compilation copyright doesn't apply to any of the books which were mentioned in that washington post article... neither does it apply if you simply repackage up a book, which is what we were talking about, what the issues are. it is most commonly applied to journals, anthologies, and other collections, and -- as reported -- must itself rise to attain the level of an original work of authorship. off the top of my head, the only p.g. thing that _might_ qualify for a compilation copyright is the one entry that was a combination of (almost?) all of the entries below it, and even that would be questionable because it doesn't contain the "selection" and "arrangement" elements that are 2 of the requirements for copyright on a compilation. (the bookshelves too, but nobody is talking about them.) you, keith, stated that copyright and public-domain are separate things, when in the u.s. they're direct opposites. and you said that if one reprints a public-domain book, it gains copyright status, which in the u.s. is plainly false. anyone, including you, can do the research and discover the truth of the matter, so there's no use in discussing it. if nobody here cares about you enough to make it clear to you that you are wrong about these things, then fine, there's no reason for me to care either. am i understood? -bowerbird