On 8 May 2005, at 11:52, Greg Newby wrote:
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 03:13:19PM +0200, Branko Collin wrote:
On 7 May 2005, at 3:42, Branko Collin wrote:
On 4 May 2005, at 22:00, Greg Newby wrote:
There's an unused Wiki running at <http://www.gutenberg.org/cgi-bin/wiki-newsletter.cgi>. I suggest you use that for sharing notes.
(Still unused...)
Not anymore. I wrote abstracts for 15 comments in an hour. Most of those comments are 1 page affairs (often just a couple of lines in support).
I have added twenty more, but do not think I will do more than that. I'll take requests, though. Are there any comments where you feel we should reply?
Were you thinking of putting these into some sort of formal response document?
Nope.
Or, are they just grist for others who might want to write their own comments?
Yep.
I'm trying to work on this today (nothing like the last minute...), and the comments are quite useful. I did not find any specific guidance for how to write responses -- did you?
I did, lemme check. (/me rummages on the web...) Ah, the page with the 700-something comments says: "Parties who wish to submit reply comments should follow the instructions set forth in the Notice of Inquiry and summarized here. The deadline for reply comments is 5:00 p.m. EDT on May 9, 2005." "Summarized here" is linked to <http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/>. Same rules as before, except now you should mark your document as "reply comment".
In the past, I've seen guidelines about (a) needing to reference particularly items you are responding to, and (b) some sort of size limitations.
Check the webpages I linked to, please.
- One aspect I'm interested in is creation of derivative works.
- Another is for people like us who really, really want to follow the copyright law, but identify all these challenges and vague aspects, and that the public domain has been dramatically shrinking (as a proportion of all available works).
I have seen one or two of those... http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/comments/OW0032-WSCA-FM.pdf wants to do the right thing, IIRC, but is hindered by the law. Yet he sees infringement all around him, apparently going on unpunished.
- Did you see anyone with a specific plan, like our Rule 9 HOWTO? I think our Rule 9 is relevant, but it's only about section 108(h) -- and there are some broader issues in Title 17 that the copyright office is looking at.
I have only looked at some 40 documents, so little over ten percent of all the comments. So far, however, I have seen no specific guidelines of how to deal with tracking down copyright holders. See my list though for "librarian", "professor", those sort of folks, who generally came up with slightly specific proposals. Also, look out for the usual suspects. Perhaps you can say something about (or in support of) JM Ockerbloom's comment. It appears the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford (<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/>) has been mailing out calls for reply comments to well-known copyfighters, asking them to perform specific tasks. (Or so it appears from Rik Lambers' Consitutional Code blog.) Perhaps they have a better overview of who wrote what.
*Thanks* for any additional analysis you can provide. I do hope that people are thinking of sending a response, even a brief one.
I'll try and dig specific comments for you that are relevant to us. -- branko collin collin@xs4all.nl