keith said:
I believe most do not get the point.
no, it's you who does not get the point. seriously.
Works of Shakespeare are out of copyright. If I produce a book containing his Works and sell it. My book gains copyright!
no, your book does _not_ gain copyright. at least not in the united states, which is where p.g. is located, so that's the set of laws which p.g. is obligated to follow, eh?
Meaning that one can use my book for producing other books based on my content.
i think you probably left out a "not" in that sentence. if your reprinting of shakespeare contained content that was _your_ work -- unique to _your_ edition -- then _that_ part of the book is under your copyright. for instance, you might have composed your own preface to the book, over which you'd own copyright. nobody could use that preface without your consent. but bill's work is still squarely in the public-domain, and can be used -- or sold! -- by anyone else at all.
Furthermore, being in the public domain and having copyright and two different things.
and you're completely wrong again on this, keith. if the period of copyright has elapsed on a work, it's public-domain; one is the obverse of the other. (a work can also be placed into the public-domain, in advance of elapsing its copyright period, but only by the official _owner_ of the copyright for that work.) (and we might also have the situation coming up soon where the court deciding the google book settlement decides to _shift_ copyright on _orphaned_works_ to the entity that's formed to administer the settlement, which would overlay another complication on all this, but that's not something we need to worry about here.) again, things are a little bit different in germany, and that is probably what is confusing you here... -bowerbird
Actually, bowerbird is incorrect, you COULD create a copyrightable edition of Shakespeare, just by collecting up what YOU think would be the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. if it should be a unique collection not currently under copyright. All Shakespeare's words, your choice of which ones. . . .
Thanx, finally, someone with knowledge. But, we should not blame BB for being uninformed can we ! ;-))) regards Keith. Am 02.12.2010 um 02:06 schrieb Michael S. Hart:
Actually, bowerbird is incorrect, you COULD create a copyrightable edition of Shakespeare, just by collecting up what YOU think would be the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. if it should be a unique collection not currently under copyright.
All Shakespeare's words, your choice of which ones. . . . _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
I left out one detail, not only "not currently under copyright" but not having been copyrighted before, perhaps published before. I am not sure about all the details about previously published works that were not copyrighted, sorry. I am not a lawyer. . .this is NOT a legal opinion or legal advice. IANAL = I am not a lawyer. On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
Thanx, finally, someone with knowledge.
But, we should not blame BB for being uninformed can we ! ;-)))
regards Keith.
Am 02.12.2010 um 02:06 schrieb Michael S. Hart:
Actually, bowerbird is incorrect, you COULD create a copyrightable edition of Shakespeare, just by collecting up what YOU think would be the best editions of each play, sonnet, poem, etc. if it should be a unique collection not currently under copyright.
All Shakespeare's words, your choice of which ones. . . . _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
Am 02.12.2010 um 02:00 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:
keith said:
I believe most do not get the point.
no, it's you who does not get the point. seriously.
Works of Shakespeare are out of copyright. If I produce a book containing his Works and sell it. My book gains copyright!
no, your book does _not_ gain copyright. WHAT ???? Go out and buy a recently published and book of Shakespeare works and hold and behold a copyright notice! Oh, my gosh, they are copyrighting something that can not be copyrighted.
The copyright is naturally, nor for the works of shakespeare, but on the book itsself. PG has rights to the text they produce and put on the web. You are telling me that in the Staes that if I state you can use what I put any in the public domain for FREE distribution and state that if it is commercially used that 20% is to go to me that no court will protect my rights and term of use! Poor America. Here in Germany it would be a piece of cake. No matter how poorly the terms were written, as long as it is evident that commercial use entices a fee. You talk alot of being uninformed, how about living in the real world! Wake people. By the way I give the right to cite this post. Though I could forbid it. regards Keith
On 12/02/2010 08:19 AM, Keith J. Schultz wrote:
WHAT ???? Go out and buy a recently published and book of Shakespeare works and hold and behold a copyright notice! Oh, my gosh, they are copyrighting something that can not be copyrighted.
All copyright laws that I'm aware of put heavy penalities on copyright infringement but none puts any penalty on false copyright claims. That's because in capitalism most laws are for protecting the big corporations against the small people.
The copyright is naturally, nor for the works of shakespeare, but on the book itsself. PG has rights to the text they produce and put on the web. You are telling me that in the Staes that if I state you can use what I put any in the public domain for FREE distribution and state that if it is commercially used that 20% is to go to me that no court will protect my rights and term of use! Poor America.
You have failed to understand the PG license. But that's not your fault. The license is useless and incomprehensible. The PG license *only* states that if you want to use the PG *trademark*, you have to fork out some of your earnings. PG never made a penny out of the license, it just annoys users, and should be scrapped for good.
Here in Germany it would be a piece of cake. No matter how poorly the terms were written, as long as it is evident that commercial use entices a fee.
In Germany its the same as in the US. You don't get a new copyright for a reproduction of a public domain work. You get a copyright if you edit it *if* your editorial interventions show sufficient high creativity: "ausreichende Schöpfungshöhe". Of course "ausreichende Schöpfungshöhe" can be granted at the judges will, but no judge will grant you that just for marking up paragraphs and chapters.
You talk alot of being uninformed, how about living in the real world! Wake people.
You are talking BS again. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
Am 03.12.2010 um 13:30 schrieb Joshua Hutchinson:
I think the *scariest* thing about this whole deal is that I keep finding myself agreeing with bowerbird.
1 - Copyright and Public Domain are opposite concepts. Once a work is public domain, you *cannot* get a copyright on it by republishing it. Never said they were the same. I said they were different. But, that was never the point. Neither was copyrighting the work by itself or the work verbatim!
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.
3 - I also think we should have (we as in PG) "published" everything to Amazon et al as soon as it became obviously this new-fangled ebook reader fad was gonna stick around! :) I also always thought it would have been a good idea (and small income stream) to publish PG texts through a print-on-demand shop like lulu.com. The problem was always finding the time and volunteer to do it.
Now, since I've agreed publically with bowerbird three times, I'm gonna go find my family members and kiss and hug them goodbye, because I'm pretty sure this is the sign of the coming apocalypse. Do not forgot to wash three times, first! ;-))
I hereby give you absolution. regards Keith.
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
I have nothing more to say to such ignorance of facts. regards Keith Am 03.12.2010 um 14:40 schrieb Joshua Hutchinson:
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 t he 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.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua@hutchinson.net> wrote:
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.
Not really; compilations are well-protected under law. If you publish a book with the exact same 25 stories in the Mammoth Book of Vintage Whodunnits, you've violated their copyright. My problem is that Michael had little creative influence on the compilation; some 300 hundred of those books were mine, my choice of what to work on. Only a tiny fraction of PG's collection was chosen by any one person, so I don't think anyone can claim a compilation copyright on it. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.
On 12/03/2010 01:30 PM, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
3 - I also think we should have (we as in PG) "published" everything to Amazon et al as soon as it became obviously this new-fangled ebook reader fad was gonna stick around!
From preliminary research it figures that: - You cannot offer free Kindle books (yet). - Minimum price would be $0.99 - $2.99 (depending on size). - We would get only 35% royalty (you are not allowed to sell PD stuff under the 70% royalty option). furthermore: "... you must adjust the List Price as required to ensure that the List Price, plus 15% (the statutory Luxembourg VAT rate) for sales to UK customers, does not exceed the lowest of: (a) the lowest suggested retail price or equivalent price for any digital or physical edition of the Digital Book; (b) the lowest price at which you list or offer any digital or physical edition of the Digital Book on any website or other sales channel; and (c) any maximum List Price we provide from time to time in the Program Policies." ---- http://forums.digitaltextplatform.com/dtpforums/entry.jspa?externalID=393 This has the ridiculous consequence that everybody can sell stuff from PG on Amazon except PG. We would have to match the price we 'sell' the book on gutenberg.org and at the same time maintain a minimum price of $0.99. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 11:19:09PM +0000, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
There is a precedent for the argument that giving the book away for free doesn't count as the lowest sale price (it isn't being sold). The example I found is Cory Doctorow (who is famous for offering all his books for free download): For the Win (as a Kindle edition): [1]http://www.amazon.com/For-the-Win-ebook/dp/B003VTZSK4/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1291504446&sr=8-3 For the Win (as a free download from Cory's website): [2]http://craphound.com/ftw/download/ Note, the Kindle version is $9.99 So, I think PG could get away with selling any of our work for $.99 a copy.
Absolutely. We're going to try it. I'm wading through their paperwork... Linda plans on taking the first steps for us, but might want help. Maybe there can be parallel efforts... -- Greg
Though, I agree with you in your other post about the quality not really being there for a lot of it. Â Maybe we should make a volunteer effort to post the "Top 100" PG works to Amazon ... Josh
On Dec 3, 2010, Marcello Perathoner <marcello@perathoner.de> wrote:
On 12/03/2010 01:30 PM, Joshua Hutchinson wrote:
> 3 - I also think we should have (we as in PG) "published" everything to Amazon > et al as soon as it became obviously this new-fangled ebook reader fad was gonna > stick around!
From preliminary research it figures that:
- You cannot offer free Kindle books (yet). - Minimum price would be $0.99 - $2.99 (depending on size). - We would get only 35% royalty (you are not allowed to sell PD stuff under the 70% royalty option).
furthermore:
"... you must adjust the List Price as required to ensure that the List Price, plus 15% (the statutory Luxembourg VAT rate) for sales to UK customers, does not exceed the lowest of: (a) the lowest suggested retail price or equivalent price for any digital or physical edition of the Digital Book; (b) the lowest price at which you list or offer any digital or physical edition of the Digital Book on any website or other sales channel; and (c) any maximum List Price we provide from time to time in the Program Policies."
---- [3]http://forums.digitaltextplatform.com/dtpforums/entry.jspa?externalID=393
This has the ridiculous consequence that everybody can sell stuff from PG on Amazon except PG. We would have to match the price we 'sell' the book on gutenberg.org and at the same time maintain a minimum price of $0.99.
-- Marcello Perathoner [4]webmaster@gutenberg.org
References
Visible links 1. http://www.amazon.com/For-the-Win-ebook/dp/B003VTZSK4/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&qid=1291504446&sr=8-3 2. http://craphound.com/ftw/download/ 3. http://forums.digitaltextplatform.com/dtpforums/entry.jspa?externalID=393 4. mailto:webmaster@gutenberg.org
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
On 12/05/2010 01:53 AM, Greg Newby wrote:
Absolutely. We're going to try it. I'm wading through their paperwork... Linda plans on taking the first steps for us, but might want help. Maybe there can be parallel efforts... -- Greg
I suggest PG opens an official account for the "Amazon Tiger Team". I can write a batch uploader as soon as I get access to the Amazon backoffice. This will also batch upload metadata. We need a QA team to test our books on the Kindle. Maybe start with the Top 100 on PG and Amazon and work through the entire collection. Then we need to redo popular books that don't work well on the Kindle. That probably means new dumbed down editions. Oh, and Google opened their shop today too. What about them? -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
I certainly would assist with reviewing/preparing as well. Alex On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Joshua Hutchinson <joshua@hutchinson.net>wrote:
That's a good idea.
I'll volunteer to review a handful by Christmas if someone can take the time to be the organizer (I'm sorry, I'm just too busy with work to organize the project right now).
Josh
On Dec 6, 2010, *Marcello Perathoner* <marcello@perathoner.de> wrote:
On 12/05/2010 01:53 AM, Greg Newby wrote:
Absolutely. We're going to try it. I'm wading through their paperwork... Linda plans on taking the first steps for us, but might want help. Maybe there can be parallel efforts... -- Greg
I suggest PG opens an official account for the "Amazon Tiger Team".
I can write a batch uploader as soon as I get access to the Amazon backoffice. This will also batch upload metadata.
We need a QA team to test our books on the Kindle. Maybe start with the Top 100 on PG and Amazon and work through the entire collection.
Then we need to redo popular books that don't work well on the Kindle. That probably means new dumbed down editions.
Oh, and Google opened their shop today too. What about them?
-- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
participants (8)
-
Alex Buie -
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
David Starner -
Greg Newby -
Joshua Hutchinson -
Keith J. Schultz -
Marcello Perathoner -
Michael S. Hart