December 2010 - gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: Amazon charging for PG books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

the washington post article said: > Even though it’s not illegal, Project Gutenberg > Literary Archive Foundation chief executive Greg Newby > finds the practice unethical. He would like to see Amazon > offer Project Gutenberg texts at no cost and DRM-free. if greg _really_ wants that, he could make it happen, easily, by setting up project gutenberg as a publisher who distributes its e-books through amazon, because publishers set the price, and can turn off amazon d.r.m. and until p.g. does that, other rogue re-publishers will continue to take advantage of the door p.g. left open... *** here's someone who took jim's "magic catalog" and turned it into a for-sale e-book, albeit for just $.99... > http://www.amazon.com/Download-Gutenberg-CATALOG-download-ebook/dp/B004BDOW… there are also versions for feedbooks and mobileread. *** and even though i thought the tone was a bit off, the point behind the article was a rather good one, in the sense that kindle owners do need to be told -- directly, and perhaps often -- they can populate their machines with content not bought from amazon. *** walter said: > It only proves that ease of access > and a nice representation are valued > over just having the content available that's right, as far as it goes, just as long as we recognize the caveat that many of these rogue re-publishers do _not_ create books that have "a nice representation". they just take whatever was there, with absolutely no concern at all for the quality of the product. *** walter said: > It only proves that ease of access > and a nice representation are > valued over just having the content > available in archaic ASCII-formats. kudos to walter for trying to smuggle in a political point. but ascii is _not_ "archaic". it's the 128 lower bits of utf-8. and utf-16. and all the other various older encodings too. walter was trying to make you think something like .html is superior. i will agree that an .html book _does_ look nice, at least if you are viewing it with a browser or some other piece of software that understands how to render that .html. (otherwise, an .html-book is _painful_ to read, lacking that.) but it's important to remember that that .html itself is _also_ comprised mainly of the lower 128 bits that walter claims are "archaic". so obviously he's not telling us the _whole_ truth... it's also tremendously meaningful and relevant and important to understand that -- if you route the p.g, ascii-format through a viewer-program that understands how to render that format -- you will _also_ get a book that looks nice. and one that can have just as much power -- or even more -- than an .html book has... indeed, the iphone app "eucalyptus" takes exactly that approach. and its output looks just as good as an .html-book or an .epub... so it's simply not true -- at all -- that ascii is "archaic", no sir. it _is_ unfortunate that project gutenberg has never seen fit to distribute a viewer-program that makes its plain-text format look nice and be powerful. but that's not the fault of the format. -bowerbird

2 2

Re: choke-points on the internet
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

keith, i don't think that you fully understand that the u.s.a. has a 234-year tradition of free speech. that's our rock. that's what they teach in schools. a good american is one who questions authority. that might not be the case with a good german, but project gutenberg was born here in america. so the fact that our politicians are now using the power of their office and the power of law to shut down somebody who is practicing what we preach, well, that's the kind of thing that we take seriously, because it's bold and brazen in-our-faces hypocrisy. so that's the "explanation", but let me quickly add i don't feel any need to give you "an explanation". if you don't want to read my posts, i'm sure that someone here can tell you how to do a kill-file... -bowerbird

2 1

Re: choke-points on the internet
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

keith said: > I do understand the dynamics. then why did you ask? > Yet, how wikiLeaks and their > latest revelations are of concern > to PG is beyond me. then why did you say you understand the dynamics? > Please do not even reply. I do not really care. ok, you don't care. fine. i _do_ care. so i will reply. > Do you think I expect an answer! is that a question? > You do know what a rhetorical question is. is that a statement? -bowerbird

2 1

Re: Amazon charging for PG books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

keith said: > I believe most do not get the point. no, it's you who does not get the point. seriously. > Works of Shakespeare are out of copyright. > If I produce a book containing his Works and sell it. > My book gains copyright! no, your book does _not_ gain copyright. at least not in the united states, which is where p.g. is located, so that's the set of laws which p.g. is obligated to follow, eh? > Meaning that one can use my book for > producing other books based on my content. i think you probably left out a "not" in that sentence. if your reprinting of shakespeare contained content that was _your_ work -- unique to _your_ edition -- then _that_ part of the book is under your copyright. for instance, you might have composed your own preface to the book, over which you'd own copyright. nobody could use that preface without your consent. but bill's work is still squarely in the public-domain, and can be used -- or sold! -- by anyone else at all. > Furthermore, being in the public domain and > having copyright and two different things. and you're completely wrong again on this, keith. if the period of copyright has elapsed on a work, it's public-domain; one is the obverse of the other. (a work can also be placed into the public-domain, in advance of elapsing its copyright period, but only by the official _owner_ of the copyright for that work.) (and we might also have the situation coming up soon where the court deciding the google book settlement decides to _shift_ copyright on _orphaned_works_ to the entity that's formed to administer the settlement, which would overlay another complication on all this, but that's not something we need to worry about here.) again, things are a little bit different in germany, and that is probably what is confusing you here... -bowerbird

8 16

get password
by Paul Maas 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

password -- Paul Maas paulmaas(a)airpost.net -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

1 0

Re: amazon and the public domain
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

linda said: > http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9P8KE congratulations! :+) > I posted a public domain book ($.99) on Sunday > (that I had transcribed), and which had been earlier > stolen by Amazon Digital ($2.99) and another party ($1.99). "stolen" is a loaded term that is wholly inappropriate. you know that, right? > Please read the note at the end of the Product Description. i think it's entirely appropriate that you should inform people that you were the person who did clean-up work on this book. i would think it would also be wholly appropriate if you added that other sellers have used your version to create their own, without having done much, if any, clean-up work themselves... that's the information customers need to make a good decision. but you need to get over the idea that _you_ own this e-book... the _public_ owns it. -bowerbird

1 0

amazon and the public domain
by Linda Everhart 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

According to the post on Rosenthal's, he got that email last Friday. I've been working on learning the Kindle store ways, so I posted a public domain book ($.99) on Sunday (that I had transcribed), and which had been earlier stolen by Amazon Digital ($2.99) and another party ($1.99). On Monday, my version was published and Amazon's ($2.99) was taken down. It's still not available at this time (Tuesday) on the search engine, but you can view my first try at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9P8KE Please read the note at the end of the Product Description. Linda Everhart codmolly(a)embarqmail.com

1 0

Re: choke-points on the internet
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

keith said: > First in what way does this topic concern PG? well, if you don't understand the underlying dynamic that pits capitalist greed against the public-domain, you will have a lot of company in the general public. > On another account, who do you think > plant a virus in the iranian nuclear power plant system! the u.s. and israel working in concert, of course. and an israeli recently killed by a bomb was said to be one of their experts who had worked on that virus... i'm under the impression that all of these governments know the secrets of almost all of the other governments. so i don't think wikileaks will be revealing on _that_ level, since they already know it all. i think they're worried about wikileaks because they don't want the citizens at the bottom of the totem poles to know. because they're afraid it's going to start a global revolution against the oligarchy. and i don't think it's the governmental revelations that will be the crucial linchpin, i think it will be the revelations on the _banking_systems_, and how they engineered the recent "crisis" that gave 'em a trillion-dollar "bailout" from taxpayers. -bowerbird

3 2

amazon and the public domain
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

i'm composing a post on how project gutenberg should approach an arrangement with amazon... but it appears that real life has just whizzed by. according to this post on morris rosenthal's site: > http://www.fonerbooks.com/selfpublishing/?p=626 amazon is not accepting public-domain e-books. after preparing and submitting a book with content in the public-domain, morris got this from amazon: > We’re implementing a new policy that addresses > the customer experience problem caused by multiple, > undifferentiated copies of public domain titles > in our Kindle catalog. > > Our vision is to have high-quality editions of every > public domain title in the world available on Kindle, > including a free edition of each, and to avoid the > confusion that is caused by having a large number of > undifferentiated (or barely differentiated) versions of each. > > To protect the customer experience we have decided > to stop accepting and selling duplicate, undifferentiated > versions of public domain titles where there is a free edition > already available for sale. As a result, we are removing > the following title(s) for sale on our web site: > > Charles Dickens Tale Of Two Cities > (The Works Of Charles Dickens) by Dickens, Charles, > Digital Item ID: 847429 interesting, eh? morris goes on with his own reaction: > I checked, and sure enough, Amazon published > their own free copy of the book the day before, > on December 1st 2010. > ... > I decided to check on how many classics they’ve > already published in their new push to protect > the customer experience, Here’s the complete list: > A Tale Of Two Cities by Charles Dickens > > I thought that was pretty funny too. remember when i asked whether anyone here would want project gutenberg to veto other public-domain republishers, if it were to magically be given that veto? and remember how i said consider the answer carefully? that's because the situation could also come up where project gutenberg would be the _victim_ of such a veto. and that scenario might well be coming to pass. amazon can create their own "blessed" copy of _any_ public-domain book, and then refuse to carry others. because, as far as amazon is concerned, p.g is just another one of the republishers who are creating a confusing situation, a "customer experience problem." now how does it feel? now you want to get up on a high horse and complain about how the public-domain belongs to everyone, eh? morris goes on: > Update: A Tale Of Two Cities is a new Oprah pick, > and her people must notify the trade beforehand > to prepare for demand. So my guess is that Amazon’s > newfound sensitivity will be one-and-done. just in case you thought that the new amazon policy was brought about by the recent brouhaha with p.g., don't get a big head. there are bigger fish in the sea. much bigger fish. including a great whale called oprah. -bowerbird

1 0

choke-points on the internet
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 07 Dec '10

07 Dec '10

i have always said that the "rich boys" who run the world would cut off the internet if it really started to hurt them. but i didn't think they'd have the cajones to do it directly. i thought they'd blame it on "terrorist hackers" instead, and pretend that they were trying to "solve the problem", and always just "'succeeding" enough so _they_ had access, but the public didn't, or got it only in very sporadic bursts. but current events prove they won't bother with a charade. they're now cutting any cord they can that leads to wikileaks. oh sure, at first they did it with cowardly denial-of-service attacks that they tried to lay off on anonymous individuals. but anyone with even half a brain knew that was not true... it didn't take long, though, for the government to come out and start to take direct action that was loud and aggressive. you probably are just as familiar with those actions as i am, so i won't bother to recount them, except for one which you might not have heard about: raytheon has told its employees that they cannot read wikileaks even on their own machines in their own homes; it'd jeopardize their security clearances. welcome to your future, people... your boss owns your ass... so if you think you're gonna use the internet to take down the repressive government you elected to run your country, or the businessmen who really do, might wanna think again. -bowerbird

3 2