespans. The average age of those "orphans" who are still alive when the copyrights die, would be 75 years. (Of course, no orphan would ever be less than the PLUS in life-PLUS when the copyrights expire.) Further, 35 years post publication -- let alone post mortem autoris -- is where the number of books still in print dips to less than five percent, at least in the samples I've tested this on, are still even in print, at least in Canada. That is to say, of the books first published in 1954, in 1989 only 4% and change were still in recent print, and many of those only in editions for the blind.

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] PG-50/70?
by Wallace J.McLean 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

We need a bulwark in the English-speaking world. We really need to set up a PG-50 in Canada. Soon. Very, very soon. ----- Original Message ----- >From Tony Baechler <tb(a)baechler.net> Date Wed, 05 Jan 2005 06:41:56 -0800 To traverso(a)dm.unipi.it, Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] PG-50/70? Hi. Are the new posts from PG Europe going to be announced on the "posted" list as is currently done with books from PG of Australia? Also, what about getting a gutenberg.eu or gutenberg.int domain? At 12:07 PM 1/5/2005 +0100, you wrote: >Project Gutenberg Europe is starting at http://pge.rastko.net ; it is >located in serbia, hence will work as life+50 soon: currently it is >just a mirror of PG, new material from DP-EU will be uploaded quite >soon.

1 0

PG-50/70?
by Wallace J.McLean 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

OK, once I again I issue the call: when are we -- the collective we -- going to set up Project Gutenbergs, or similar, to take advantage of (and suffer the disadvantage of) life+ copyright rules? Especially WRT life+50, time is of the essence... Anyone? Buehler? I don't have the technical or financial resources to do this. Someone in a life+50 country must, though. Where are you? Can we get something, even if only a shell, up and running by month's end? At least insofar as Canadian life+50 law is concerned, I will GLADLY offer to volunteer to do copyright clearances. I'll discuss my qualifications privately with anyone who may need to know them.

4 3

Re: [gutvol-d] PG-50/70?
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 05 Jan '05

05 Jan '05

In a message dated 1/4/2005 3:26:37 PM Mountain Standard Time, holden.mcgroin(a)dsl.pipex.com writes: The people who really benefit from copyrights are the publishers. Longer copyrights mean longer periods without competition from low-cost public domain publishers. Again, yea verily. That's one of the reasons why, as soon as a book goes out of print, the writer should ask for copyright reversion. Too many people don't think to do that. Anne

2 1