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