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.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
The may not own copyright. But they do own them.
At least the container (aka file) they are in!
Now, let us a little further. If you own the container and
you produced what is in said container ----->>> you own it!!
Or, do you think that if we put child pornography files
or the pg site. The courts would say that pg does not own them.
Interresting fact!
Of course I am assuming p.g. is considered to be a legal person (maybe the correct american legal term).
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.