- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Re: [gutvol-d] Re: Line art (was Google Print vs. The Open Library vs. Projec...
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/25/2005 5:43:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, prosfilaes(a)gmail.com writes: That's not true. Much of Dover's material is original, reprints of material still under copyright, or reworking of public domain material until the copyrighted material is hard to seperate from the public domain (the clip art books are a good example of this; they have a compilation copyright, and I suspect they've done enough cropping and cleaning on the art to claim a copyright on the pieces in many cases). Thanks for the clarification. Okay, we CAN'T use Dover. Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] Re: !@!Re: [BP] Google Print vs. The Open Library vs. Project ...
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 25 Nov '05

25 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/23/2005 2:32:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, prosfilaes(a)gmail.com writes: >>I could, for one book, even now. I remember one critical edition that >>showed a comma or period in full color blown up 10 times to show that >>it was actually a broken comma, not a period. I've had times when I've >>been looking at my own scans and had a hard time telling noise from >>punctuation. I want a chance to check this without having to have a >>hardcopy of the book in hand. Obviously you have specialized needs. I have no objection to their posting full page scans; I just want them to have been OCRed and put into one file as well. As my vision continues to deteriorate, I often have trouble telling noise from punctuation even on my own manuscripts. Sometimes I enlarge the type font considerably so that I can see what I'm doing. Since finally deciding that I didn't want to write my book about Jungian archetypes in GRAVITY'S RAINBOW or my book on Kipling's use of the supernatural, I no longer consider myself a scholar. The irony in this is that I got my doctorate so that I would have alphabet soup to put after my name when I published my Kipling book. > Forget the pretty. Most people want the words. >>If we're here for what most people want, I think we can pretty much >>retire. I can think of a couple things we're missing, but not in plain >>text. I correct myself. "Most people" doesn't make sense in this context. Most people who love to read want the words. I would love to be able to be a bibliophile in terms of collecting rare editions and first editions, and for a while I was; but severe illness complicated by subsequent poverty made it necessary for me to take my beloved antique books to Sam Weller and get however much money I could for them. Parting with my two-volume eighteenth-century edition of Charles Churchill's complete poems just about broke my heart, but not being able to take my children to the doctor would have broken my heart a whole lot more. BTW, the paper was still completely white and strong though the books were over two hundred years old. I asked Tony Weller the reason for this, and he said that it was made of hemp, and hemp paper is extremely strong and long-lasting but is illegal in the United States. So we cut down trees and make paper that's going to turn yellow in ten years and crumble in twenty-five years, instead of using an annual crop of hemp because SOMEBODY MIGHT WANT TO SMOKE THE PAGES OR THE WASTE, OR PUT IT IN BROWNIES! Duhhh. This is about as un-self-serving as anything I ever said: I'm one-sixth owner of a tree farm in Louisiana. Don't blame me; my grandfather bought it. I like the occasional income it brings in, but I like breathing a lot better. (If you've been living in Mars for the last fifty years, you might not know that marijuana is a form of hemp or vice versa; I'm not exactly sure) One of the things I've been missing from PG is scans of line-art pictures in high-enough quality to make reuse possible. Instead of buying a Dover art book, I should be able to dig through the PG archives to find a suitable picture. With this I agree. In fact, I think it would be an excellent idea for us to scan good line art AND black and white etchings in anything we know is out of copyright. Since the author and the illustrator don't necessarily die at the same time, we might have to begin by scanning just pre-1923 work, but even that would be a good start. I too am frustrated by the necessity to go to Dover or run around hunting illustrations, after having bought three good and expensive collections of copyright-free art. I know what is going to be said now. If I want it, do it. Okay, guys, send them to me. I'll put them on my computer until somebody tells me who to send them to for posting. But I don't have room to store more than 5 GB at a time, and that's pushing my luck. If someone wants to ship me an external hard drive with umpty thousand GB to be used just for PGLAF and sent to somebody else at PGLAF when I bite the dust, I'll archive them here even after they're posted. Why do I suspect I'm going to wish I hadn't said that? Anne

1 0

Re: gutvol-d Digest, Vol 14, Issue 64
by Wallace J.McLean 24 Nov '05

24 Nov '05

The law binds people, not books. You are bound by the laws of the country where you is. The laws of your country will tell you how they apply themselves to works, wherever in the world they were published or created. Jonathan Ingram is in the UK, and bound by UK law. I'm in Canada and bound by Canadian law. The books I contribute to PG in the US have to satisfy US law, but to be safe, I also make sure they are PD under Canadian law, too. I'm chomping at the bit to be able to do other books which only have to jump through the PD-Canada hoop, and not the US law as well.... The 70 years reference, in the UK, means years post mortem autoris. In Canada, the figure is 50 years. (There are other wrinkles in both countries, like R Copyright, posthumous publication, anonymous and pseudonymous, joint authors; and in the UK, edition copyright -- that's the copyright the UK publisher claims, aka "typographical arrangements".) Summary: Copyright laws bind people, not books. ----- Original Message ----- >From Rod Butcher <rbutcher(a)hyenainternet.com> Date Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:35:20 +1000 To Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion <gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org> Subject Re: [gutvol-d] Felix Holt copyright ? Can I get some clarification : I have read the copyright FAQ. Most of the books we deal with here in Australia were printed in the UK. Do the rules apply everywhere, in the country where I am or the country where the book was published ? Jonathan Ingram's post seems to indicate the latter i.e. all books he considers for scanning where he is (UK) must be elligible under UK law, irrespective of where they were published. Hence they have to have been published (effectively printed) more than 70 years ago, no matter where they were published. Correct ? I'm still faced with wondering how Wordsworth Classics UK can claim a "presentation of text format" copyright on books whereas Penguin Classics doesn't. Today's Topics: 1. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Jared Buck) 2. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Bowerbird(a)aol.com) 3. re: A Picture Says More Than 10,000 Words (Bowerbird(a)aol.com) 4. Re: Posting for List (Jared Buck) 5. re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Bowerbird(a)aol.com) 6. Re: on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions (Marcello Perathoner) 7. Re: Felix Holt copyright ? (Bruce Albrecht) 8. Re: Felix Holt copyright ? (Rod Butcher) _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

7 8

Re: !@!Re: [BP] Google Print vs. The Open Library vs. Project Gutenberg
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/22/2005 4:42:07 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, hart(a)pglaf.org writes: I can only hope there is something WE can do to keep these ideals-- such as they are--alive and thriving so WE can have our own eBooks, or own eLibraries, the way WE want them. Everybody's "gonna" do powerful things but they don't. Meanwhile we could run PGLAF for a hundred years with what they're frittering away. After checking out the Open Library site, I sent it a "nastygram."Their plan is unworkable. Their security is nonexistent. It would take them about a thousand years to save five thousand books the way they save now, and I don't know anybody that can spare six gb for ONE book. Forget the pretty. Most people want the words. Gaaahhh. Anne

2 1

Re: [gutvol-d] [Press Release] OSoft Partners with OpenReader
by Joshua Hutchinson 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

It definitely looks like it is the closest out there to a fully compliant .oeb document type. Perhaps I'm getting caught up on quibbles. *shrug* Well, like I said, I'm no expert. Happy reading, Anne! Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: Gutenberg9443(a)aol.com To: gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] [Press Release] OSoft Partners with OpenReader Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:04:38 EST > > In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:54:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: > > It looks like eBookwise uses the .imp format, which is somewhat similar to > .oeb format, but isn't quite the same. More of a subset, maybe? (I may be > misunderstanding that part) > I just got this from the eBookwise site, which sells only books to use on > its reader. Fictionwise sells .rbs, which will work on eBook readers. So yes, > it > is IMP, but it seems to be saying that it is OEBFF and IMP. > > > > > > 4 Reader Ratings: Great Good OK Poor > Available eBook Formats [Secure - _What's this?_ > (http://www.ebookwise.com/servlet/mw;jsessionid=-QjhwDRmwPCcLqmB23BUrkGQkDY?… > ) ]: OEBFF Format (IMP) [1.8 MB] > All formats: Printing DISABLED, Read-aloud DISABLED > > > > > > > Blackmask now calls this format EB-1150. > > I dunno. All I care about is, can I read this book on equipment I have > without having to sit at my desk to do it. > > Anne > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] [Press Release] OSoft Partners with OpenReader
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:54:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: It looks like eBookwise uses the .imp format, which is somewhat similar to .oeb format, but isn't quite the same. More of a subset, maybe? (I may be misunderstanding that part) I just got this from the eBookwise site, which sells only books to use on its reader. Fictionwise sells .rbs, which will work on eBook readers. So yes, it is IMP, but it seems to be saying that it is OEBFF and IMP. 4 Reader Ratings: Great Good OK Poor Available eBook Formats [Secure - _What's this?_ (http://www.ebookwise.com/servlet/mw;jsessionid=-QjhwDRmwPCcLqmB23BUrkGQkDY?… ) ]: OEBFF Format (IMP) [1.8 MB] All formats: Printing DISABLED, Read-aloud DISABLED Blackmask now calls this format EB-1150. I dunno. All I care about is, can I read this book on equipment I have without having to sit at my desk to do it. Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] More news from the guys that brought us DRM ...
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/23/2005 8:17:45 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, marcello(a)perathoner.de writes: >In related news, RIAA president Cary Sherman congratulated Warner for >its ethical behaviour in agreeing to stop bribing radio stations. Ye gods and little fishes. This system was supposed to have stopped back in 1963, when my husband was a radio announcer. (No, this was not T; my husband at that time was Fred; and even Fred wouldn't accept payola.) Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] [Press Release] OSoft Partners with OpenReader
by Joshua Hutchinson 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

I admit to not being an expert in this area, so I could be misunderstanding this. ... but ... It looks like eBookwise uses the .imp format, which is somewhat similar to .oeb format, but isn't quite the same. More of a subset, maybe? (I may be misunderstanding that part) I didn't check the Fictionwise site as closely, so it may be that they support the .oeb format there, though. Josh ----- Original Message ----- From: Gutenberg9443(a)aol.com To: gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] [Press Release] OSoft Partners with OpenReader Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:37:05 EST > > > In a message dated 11/22/2005 3:07:09 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: > > Actually, Anne, if you can rush and buy ANY eBook in that format a year from > now, I'll be mildly surprised. Not flabbergasted, but surprised. > > > > I buy them very frequently from Fictionwise and eBookwise. eBookwise > continues to sell the device. I don't think they're going to quit using that > format > any time soon. I would tell you I'd let you know next year, but I'll > probably forget to do it. > > Anne > > > _______________________________________________ > gutvol-d mailing list > gutvol-d(a)lists.pglaf.org > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] [Press Release] OSoft Partners with OpenReader
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/22/2005 3:07:09 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, joshua(a)hutchinson.net writes: Actually, Anne, if you can rush and buy ANY eBook in that format a year from now, I'll be mildly surprised. Not flabbergasted, but surprised. I buy them very frequently from Fictionwise and eBookwise. eBookwise continues to sell the device. I don't think they're going to quit using that format any time soon. I would tell you I'd let you know next year, but I'll probably forget to do it. Anne

1 0

Re: [gutvol-d] [Press Release] OSoft Partners with OpenReader
by Gutenberg9443＠aol.com 23 Nov '05

23 Nov '05

In a message dated 11/22/2005 2:46:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, joey(a)joeysmith.com writes: (N.B.: I don't know OEBPS or OEBFF, I was just trying to provide a metaphor for what I understood Lee to be saying above.) Thank you for the metaphor, which is a good one. All I need to know is that it is useful now and is going to get a lot more useful. Anne

1 0