Am 03.12.2010 um 09:41 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:

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.

Why, you are wrong again! They could have us pay for to use them. Forget not, they are offering a service! It is their choice. Just like PG can ask that they be paid! Just like those that harvest the PG texts get paid we the require it. By the way who pays the bills of the libraries? regards Keith.