- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Reusing PG texts
by Andrew Sly 24 Sep '06

24 Sep '06

I've tried creating a list of examples of some of the ways that PG texts have been used (other than simply being read). If you are interested, take a look at: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Reusing_Project_Gutenberg_texts More examples and more ideas would be welcome. Let me know what you have run across, and add to the list if you feel like it... Andrew

4 5

re: [gutvol-d] Re: [PG-EU] INTERNET FOUNDER SAYS eBOOKS NEXT BIG THING
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 24 Sep '06

24 Sep '06

bruce said: > On the plus side, Google now makes PDFs of > most of the full view books with high resolution images that is a good thing. but what makes it even better is that michigan has started making the digital text available too. so instead of just settling for looking at pictures of pages, we can now begin to create honest-to-goodness e-books -- with text that can reflow, and be searched and copied... this week i'll be making posts to the bookpeople listserve that walk people there through the process of doing that. my goal is to digitize a book in _one_ hour. will i succeed? i suppose it depends on how good my automatic tools are. the proof, as you all should know by now, is in the pudding. *** as to the tempest in this teapot here, it's all good... i do appreciate michael's efforts with the world book-fairs. i also appreciate google's massive book-scanning project, which provides us plenty of lemons to make our lemonade, and i appreciate the library at the university of michigan for giving us a powerful lemon-press to make that lemonade... a million e-books might be as little as a million hours away, which puts them _much_ closer than they were 5 years ago. -bowerbird

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] Fwd: [webgroup] ibiblio.org server migration
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

ibiblio said: > We needed to move to the new facility due to > the rising cost of bandwidth among other reasons it's probably good for us to know that ibiblio does indeed care about the cost of bandwidth, at some level and in a kind of fashion anyway... i think many of us assumed that's a blank check. it's always appropriate to be sufficiently grateful when someone extends to you a continuous gift. -bowerbird

1 0

Fwd: [webgroup] ibiblio.org server migration
by Greg Newby 21 Sep '06

21 Sep '06

FYI....please report any continuing anomalies to webmaster(a)gutenberg.org with cc to me. -- Greg ----- Forwarded message from Ken Chestnutt <ken(a)metalab.unc.edu> ----- From: Ken Chestnutt <ken(a)metalab.unc.edu> To: webgroup(a)lists.ibiblio.org Cc: ibiblio-announce(a)ibiblio.org Subject: [webgroup] ibiblio.org server migration Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: gbnewby(a)pglaf.org Delivered-To: webgroup(a)lists.ibiblio.org Precedence: list Errors-To: webgroup-bounces(a)lists.ibiblio.org Hi Folks, By now I'm sure you are aware that ibiblio.org has migrated to a new set of servers in a new facility. Some of you are painfully aware of the migration and for that we are sorry. We needed to move to the new facility due to the rising cost of bandwidth among other reasons, and we needed to move to the new servers because the old servers were exactly that, old. Additionally, we moved to the most recent stable build of Red Hat Linux, which will enable us to run more of our standard services *out of the box*. This will allow us to administer our server farm more efficiently. In the past, most of our applications were hand-built which can make maintenance unwieldly. We have already seen payoff in the fact that the web pages load faster, we have more free disk space, and the servers themselves are not as taxed. As of today, Wednesday morning, we think we have fixed most of the major issues surrounding our collections. We believe we have resolved the issue regarding HTTP authentication. Some of our sites are still seeing issues with database connectivity, and we are still working on that. To ensure that no issue has dropped through the cracks, please test your collection to make sure it's working the way it should. If it is not working correctly, and it was working correctly before the move, please send email to help(a)ibiblio.org with the subject line SERVER MIGRATION. Then, of course, please describe the problem you are having with any helpful, pertinent information you can include. Thank you for your patience during this migration! ken Ken Chestnutt System Administrator ibiblio.org _______________________________________________ webgroup mailing list webgroup(a)lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/webgroup ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

Re: 32 Million (C) Books/2 Million In Print
by Juhana Sadeharju 18 Sep '06

18 Sep '06

>From: Michael Hart <hart(a)pglaf.org> > >I received this statistic a while back, >that only 2 million of 32 million books >under copyright are actually in print. What is the year distribution of the 30 million books? What their authors think about the situation? Juhana -- http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev for developers of open source graphics software

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] Copyright to 1909
by Wallace J.McLean 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

Brett Paul Dunbar writeth: > How when reading the SI did you miss this? > 17. In the following provisions of this Part— "extended copyright" means any copyright which subsists by virtue of the new provisions after the date on which it would have expired under the 1988 provisions; and "revived copyright" means any copyright which subsists by virtue of the new provisions after having expired under the 1988 provisions or any earlier enactment relating to copyright. What I was quoting was Sched I. to the 1988 Act: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_22.htm The 1995 (curse you EU!) reg is a separate piece of legislation, and is not the one I quoted from.

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Copyright to 1909
by Wallace J.McLean 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

Jon Ingram writeth: > The rule of the lesser or shorter term is from the Berne Convension, > not from the EU harmonization directive, and I would therefore expect > it to be followed by most countries in the world. Another quote from > the article I refer to above: > "However, under the Berne Convention, the Berne rule of the shorter > term may apply to works of foreign origin. This rule allows a Berne > country to cut off protection of a foreign Berne work at the end of > the shorter of two so-called measuring terms: either that applicable > in the country where protection is claimed ... or that applicable in > the country of origin." The Berne "rule of the lesser term" was permissive, not mandatory. The EU "rule of the lesser term" is mandatory. And it seems that the UK enacted it in a separate statute in 1995, rather than doing the sensible thing and amending and consolidating the Copyright Act itself. Grrr..

1 0

re: [gutvol-d] Copyright to 1909
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

y.a.n.a.l. (you are not a lawyer.) -bowerbird p.s. ...even if you _might_ look good in one of those powdered white wigs...

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Copyright to 1909
by Wallace J.McLean 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

Jon Ingram writes: > The UK law is life+70, for books both before and after 1909. Is it? The Canadian amendment in the 1920s which moved us from fixed to life+ terms, expressly provided that the life+ term did not serve to revive copyright in works which had already passed from copyright: 11-12 Geo. V., c. 24 41(1) Where any person is immediately before the commencement of this Act entitled to any such right in any work as is specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act, or to any interest in such a right, he shall, as from that date, be entitled to the subsituted right set forth in the second column of that Schedule or to the same interset in such a substituted right, and to no other right or interest, and such substitued right shall subsist for the term for which it would have subsisted if this Act had been in force at the date when the work was made... (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection six and seven of section 18 of this Act, copyright shall not subsist in any work made before the commencement of this Act, otherwise than under, and in accordance with, the provisions of this section. 44. No person shall be entitled to copyright... otherwise than under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act... The schedule sets out the old and new definition of "copyright" in works other than musical works. The effect of this transitional provision is that works which were still under copyright — i.e., in which a person was entitled to a right — are subject to that right for the new, life+50 Berne term. By necessary implication, those who do NOT have a right as of the commencement of the Act, do not have the benefit of the new term. By a later amendment, the commencement was fixed as January 1, 1924. The pre-Berne copyright term in Canada was the old 28+14 renewable one, with formalities. Thus, any work published in Canada before January 1, 1924 without the appropriate formalities, is public domain in Canada regardless of whether it would be copyrighted under the life+50 rule, if it applied. There is Canadian case law upholding the pre-Berne formalities requirement. Similarly, no work published in Canada before 1883 can possibly be copyright in Canada, as even if the formalities were complied with, and the term was renewed, such a work was public domain — no one was entitled to a right — by the time the new Berne term cam in on January 1, 1924. Works published outside Canada are in a murkier area, which I still haven't been able to resolve. I thought the Canadian transition to Berne was modelled to at least some extent on the UK one. It might be worth double-checking the UK statute which adopted the Berne term to see whether, upon a proper construction, and in concert with the stupid, stupid, stupid move to life+70, it would result in a larger public domain than the life+ rule, strictly applied, would give.

4 3

Re: [gutvol-d] Copyright to 1909
by Wallace J.McLean 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

>From the UK Act: Duration of copyright Section 12: Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works 12.-(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. (2) Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows. SCHEDULE 1 Copyright: transitional provisions and savings 3. The new copyright provisions apply in relation to things existing at commencement as they apply in relation to things coming into existence after commencement, subject to any express provision to the contrary. 5.-(1) Copyright subsists in an existing work after commencement only if copyright subsisted in it immediately before commencement. Duration of copyright in existing works 12.-(1) The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in existing works. The question which provision applies to a work shall be determined by reference to the facts immediately before commencement; and expressions used in this paragraph which were defined for the purposes of the 1956 Act have the same meaning as in that Act. (2) Copyright in the following descriptions of work continues to subsist until the date on which it would have expired under the 1956 Act- (a) literary, dramatic or musical works in relation to which the period of 50 years mentioned in the proviso to section 2(3) of the 1956 Act (duration of copyright in works made available to the public after the death of the author) has begun to run; Unless I'm missing something, reading all these sections together, esp. s. 5(1) of the Schedule, spell non-retroactivity of the stupid, stupid, stupid 20-year extension to life+70. If the life+50 term had already run out, the life+70 term does NOT apply.

4 3