On Thu, 2 Dec 2010, Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:

there's one sad fact that jumps out of the recent discussion.

i would have expected -- and hoped, too, but _expected_ is really the correct word -- that project gutenberg would be the entity which most consistently and most strongly supports the right of the public to use the public-domain.

One question arises immediately, of course, and that is if the 800 pound gorilla in the middle is really "the public." However, even if you consider that is is, let's go on:

and no matter how vigorous or broad that use might be, i would have thought project gutenberg would support it.

Greg and I support the use of our eBooks by all, period. Read on.

so when i see one of the precious few "officials" from p.g. quoted in a major newspaper as questioning some use of public-domain books as "unethical", it makes me queasy.

What is unethical here is that Amazon has approched me and other Project Gutenberg "officials" repeatedly, asking for permission. . .which was denied. . .and making offers of a small support effort that would at least make up for time, and time, and time again, wasting hours of our time for an offer that never seems to have actually been good faith. To the best of my knowledge Amazon has not supported PG in any manner whatsoever as a result of these conversations.

he's acting as if p.g. owns those books.

BOWERBIRD IS TOTALLY OUT OF LINE HERE, NO ONE SAID "OWN" OR "ILLEGAL". . .MERELY UNETHICAL.

it doesn't. the _public_ owns those books.  the general public. and p.g. should be pointing that out to _everyone_.

And we do, right in the fine print mentioned earlier.

these rogue republishers should be hiding behind p.g. as their protective shield, just like the hate-speechers look to the a.c.l.u. to protect their freedom of speech...

Are you still trying to include that 800 pound gorilla along with your Sarah Palin act of "Going Rogue???"

(and even that analogy is flawed, because hate speech is truly ugly, while these rogue republishers are just a minor bother at worst, or -- if you wanted to put a nice polish on them -- good examples of free speech.)

Your "hate speech" analogy is even more flawed. . . . Not to mention have treat right on the edge of Godwin.

so, when asked for his quote, newby should have said, "more power to 'em, that's what public-domain is for."

We do say "The most eBooks to the most people," but not sure Amazon is really in that direction. When person's shopping carts ring up at Amazon's prices, perhaps they decide eBooks aren't really a bargain, and they quit.

as i have said before, i strongly believe that p.g. should drive these rogue republishers out of the marketplace by offering an alternative under the p.g. "brand-name", to take advantage of the reputation it has duly earned...

Actually, we are working on that, even with Amazon, but I will only believe it when I see it.

destroying the rogue republishers in the _marketplace_ is just fine, because it reflects the conscious choices of free individual human beings; that's the way to proceed.

We're not out to destroy any eBook efforts, that's bowerbird talking up his own smokestack where he has nested.

but when it comes to the _newspaper_, it is shocking (and sad) to hear p.g. whining about the republishers -- and, even worse, trying to label them as "unethical", in the kind of despicable spin game corporations use, and do not let us forget who owns those newspapers; newby is unwittingly doing their dirty work for them...

Actually, you should have seen what they tried to get him to say originally!!! And if you have been in the papers, at least as often as Newby and I have, you realize their goal is the most sensationalist quote they can manage. Even The Wall St. Journal has crossed this line with me, quoting ME as saying: "eBooks will never make it." I have learned with the media that 50% accuracy is just about all I should hope for, at least in Amercia. For some reason the Europeans seem to get it better, even when they haven't interviewed me directly.

project gutenberg should be ringing the bell _loudly:_ use of the public-domain is neither illegal nor unethical.

Again I caution you not to say we said it was illegal, or to provide the direct quotation to be refuted. As for unethical, Amazon, nook, Sony, etc., etc., etc., are billion dollar corporations who would obviously see a great benefit in, "killing the goose that lays golden eggs" just so those golden eggs become more rare and it will be easier to hike up their prices without what the world, and you, have called "competition." Project Gutenberg is in competition with no one. Personally, I think all people in eBooks, in the world, are working for Project Gutenberg, without pay. If Amazon had never called me at all, my only arguments would be about The Golden Eggs, but since they wasted a lot of our time, I think they owe us something. Not to mention that at their cheap prices on most PG eBooks it wouldn't cost them enough to measure to leave headers & footers on there and gain the PR for supporting us.

you need to rethink your positions...

You seriously need to rethink YOUR position. . . . Why are you here?

-bowerbird

Hi BB, I do understand how these people can be rogue! They are in your own opinion are not doing anything illegal or unethical. My apologies if just reusing the term. regards Keith. Am 02.12.2010 um 21:43 schrieb Bowerbird@aol.com:

destroying the rogue republishers in the _marketplace_ is just fine, because it reflects the conscious choices of free individual human beings; that's the way to proceed.