Slashdot Mirror
Project Gutenberg Threatened Over PG Australia
Jon Noring writes "Michael Hart's venerable Project Gutenberg, based in the United States, is now being threatened with a lawsuit from the estate of the long-deceased author of 'Gone With The Wind.' The threat is being made because Project Gutenberg of Australia (link not provided) has the digital text version of GWTW on its server (GWTW is Public Domain in Australia), which, according to the estate's lawyers, is downloadable from the United States. Further information, including the copy of the 'take down' letter, and some commentary, is given at TeleRead. It is likely the threat is legally meritless, yet it is troubling, showing how online repositories of public domain works may be impacted by threats from other countries where the works are still covered under copyright."
During the Olympics, North America ip addresses were blocked from watching much of what was available to Europeans. This was done so that NBC could retain there rights. This seems to be something that could easily be considered for links to works that are not 'legal' everywhere.
. html
The August 17th article on this pages discusses this.
http://ice.citizenlab.org/archives/2004_08
In America, it's the sender, not the reciever, who is guilty of copyright infringement. If I make a dub of a DVD and give it away, I am breaking copyright law, not the person I gave it to. Now, if someone from a foreign county is doing the sending legally, then who do you sue?
Mabye I'm wrong or pointing out canadian law or something, but still, it's pretty funny. They can't do a damn thing about it, heh.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
I'm in international waters right now, accessing the internet via a company server in the US, how to deal?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Don't expect Project Gutenberg to back down on this. They were the ones who, with the help of Lawrence Lessig and the EFF, filed suit to have the Sonny Bono Perpetual Copyright Act struck down as failing the "limited times" clause in the US Constitution. Sadly, they lost that case. But it should illustrate that PG does not take $#!t like this lying down. Expect a fight.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Securing our nation's "digital boarders" to prevent American-hating foreigners from terrorizing dead artists by cutting into their profits.
Seriously, the IP address blocks that went on during the Athens Olympics (US IPs were blocked from live streams so that NBC could time-shift to our primetime) are evidence that this will become something of an issue (though not necessarily in the 2008 election). Protectionism extends beyond tarrifs on steel. Protecting rights is good, but protecting business models is bad. Where to draw the line? It seems that global communication and information technologies do not fit the nation-state model of government.
Something somewhere has to give. During the last wave of "globalization" (European colonization), it was native peoples who got trounced. Who gets it this time?
So if I find a country that has very lax copyright laws or none at all, can I make there a ftp-server?
Upload games, movies, music and, ok, texts (like Project Gutenberg)... free for everybody to download?
There must be countries like this, no? Maybe some small island...
I don't need a signature.
...and for some reason, if try to access George Bush's campaign web site from outside the US, you get Access Denied.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
I can't imagine what they are attempting to gain from this. If your dead set on reading this online you can get it with or without the help of TGP. And if your like me and dislike the eye strain of reading online, you can always go to a used book store and buy it for $2USD. In any of the above cases the estate doesn't see one cent.
The only case I'd imagine the suit has merits, to lost revenue, is as mandetory reading material for school children. Such as mass purchases by schools for the students (who should be buying it used anyway, but that's not relevent here). In that case there really just gouging schools. Way to go!
Can anyone else think of a ligitimate reason why this law suit should matter to the estate holders?
I would rather be ashes than dust!
At a Vienna train station, they sell T-shirts with a picture of an orange road warning sign with a Kangaroo on it (you Aussies will know what I mean).
In large text above and below the picture are the words:
"There are no Kangaroos in Austria!!"
This is entirely for the benefit of visiting Americans who are apparently unaware that Australia is not actually a small country next to Germany.... :-)
An interesting variation would be some country deciding that *all* copyright lasts for 90 years, and allowing publishers *there* to sue the US and rest of the world for infrigement everytime a public domain text is posted elsewhere. This the exact symmetry of the US vs rest of world situation.
This is not a signature.
Well, Peter Pan is copyright in the UK *forever*. and Disney et al. have to pay the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children if they want to show their films in the UK. Interestingly, the hospital is sueing Disney in the US courts for making a prequel; a case that's on grounds about as secure as this one (i.e. not a hope)
... you could buy an oilrig and set up your own prinipality fron which to thumb your nose at the world. Although international reckognition might be a problem.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
How can something be removed from the public domain?
For example - say I took the existing GWTW text, which is in the public domain, and inserted a new paragraph, changed the name of one of the key characters everywhere in the book, and released the new text into the public domain as well. When this law is enacted, what is the status of the text? It is no longer GWTW, it is a derrivitive work - so the copyright does not belong to the original GWTW writer. And it was made a derrivitive work under a public domain work?
Any lawyers care to explain?
Actually, this is almost a sensible suggestion. ISPs are generally very keen on doing anything they can to avoid exposing themselves to litigation. Since so much copyright-related litigation originates in the US, it would be a fairly simple measure for the rest of the world to just block all IPs allocated to the USA until they bring their legal system back into line with the rest of the world. Call it trade sanctions, if you will...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Actually, copyright law should be 14 years like it was in the beginning in the USA. Anyone that says otherwise is anti-founding fathers and thus anti-american. Including Bono, MPAA, RIAA, and Disney and friends. Not that this matters anymore when we've got big business/big government passing roughly 30k new laws each year. The entire check and balance system of the government is almost entirely gone. The only way for progress against the current system is a revolution. Sadly, I think congress/office would nuke entire cities and states before letting that happen. Marshall law would be at least be declared within moments of any uprising.
Project Gutenberg is definitely a good start towards an active collection of works that have no governmental control over them. Obviously you still risk cross country hassles but it's very much worth the cost of such hassle to have IP free works. Sorry for this OT rant: Richard Stallman and other pro-GPL advocates take note, this is your brain on copyright (or copyleft). Avoid the system, don't try to use it against itself.. it'll only end up biting you in the end. If you're so against intellectual 'property' then don't use IP laws to cover your works, release in the public domain.