(2) There seems to be some problem with the license. Not sure about this. I think the license on the PG2 website asserts copyright over the contents of the public domain books as well.
No, the PG license does not assert copyright over the contents of public domain books. The license states that you can do anything you want with the text as long as you remove any mention of PG from the modified version. To rephrase, the license only protects the PG trademark and not any copyright claims on the public domain text (it also talks about how to make donations, volunteer, etc.). There have been discussions within the project about the need for such a long license in every text (it currently weighs in at something like 27k) or whether there should just be mention of the license (which, again, only protects the PG trademark) and a URL of where it can be obtained.
(3) There is the question over whether Michael is personally profiting from PG2. Whether or not you think he should is another issue, but it is one of the issues the original author of the article is pressing Michael to explain.
Of course Michael is profiting, though whether financially or not is unknown at this point. Michael wouldn't have made the partnership if he (or PG, and therefore himself by transferrance) didn't profit in some way. He has responded on the PG volunteer mailing list to say that he has not profited.
It is sad to see that projects lose their initial zeal and ideology.
The project has not lost its zeal and ideology. Project Gutenberg is alive and kicking, and even revolting to some extent against Michael's unilateral decision to partner with the World Ebook Library through the device of projectgutenberg.info (aka Project Gutenberg II). As an active volunteer of PG and DP, I have seen the discussions over the past few days, and the zeal has increased if anything. People are still holding true to the ideals of PG, even if its founder has made a bad decision.
Some open source projects, such as Linux, have understood that, and were GPL'ed. This safegards any commercialism that would destroy it's very foundation.
Project Gutenberg is not an "open source project." It is a project to get public domain texts into electronic formats and distribute them to whoever wants them--including commercial enterprises. Linux and others are projects that work in copyrighted materials. Verbum Vanum requires specific licensing, which is very much against PG philosophy (yes, PG does have some copyrighted texts, but it does not require authors to give up any rights as the OLPA does, only to provide PG non-exclusive electronic distribution rights).
Yes, PG puts a license on every one of its texts. But it is the only license I know of that says you can remove the license altogether and redistribute however you desire. That is a benefit, not a detriment.
IANAL, but doesn't this allow them to use the name provided they pay the original Project Gutenberg 20% of their profits? Or am I missing something...
Yes, this is allowed. Part of the problem is that PGII (which is just a shiny new, brand-recognizable front for the WorldEbookLibrary) is putting Copyrights on PG's books. Let me say that again: COPYRIGHTS ON PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOKS! Every book downloaded from PGII claims to have a copyright, not belonging to PGII, but belonging to the WorldEbookLibrary. This is on top of the PG header that says the book is public domain.
In the absence of the DMCA safe harbor provision Ellison would not have had to send a takedown notice. He could have sued AOL for copyright infringement with no notice and won by merely proving that they posted his work. The RIAA would love it. Is that what you want?
Perhaps he would have won, but AOL/TW has a lot more resources than most 12-year-olds and are in a much better position to appeal a losing verdict and get the law struck down. So, yeah, I would want that scenario.
Actually that is exactly what the web is. I have an HTML file and place it in an open web share. Anyone who clicks a link to my webpage is requesting a download of that shared file. That file is copied to your computer. That file is then "played" to you. If you don't delete those files you can "play" them as often as you like, creating the webpage image and perhaps even audio (music) components of that page.
Yes, I understand how HTTP works, but I was talking about perceptions, not technical specifications. I said people don't consider the Web a "filesharing system" even though that's what it essentially is. And you apparently agreed with me, because you took an awful lot of effort to describe that point exactly.
As for file sharing.... go check out the alt.* hierarchy.
...just because people can share files on it, it's not a "filesharing system". People can share files via the World Wide Web, but it's not considered a "filesharing system". Calling USENET a "P2P filesharing system" is limiting at best and gives a potentially pejorative connotation.
Is it really that surprising that a stupid lawsuit is the direct result of unfair and unreasonable legislation such as the DMCA? Wouldn't it be nice if AOL took the DMCA all the way to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional? Of course, that's unlikely because AOL/TW actually want the DMCA -- they just don't want it to apply to them.
He may have sent to the wrong e-mail, or it got lost among the spam.
According to the decision, he sent it to the right email address, but AOL changed their copyright infringement notification email address from "copyright@aol.com" to "aolcopyright@aol.com" and didn't register their changes with the Copyright Office for 6 months or more. It was during this time period that Ellison sent the email. At best, this is negligence on AOL's part.
Having said that, I doubt AOL will be found vicariously liable. Remember, this decision only says that Ellison is allowed to take AOL to trial. It indicates that the lower court was wrong to summarily decide the case, and it outlines what Ellison will need to prove in order to win (and vice versa for AOL).
Would the White House sue for violation of the robots.txt file? Under what laws could they sue? Is robots.txt an implicit grant of permission to view copyrighted content? Would GWB press the Congress for a new bill, to mandate legal enforcement of the robots.txt?
Obviously, they would sue under the DMCA for accessing a access controlled website under false pretenses.
Have they made any progress on their other goal? They wanted to collect a $1 donation for each book from each of the 100 million people they expected to read it, so when they reached the 10,000 book milestone, they'd have raised $1 trillion.
Not quite. They estimated that if they charged $1 per book, they would have given away $1 Trillion worth of ebooks, not raised that amount. There's a big difference.
That depends on how much the university cost. I would be more willing to take seriously an online degree that took a couple years and several thousands of dollars to complete then a quickie diploma that cost a couple hundred bucks.
Then have I got the course for you! Send me a couple of thousand dollars (cashier's check or money order please -- no personal checks) and I'll get back to you in a couple of years....
Some things, however, can't be taught particularly well from a distance -- like biology and chemistry, which usually require hands-on interaction with professors.
I knew a girl who was taking chemistry and had some hands-on experience with her professor. Needless to say, she was expelled and the professor fired (he wasn't tenured).
i mean i use kazaa and i can never find a good selection of Carol King or Arthra Franklin songs. does the RIAA itself feel that their artist have no long term value????
What? These two sentences are non-sequiters. Not finding Carol King or Aretha Franklin on KaZaA has nothing to do with how the RIAA views the long- (or short-) term value of their artists. Not finding them in a CD store would, however, say much on the subject.
(Presumably) Because money that was previously spent on CDs is now being spent on other things (i.e., movies). Of course it's just going from one demon to another....
Slashdot Mirror
No, the PG license does not assert copyright over the contents of public domain books. The license states that you can do anything you want with the text as long as you remove any mention of PG from the modified version. To rephrase, the license only protects the PG trademark and not any copyright claims on the public domain text (it also talks about how to make donations, volunteer, etc.). There have been discussions within the project about the need for such a long license in every text (it currently weighs in at something like 27k) or whether there should just be mention of the license (which, again, only protects the PG trademark) and a URL of where it can be obtained.
Of course Michael is profiting, though whether financially or not is unknown at this point. Michael wouldn't have made the partnership if he (or PG, and therefore himself by transferrance) didn't profit in some way. He has responded on the PG volunteer mailing list to say that he has not profited.
The project has not lost its zeal and ideology. Project Gutenberg is alive and kicking, and even revolting to some extent against Michael's unilateral decision to partner with the World Ebook Library through the device of projectgutenberg.info (aka Project Gutenberg II). As an active volunteer of PG and DP, I have seen the discussions over the past few days, and the zeal has increased if anything. People are still holding true to the ideals of PG, even if its founder has made a bad decision.
Project Gutenberg is not an "open source project." It is a project to get public domain texts into electronic formats and distribute them to whoever wants them--including commercial enterprises. Linux and others are projects that work in copyrighted materials. Verbum Vanum requires specific licensing, which is very much against PG philosophy (yes, PG does have some copyrighted texts, but it does not require authors to give up any rights as the OLPA does, only to provide PG non-exclusive electronic distribution rights).
Yes, PG puts a license on every one of its texts. But it is the only license I know of that says you can remove the license altogether and redistribute however you desire. That is a benefit, not a detriment.
Yes, this is allowed. Part of the problem is that PGII (which is just a shiny new, brand-recognizable front for the WorldEbookLibrary) is putting Copyrights on PG's books. Let me say that again: COPYRIGHTS ON PUBLIC DOMAIN BOOKS! Every book downloaded from PGII claims to have a copyright, not belonging to PGII, but belonging to the WorldEbookLibrary. This is on top of the PG header that says the book is public domain.
Talk about confusing the issue....
Perhaps he would have won, but AOL/TW has a lot more resources than most 12-year-olds and are in a much better position to appeal a losing verdict and get the law struck down. So, yeah, I would want that scenario.
Then stop being ignorant by ignoring the entire premise of USENET as a messaging system.
Yes, I understand how HTTP works, but I was talking about perceptions, not technical specifications. I said people don't consider the Web a "filesharing system" even though that's what it essentially is. And you apparently agreed with me, because you took an awful lot of effort to describe that point exactly.
While it is undoubtedly P2P...
...just because people can share files on it, it's not a "filesharing system". People can share files via the World Wide Web, but it's not considered a "filesharing system". Calling USENET a "P2P filesharing system" is limiting at best and gives a potentially pejorative connotation.
Is it really that surprising that a stupid lawsuit is the direct result of unfair and unreasonable legislation such as the DMCA? Wouldn't it be nice if AOL took the DMCA all the way to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional? Of course, that's unlikely because AOL/TW actually want the DMCA -- they just don't want it to apply to them.
According to the decision, he sent it to the right email address, but AOL changed their copyright infringement notification email address from "copyright@aol.com" to "aolcopyright@aol.com" and didn't register their changes with the Copyright Office for 6 months or more. It was during this time period that Ellison sent the email. At best, this is negligence on AOL's part.
Having said that, I doubt AOL will be found vicariously liable. Remember, this decision only says that Ellison is allowed to take AOL to trial. It indicates that the lower court was wrong to summarily decide the case, and it outlines what Ellison will need to prove in order to win (and vice versa for AOL).
Obviously, they would sue under the DMCA for accessing a access controlled website under false pretenses.
Go to Distributed Proofreaders to help out! The are a distributed effort to scan, OCR, proof, and post books to Project Gutenberg.
Not quite. They estimated that if they charged $1 per book, they would have given away $1 Trillion worth of ebooks, not raised that amount. There's a big difference.
Yeah -- I agree with you. Just trying to get those "Funny +1" mods ;O)
Then have I got the course for you! Send me a couple of thousand dollars (cashier's check or money order please -- no personal checks) and I'll get back to you in a couple of years....
I knew a girl who was taking chemistry and had some hands-on experience with her professor. Needless to say, she was expelled and the professor fired (he wasn't tenured).
Was the garbage networked or something? That's the only reason I can think of why this would be in YRO....
This has to violate some kind of FCC rule!
I do my one page-a-day (or more ;O)) at Distributed Proofreaders.
Oh, wait, did you mean what I'm supposed to do at work?
What? These two sentences are non-sequiters. Not finding Carol King or Aretha Franklin on KaZaA has nothing to do with how the RIAA views the long- (or short-) term value of their artists. Not finding them in a CD store would, however, say much on the subject.
Well, GnuCash already exists....
Right, just like Iraq is immune from American military forces.
It's not completely inaccurate because it has happened.
Talk about effed-up logic -- I'd piss on his head even if he wasn't on fire!
(Presumably) Because money that was previously spent on CDs is now being spent on other things (i.e., movies). Of course it's just going from one demon to another....
If not, they should!