On Dec 3, 2010, Keith J. Schultz <schultzk@uni-trier.de> wrote:
2 - The rogue sellers, while not necessarily nice, are perfectly legal. In fact, there is precedent. I used to go to computer expos all the time back in the 90s and there was always one guys selling CDs full of stuff he downloaded off the Internet. And a PG cd was always there (with the PG boilerplate conveniently missing to get around the trademark).
PG offers a service. For free. they could change terms of use any time! Which could include that commercial exploitation is forbidden. Proving it is a different matter.
No. PG *can't* do that. PG does not own a copyright for these texts. PG *cannot* own a copyright on those texts (at least in the US, where PG is based). That's the whole point and meaning of "Public Domain". The public "owns" it and no one else can take ownership (even if somone claims they have a new copyright, it doesn't mean they do). Putting the public domain text inside a different container (ie, a text file), does not grant a new copyright. Even Michael's "compilation" copyright example is a whole grey area that is best described as "Yes, but ..." It's hard to just put together pieces or public domain work and claim a new copyright. It's easier (and in Shakespeare's case much more common) to put together pieces along with some editorial additions, such as extensive footnoting, and claim a copyright on the whole thing that way. Even then, there is an argument to make that if you stripped all the editorial additions out, you'd be able to claim public domain on the original Shakespeare. But, again, grey area and I personally wouldn't want to take on that fight. The PG license applies ONLY to the use of the Project Gutenberg *trademark*. If you strip out the legal fine print that contains that trademark ... boom, you have zero obligation to PG. Which is what, I'm assuming, these republishers have done. Again, perfectly legal. Josh