I guess if you're incapable of reading TFA, or at least the first paragraph, we can quote it for you:
Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in 13 U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These 13 states include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.[1] Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone,[2] regardless of the case's outcome.[3]
I'm sorry, I thought that was your statement, not the Bears.
I did read the link, and I didn't see where they said
"PG has decided to not review their actions to see if they have infringed on other people's works but rather to hope that no one else notices and complains."
Apple doesn't have to cave to it.. Neither do the magazines. If the magazines don't like business terms, they can choose not to sell through Apple. That's sorta how the open market works.
Some other tablet will come out, someday, that can compete with the iPad as far as GUI and ease-of-use (Gawd, I hope so.) And maybe it will have terms the magazines like better.
I love my iPad, but that doesn't mean I don't dislike Steve's lock-in on what I can put on it.
But I hope you don't think Cooking Light has it's own circulation department? Most magazines farm it out, and those companies make a considerable amount of money even selling the subscriptions for $10/yr.
It's $5/issue at the newsstand, $1/issue at the cheapest subscription rate I've seen (I just resubscribed a friend) and to resubscribe online, you end up at secure.custsvc.com which is the circulation center for dozens of magazines.
If you can wade your way through the business buzz-speak. Where's my Dilbert bingo card?
"Synapse Group, Inc. is the leading independent provider of customer acquisition and management services for publishers of consumer magazines in the United States. Our distribution channels are built upon networks of affinity marketing partners, including some of the most recognized brands in the United States. We enable our affinity-marketing partners to use magazines as a marketing tool to add value to their customer relationships. "
I'm looking for ANYTHING that supports your claim that "PG has decided to not review their actions to see if they have infringed on other people's works but rather to hope that no one else notices and complains."
I'm looking through that to see where it says "PG has decided to not review their actions to see if they have infringed on other people's works but rather to hope that no one else notices and complains."
I can see where the "making a movie from your story after 30 years" thing would be pretty unfair, but where WOULD you draw the line?
Do the studios need to find the heirs to the Brother Grimm and pay to make movies from the fairy tales? I can see some kind of "life of the author" rule there.
For books, especially for non-profits lite Gutenberg, I'd like to see something along the lines of "If the copyright owner hasn't published an edition in 5 years, Gutenberg can publish it electronically, but if you want to print and sell it, you still have to track down the author"
I'd love to get ebook copies of a lot out of print books, and there's no legal way to do so. Things like T.J. Bass's books "Half Past Human" and "The Godwhale" or Wibberley's "Mouse" books.
"The Mouse on Wall Street" 2 used copies at Amazon, starting at $75, of which the author gets nothing. .
"Again, my apologies for the long delay in this correspondence. I do anticipate we will have a revised procedure description online soon, but did not want to delay further before sending this correspondence."
"In the meantime, I will summarize for you the main points that allowed the renewal for Brainwave to apply to The Escape. Then, I will provide a listing of the titles by Poul Anderson that we are working with. That way, you might want to confirm whether our bibliographic research (on title variations) and copyright research (on renewal records) seems to be correct."
You seem to be under the assumption that it's EASY to find out if something is still under copyright.
from http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html " There are a few ways to find out whether a copyright was renewed. Some are easier than others; some are more definite in their answers than others.
One easy way to check, sometimes, is just to see if there was any edition published more than 28 years after the original edition, and see if there's a renewal notice in that newer edition. This doesn't always work-- a lot of books simply don't get reprinted-- but if there is such an edition, it can be an easy check to make.
Another way that doesn't involve an exhaustive copyright record search is to write to the author, or their agent or estate, or to the last publisher of the book, and see if they can tell you whether the book's copyright was renewed. Of course, you might not always be able to reach them, and they might not always cooperate, but people on the Net have done this before and found out what they wanted to know. Sometimes, even if the copyright has been renewed, by mailing them you might be able to convince them to let an edition go online anyway.
It's also possible to do a search yourself of the copyright records. For 1978 onward, they're online at the Copyrigh Office, and below I'll describe how you can search the online records. Most book-related renewal records from years from 1950 to 1977 are now also online at least in page image form.
Other copyright records prior to 1978 are available in print and microform, both at the Library of Congress, and at other major libraries around the country, including many Federal Depository Libraries. A few libraries known to have a reasonably full set are the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh, the Free Library of Philadelphia (in microform), the University of Chicago library, and the University of California, Los Angeles.... You can also arrange for the Copyright Office to do the search for you. There's a form you can fill out and send to them, and they'll eventually let you know if they find any renewal records, and if so, what they say. This has gotten rather expensive as of late; as of January 2010, the fees amount to $165 per hour (with a 2-hour minimum) for them to search their files for you. If you want an advance estimate of the search fee, it will cost $115 more! If you're precise in your book specification, they should be able to complete the search within the 2-hour minimum. See Circular 22 for more details, and a copy of the search request form. "
"We are working on enhancements to our procedures for serial works so that we are more likely to find variations in titles such as happened with Brainwave.
As a result of your complaint, we have received clarification from our lawyer on situations where individual parts of entire works are published serially, but only some of the parts, or only the entire work but not the serial parts, are renewed. Until we received this clarification, our procedure was that each part must have a separate renewal for its first publication.
My long delay in responding is because our newly revised procedures are not yet posted on our Web site. We've had some exchanges with the lawyer I mentioned, as well as among the Project Gutenberg copyright team and production volunteers. I do hope to have the revised procedures for non-renewals in place soon, and meanwhile Project Gutenberg has put a hold on public domain determinations for non-renewals."
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
it was originally 28 years, renewable once. It was never intended to support your grandchildren.
My apologies for my long delay in responding. As promised in September, I discussed the situation with one of Project Gutenberg's copyright lawyers. This particular lawyer had previously been very helpful in preparing and then providing legal advice and feedback on our procedures for determining non-renewal status.
Our lawyer advised that our non-renewal determination for The Escape was in error. Therefore, on October 1, I removed The Escape from the Project Gutenberg collections and catalog and announced its removal to our mailing list.
On behalf of Project Gutenberg, I apologize for the error.
It's been done. George O Smith, "The Complete Venus Equilateral", which is, of course, still under copyright but long out of print.
You can get used copies, (which in no way benefit the author) but you can't get an ebook, legally, because the copyright owner has not seen where they would profit by it, so if you can't find it used, you can't read it.
I like Cory's line. "The problem for a writer isn't piracy, it's obscurity" heh.
Copyright is supposed to make sure authors get paid for their art for a limited time, to create incentive for them to create MORE art, not to let them live off one piece for life.
From the US Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
My apologies for my long delay in responding. As promised in September, I discussed the situation with one of Project Gutenberg's copyright lawyers. This particular lawyer had previously been very helpful in preparing and then providing legal advice and feedback on our procedures for determining non-renewal status.
Our lawyer advised that our non-renewal determination for The Escape was in error. Therefore, on October 1, I removed The Escape from the Project Gutenberg collections and catalog and announced its removal to our mailing list.
On behalf of Project Gutenberg, I apologize for the error.
It rots, like so many of the movies we've lost because the studio didn't think they were worth the cost of preservation or restoration, but couldn't stand the thought of someone getting them for free. They're rotting in some freaking vault somewhere.
Keeping Poul Anderson's works under copyright is going to encourage him to create more works? Really?
Or Walt Disney?
In theory, that's the PURPOSE of copyright. It wasn't to keep the works under the control of the author forever. It was to give them a reason to KEEP WRITING.
From the US Constitution: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Walmart isn't trying to set themselves up as a publisher. Apple is. I guess as long as you don't want to publish anything Apple doesn't want you to publish.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess if you're incapable of reading TFA, or at least the first paragraph, we can quote it for you:
Food libel laws, also known as food disparagement laws and informally as veggie libel laws, are laws passed in 13 U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These 13 states include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.[1] Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone,[2] regardless of the case's outcome.[3]
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Food_libel_laws
EVERY utility?
So my Aunt Ethel, who talks on the phone 3 hours a day, pays more than my Aunt Mildred, who makes 2 phone calls per month?
I bet they'd be surprised to know that.
I'm sorry, I thought that was your statement, not the Bears.
I did read the link,
and I didn't see where they said
"PG has decided to not review their actions to see if they have infringed on other people's works but rather to hope that no one else notices and complains."
Apple doesn't have to cave to it.. Neither do the magazines.
If the magazines don't like business terms, they can choose not to sell through Apple. That's sorta how the open market works.
Some other tablet will come out, someday, that can compete with the iPad as far as GUI and ease-of-use (Gawd, I hope so.)
And maybe it will have terms the magazines like better.
I love my iPad, but that doesn't mean I don't dislike Steve's lock-in on what I can put on it.
Really, it's no biggee.
But I hope you don't think Cooking Light has it's own circulation department? Most magazines farm it out, and those companies make a considerable amount of money even selling the subscriptions for $10/yr.
It's $5/issue at the newsstand, $1/issue at the cheapest subscription rate I've seen (I just resubscribed a friend) and to resubscribe online, you end up at secure.custsvc.com which is the circulation center for dozens of magazines.
Read the self-description of the service that gets used if you subscribe through Amazon.
http://www.synapsegroupinc.com/profile.html
If you can wade your way through the business buzz-speak. Where's my Dilbert bingo card?
"Synapse Group, Inc. is the leading independent provider of customer acquisition and management services for publishers of consumer magazines in the United States. Our distribution channels are built upon networks of affinity marketing partners, including some of the most recognized brands in the United States. We enable our affinity-marketing partners to use magazines as a marketing tool to add value to their customer relationships. "
What part of the word "subscriptions" did you not understand?
I'm looking for ANYTHING that supports your claim that "PG has decided to not review their actions to see if they have infringed on other people's works but rather to hope that no one else notices and complains."
Seems like kind of an aggressive claim.
Are you talking about this one? (It's what I'm seeing as the second link in the original post, maybe you're thinking of something else)
http://ereads.com/2010/11/project-gutenberg-improperly-pdd-copyrighted-works-authors-claim.html
I'm looking through that to see where it says "PG has decided to not review their actions to see if they have infringed on other people's works but rather to hope that no one else notices and complains."
I'm not finding it.
Or this one?
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/?p=3025
Where it says "Greg Bear: Project Gutenberg Screwed Up"
And they said they tried and made a mistake.
You've never made a mistake?
Are you upset that people agree with the US Constitution that copyright should be for a limited time?
Why do you hate America?
I can see where the "making a movie from your story after 30 years" thing would be pretty unfair, but where WOULD you draw the line?
Do the studios need to find the heirs to the Brother Grimm and pay to make movies from the fairy tales?
I can see some kind of "life of the author" rule there.
For books, especially for non-profits lite Gutenberg, I'd like to see something along the lines of "If the copyright owner hasn't published an edition in 5 years, Gutenberg can publish it electronically, but if you want to print and sell it, you still have to track down the author"
I'd love to get ebook copies of a lot out of print books, and there's no legal way to do so.
Things like T.J. Bass's books "Half Past Human" and "The Godwhale" or Wibberley's "Mouse" books.
"The Mouse on Wall Street" 2 used copies at Amazon, starting at $75, of which the author gets nothing.
.
I THINK that U.S. copyright can be renewed after it has expired, but I'm not sure.
I thought that was the reason you can get "Animal Farm" and "1984" at Australia's http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html#orwell
but not at http://www.gutenberg.org/
from their letter:
"Again, my apologies for the long delay in this correspondence. I do
anticipate we will have a revised procedure description online soon,
but did not want to delay further before sending this correspondence."
"In the meantime, I will summarize for you the main points that allowed
the renewal for Brainwave to apply to The Escape. Then, I will
provide a listing of the titles by Poul Anderson that we are working
with. That way, you might want to confirm whether our bibliographic
research (on title variations) and copyright research (on renewal
records) seems to be correct."
You seem to be under the assumption that it's EASY to find out if something is still under copyright.
from http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/renewals.html
"
There are a few ways to find out whether a copyright was renewed. Some are easier than others; some are more definite in their answers than others.
One easy way to check, sometimes, is just to see if there was any edition published more than 28 years after the original edition, and see if there's a renewal notice in that newer edition. This doesn't always work-- a lot of books simply don't get reprinted-- but if there is such an edition, it can be an easy check to make.
Another way that doesn't involve an exhaustive copyright record search is to write to the author, or their agent or estate, or to the last publisher of the book, and see if they can tell you whether the book's copyright was renewed. Of course, you might not always be able to reach them, and they might not always cooperate, but people on the Net have done this before and found out what they wanted to know. Sometimes, even if the copyright has been renewed, by mailing them you might be able to convince them to let an edition go online anyway.
It's also possible to do a search yourself of the copyright records. For 1978 onward, they're online at the Copyrigh Office, and below I'll describe how you can search the online records. Most book-related renewal records from years from 1950 to 1977 are now also online at least in page image form.
Other copyright records prior to 1978 are available in print and microform, both at the Library of Congress, and at other major libraries around the country, including many Federal Depository Libraries. A few libraries known to have a reasonably full set are the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh, the Free Library of Philadelphia (in microform), the University of Chicago library, and the University of California, Los Angeles. ...
You can also arrange for the Copyright Office to do the search for you. There's a form you can fill out and send to them, and they'll eventually let you know if they find any renewal records, and if so, what they say. This has gotten rather expensive as of late; as of January 2010, the fees amount to $165 per hour (with a 2-hour minimum) for them to search their files for you. If you want an advance estimate of the search fee, it will cost $115 more! If you're precise in your book specification, they should be able to complete the search within the 2-hour minimum. See Circular 22 for more details, and a copy of the search request form.
"
Did you read that somewhere? Any citation?
In the letter to Bear I linked to above, I see:
"We are working on enhancements to our procedures for serial works so
that we are more likely to find variations in titles such as happened
with Brainwave.
As a result of your complaint, we have received clarification from our
lawyer on situations where individual parts of entire works are
published serially, but only some of the parts, or only the entire
work but not the serial parts, are renewed. Until we received this
clarification, our procedure was that each part must have a separate
renewal for its first publication.
My long delay in responding is because our newly revised procedures
are not yet posted on our Web site. We've had some exchanges with the
lawyer I mentioned, as well as among the Project Gutenberg copyright
team and production volunteers. I do hope to have the revised
procedures for non-renewals in place soon, and meanwhile Project
Gutenberg has put a hold on public domain determinations for
non-renewals."
no but it does say "for a limited time"
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
it was originally 28 years, renewable once. It was never intended to support your grandchildren.
They did. The sent a letter of apology to Bear and took down the book.
http://cand.pglaf.org/bear-response.txt [pglaf.org]
My apologies for my long delay in responding. As promised in
September, I discussed the situation with one of Project Gutenberg's
copyright lawyers. This particular lawyer had previously been very
helpful in preparing and then providing legal advice and feedback on
our procedures for determining non-renewal status.
Our lawyer advised that our non-renewal determination for The Escape
was in error. Therefore, on October 1, I removed The Escape from the
Project Gutenberg collections and catalog and announced its removal
to our mailing list.
On behalf of Project Gutenberg, I apologize for the error.
It's been done. George O Smith, "The Complete Venus Equilateral", which is, of course, still under copyright but long out of print.
You can get used copies, (which in no way benefit the author) but you can't get an ebook, legally, because the copyright owner has not seen where they would profit by it, so if you can't find it used, you can't read it.
I like Cory's line. "The problem for a writer isn't piracy, it's obscurity"
heh.
Then why was the phrase "for a limited time" in there?
the Progress of Science and useful Arts is promoted by building on PAST progress, and you can't do that if past works are locked up forever.
Copyright is supposed to make sure authors get paid for their art for a limited time, to create incentive for them to create MORE art, not to let them live off one piece for life.
From the US Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
No, actually Greg Newby of Project Gutenberg sent Greg Bear a letter acknowledging that they had made a mistake and took the book down.
http://cand.pglaf.org/bear-response.txt
My apologies for my long delay in responding. As promised in
September, I discussed the situation with one of Project Gutenberg's
copyright lawyers. This particular lawyer had previously been very
helpful in preparing and then providing legal advice and feedback on
our procedures for determining non-renewal status.
Our lawyer advised that our non-renewal determination for The Escape
was in error. Therefore, on October 1, I removed The Escape from the
Project Gutenberg collections and catalog and announced its removal
to our mailing list.
On behalf of Project Gutenberg, I apologize for the error.
It rots, like so many of the movies we've lost because the studio didn't think they were worth the cost of preservation or restoration, but couldn't stand the thought of someone getting them for free. They're rotting in some freaking vault somewhere.
Keeping Poul Anderson's works under copyright is going to encourage him to create more works? Really?
Or Walt Disney?
In theory, that's the PURPOSE of copyright.
It wasn't to keep the works under the control of the author forever. It was to give them a reason to KEEP WRITING.
From the US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
note the term "limited time"
Um... Amazon DOES carry magazines and books about the iPad, and the nook...
Hell, they even carry "Good E-Reader Magazine. Our mandate is to write about all of the latest E-Reader, E-Book and Slate/Tablet news."
ON THE KINDLE!
They are refusing to publish a magazine in what they're trying to promote as a publishing platform.
Walmart isn't trying to set themselves up as a publisher. Apple is. I guess as long as you don't want to publish anything Apple doesn't want you to publish.