- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

you're wrong, keith. and -- as we have now seen -- nobody else here cares enough about you to _tell_ you that, so i shan't bother any more either. but hey, have a nice day, ok? :+) -bowerbird

1 0

PG vs Amazon
by Linda Everhart 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

The difference in opinion in legal terms won't solve the problem, which is actually two problems: How do you stop this harvesting for profit, and should a PG volunteer continue to donate their efforts only to line harvesters pockets? Selling public domain eBooks for Kindle on Amazon (and all other eBook sellers) is easy. That's why harvesters do it. A simple solution for PG, which already has the files formated, is to can beat the harvesters at their own game. Yes, it will profit Amazon, but it will profit PG even more in name recognition, popularity, ethics and dollars. Just the news release that PG is going to do this would draw readers, along with donations, to the site. I'm a business person, who operated on two basic facts, the customer is always right, and three nickels are better than a dime. (I comfortably retired 17 years ago at age 39.) Customers want the best value and volunteers want to make a real difference. Give us that chance. Linda Everhart codmolly(a)embarqmail.com

4 3

Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

keith said: > What I am try to say I amazon is selling PG texts > PG should get something out of it. when you call them "p.g. texts", you create an implicit conveyance that p.g. owns them, and then extrapolate from that to jump to the conclusion p.g. should be compensated. but project gutenberg doesn't own those texts. i'm sorry, but it's true. even the sweat-of-the-brow _improvements_ which p.g. volunteers made to those e-texts do _not_ entitle p.g. to any legal recompense. again, i'm sorry, but it's true. good thing, too, or p.g. volunteers would likely have to pay internet archive and/or google for using their scan-sets and o.c.r., and everyone would have to be paying the libraries who shelved the books for decades. -bowerbird

2 1

Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

keith said: > I do understand how these people can be rogue! > They are in your own opinion > are not doing anything illegal or unethical. here in america, the term "rogue" is en vogue these days; the republican nitwits even use it to describe themselves. we probably should reserve the word for true criminals, but then again, these republican nitwits are aiding and abetting the bankers, who are truly rogue criminals, so maybe it's not so far-fetched of a term after all, ya know? i'm using it mainly to acknowledge that some people here have tried to paint these republishers as doing some evil... but they haven't done anything illegal, as everyone agrees. and the argument about "unethical" hasn't really been made in a conscious way that can be fairly debated. mostly it relies on the subconscious feeling that the volunteers should have some degree of control over how their work is being used, but -- as understandable as that might be -- it just doesn't apply, because that public-domain base content belongs to everyone. if i grow flowers in a public place, someone will come along and pick them, and if that bothers me, hey, that's just my tough luck. but let me be absolutely clear that i don't like these republishers one bit. they are clearly taking advantage of a certain situation, and i firmly believe that we should find a way of stopping them. lucky for us, there's a very simple way. beat them to the punch. pick the flowers before the other guys, and sell them yourself. the public would much rather buy them from the people who grew 'em, rather than the guys who just went and picked 'em. give the public the chance to do the right thing, and they will... -bowerbird

1 0

use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 03 Dec '10

03 Dec '10

there's one sad fact that jumps out of the recent discussion. i would have expected -- and hoped, too, but _expected_ is really the correct word -- that project gutenberg would be the entity which most consistently and most strongly supports the right of the public to use the public-domain. and no matter how vigorous or broad that use might be, i would have thought project gutenberg would support it. so when i see one of the precious few "officials" from p.g. quoted in a major newspaper as questioning some use of public-domain books as "unethical", it makes me queasy. he's acting as if p.g. owns those books. it doesn't. the _public_ owns those books. the general public. and p.g. should be pointing that out to _everyone_. these rogue republishers should be hiding behind p.g. as their protective shield, just like the hate-speechers look to the a.c.l.u. to protect their freedom of speech... (and even that analogy is flawed, because hate speech is truly ugly, while these rogue republishers are just a minor bother at worst, or -- if you wanted to put a nice polish on them -- good examples of free speech.) so, when asked for his quote, newby should have said, "more power to 'em, that's what public-domain is for." as i have said before, i strongly believe that p.g. should drive these rogue republishers out of the marketplace by offering an alternative under the p.g. "brand-name", to take advantage of the reputation it has duly earned... destroying the rogue republishers in the _marketplace_ is just fine, because it reflects the conscious choices of free individual human beings; that's the way to proceed. but when it comes to the _newspaper_, it is shocking (and sad) to hear p.g. whining about the republishers -- and, even worse, trying to label them as "unethical", in the kind of despicable spin game corporations use, and do not let us forget who owns those newspapers; newby is unwittingly doing their dirty work for them... project gutenberg should be ringing the bell _loudly:_ use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical. you need to rethink your positions... -bowerbird

3 3

Re: use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

you and i don't disagree, michael. no matter how hard you might try, or how much you might type. sorry. you and greg seem convinced that the rogue republishers are amazon. but i see publisher names listed such as "evergreen review" and "volumesofvalue". perhaps these are just fronts for amazon, but they usually don't operate that way... and even if it was amazon itself that is selling public-domain e-books, so what? nobody complains if random house sells a "pride and prejudice" p-book, do they? corporations are part of the "public" too. and i'm truly sorry that project gutenberg hasn't benefited financially yet from talks with amazon. or google. or anyone else. i really hope that comes to pass some day. but in the meantime, you don't need any back-room negotiations or special favors. just sell your e-books yourself, at amazon. the people would _love_ to support you by purchasing their e-books directly from you. and yes, i'm quite familiar with the press, and i know how they love to twist quotes, so they will end up with something juicy... and thus i would have loved for greg to have come here and told us that he was misquoted, and that he heartily approves of republishers as a healthy sign of a vigorous public-domain, which is what i believe that he should have said. but if he came here and said he was misquoted, i must have missed that. > Your "hate speech" analogy is even more flawed. . . . > Not to mention have treat right on the edge of Godwin. actually, i was thinking of the so-called "christians" and so-called "patriots" who _today_ carry signs that say "god hates faggots", not nazis from 65 years ago. hate speech is alive and well, and thriving in the u.s.a. > If Amazon had never called me at all, > my only arguments would be about The Golden Eggs, > but since they wasted a lot of our time, > I think they owe us something. you'll need to take that up with them. i can't help you. next time you might wanna demand to be paid in advance. > Why are you here? oh, i thought i made that clear. but i can tell you again. i'm here because i expect that project gutenberg will be one of the strongest and most consistent supporters of the rights of the public to use public-domain material... and indeed, usually i see that expectation being fulfilled. so when the opposite happens, i will say "hey, what's up?" i'm sorry if that is perceived as being disloyal in some way. -bowerbird

1 0

Re: Shakespeare Re: Re: Amazon charging for PG books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

compilation copyright doesn't apply to any of the books which were mentioned in that washington post article... neither does it apply if you simply repackage up a book, which is what we were talking about, what the issues are. it is most commonly applied to journals, anthologies, and other collections, and -- as reported -- must itself rise to attain the level of an original work of authorship. off the top of my head, the only p.g. thing that _might_ qualify for a compilation copyright is the one entry that was a combination of (almost?) all of the entries below it, and even that would be questionable because it doesn't contain the "selection" and "arrangement" elements that are 2 of the requirements for copyright on a compilation. (the bookshelves too, but nobody is talking about them.) you, keith, stated that copyright and public-domain are separate things, when in the u.s. they're direct opposites. and you said that if one reprints a public-domain book, it gains copyright status, which in the u.s. is plainly false. anyone, including you, can do the research and discover the truth of the matter, so there's no use in discussing it. if nobody here cares about you enough to make it clear to you that you are wrong about these things, then fine, there's no reason for me to care either. am i understood? -bowerbird

1 0

Re: Shakespeare Re: Re: Amazon charging for PG books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

michael said: > you COULD create a copyrightable edition of Shakespeare > just by collecting up what YOU think would be > the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. seriously? compilation copyright? no... seriously? just gotta pick at the scab, don't you?, can't let it heal. :+) considering how 180-degrees-wrong keith got things, even though he was merely talking about the _basics_, i thought it enough to point him in the right direction... you'll just confuse him all over again by bringing up compilation copyright. so please do not do that, ok? let him get used to crawling before you invite him to swim. > Actually, bowerbird is incorrect not really. you just introduced a different wrinkle is all... so why don't you explain to keith that he got it all wrong? -bowerbird p.s. but for those of you who would like to go swimming: > http://www.pddoc.com/copyright/compilation.htm > > The law identifies three distinct elements, > all of which must be met for a work > to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: > 1. the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; > 2. the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and > 3. the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, > coordination, or arrangement of an original work of authorship. > Collection and assembling facts and information isn't enough. > Compilations, just as any other work, may only be copyrighted > if the originality requirement, “an original work of authorship,” is met. and here's some more: > http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html > > A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue, > anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, > constituting separate and independent works in themselves, > are assembled into a collective whole. > > A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and > assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are > selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that > the resulting work as a whole constitutes > an original work of authorship. > The term “compilation” includes collective works. ... > (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends > only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as > distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, > and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. > The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect > or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, > any copyright protection in the preexisting material. and more: > http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html#compilation *** but really, all you are doing here is confusing poor keith further. of course, all this cross-nationalism confusion is something that the corporations _love_ to take advantage of... anything that will make the situation more complicated serves their ulterior motives. so, again why don't you explain to keith that he got it all wrong? surely you don't want to foster this cross-nationalist confusion...

2 1

Re: Amazon charging for PG books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

you're wrong, keith, and that's the way it is. now, i can't be bothered with you anymore... -bowerbird

1 0

Re: Amazon charging for PG books
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

greg said: > Incorrect, at least in the case of > the book the WashPost article was about. > The imprint publisher is Amazon Digital Press. > I'm quite certain this is simply Amazon Inc. > THEY are the publisher. well, yes, i did see that. and i wondered about it. i also checked the 3 other books in the article, and two of them had different publishers listed. so it's not quite as cut-and-dried as we'd like... and it's not as if amazon has to be disqualified from anybody-can-reprint-the-public-domain. heck, google's gonna be going into the business of renting out their library in a _big-time_ way... > This is a partial excuse for making a mistake, > but does not remove responsibility. you're forgetting that there is no crime here, so "mistake" and "responsibility" words don't apply. p.g. left the door wide open, and people are now going through it. what did you expect 'em to do? > I encouraged people to volunteer to do previously > -- the fact that I don't have time to do it myself > doesn't mean I'm against it well then, i must've missed that "encouragement". can you point us to archives where we can find it? i mean, i find it quite easy to believe that you are "not against it". but i trust that you'll understand that stance alone isn't gonna make much happen. i mean, seriously, back when _i_ was contemplating doing projects like this, my full intention then was to become one of the rogue publishers and charge money and use the proceeds to buy health insurance for michael hart, since i assume he ain't got much... i decided against it because it seemed that he didn't like me all that much, but also because i knew that someone would paint me as evil for charging a fee... i just didn't believe it would be someone who is as fully conversant with copyright law as greg newby... -bowerbird

1 0