On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:09:08AM -0800, Andrew Sly wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
On 12/18/05, Cori <hiddengreen@gmail.com> wrote:
But if, for example, one read "A Christmas Carol" and it was given a new number - would / could there also be a link from eText #46 ..?
It would make sense to use the number of the source text -- the audio version is after all just a new edition of the same text.
-- Jon Ingram
If the audio file is read from our text, it should go into the etext number it was read from. If it derived from someone else's edition, then it would get a new number.
At least, that's how I understand it.
Josh
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. If there is any question, I'd say that posting the audio book under a new PG number would be the best choice. It's worth keeping in mind that, particularly for well known books, there can be multiple forms out there. A few examples: We have more than one edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species". We have a "young Folk's edition" of "Black Beauty" as well as "regular" edition. I understand that much of our P.G. Woodhouse is from American editions which sometimes vary greatly from the original British editions.
So I would not be too hasty to put audiobooks under the same number unless we are certain that they prepared from that same text.
I'm with Josh and Andrew. _If_ the audio is made from the same edition as ours, it's just a new format of that number. In some previous cases, the producer of the computer-read file claimed copyright, and that's why Greg gave them new numbers, because we couldn't post both copyrighted and PD content under the same number, even though it was made from the same source text. We also said we'd replace them when the technology improved. If we don't know that the audio is from the same edition, then it should get a new number. jim