Copyright Question

[Lynx-lynx]

Can someone tell me how I would know if an author whose books I want to download are deemed to be legally downloadable?

And why, when the author/s in question died pre 1955* and the material downloaded is DRM free and free in $ cost, it may or may not be of concern to the question of copyright if a torrent type site was used to download the material?

(You can probably think of many authors in this category: GK Chesterton, George Bernard Shaw etc, etc)

Below I've copied an excerpt of the Aus Copyright info sheet in order to clarify that an author who died pre 1955 is no longer in copyright in Aus. The rules changed to suit the Aus balance of trade agreement with the US in 2005. (Yes - that's right the balance of trade agreement was the rationale behind the change in copyright law - mmmm ........)


* Here is an excerpt from the Aus Introduction to Coypright fact sheet:

How long does copyright last?

Until 1 January 2005, copyright generally lasted for the life of the relevant creator plus 50 years.

There were various exceptions to this rule, including:

• where a work was not published, performed or broadcast during a creatorʼs lifetime; and

• where something was published anonymously or under a pseudonym, and the identity of the creator couldnʼt reasonably be ascertained.

(In each of these cases, copyright lasted for 50 years from the end of the year the work was, with permission, first published, performed or broadcast.)

Under the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, Australia agreed to extend the general duration of copyright. As a result, the rules now are that copyright generally lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years and where duration depends on year of publication, it lasts until 70 years after it is first published.

The Free Trade Agreement did not, however, include any obligation to revive copyright if copyright had already expired. This means that if, under the old rules, copyright had already expired by 1 January 2005, it stays expired and the material can be used freely under Australian law.

Note, however, that the duration of copyright varies from country to country.

Where, for example, material is to be reproduced or sold overseas, or where performances are to take place in another country, advice may be needed to determine whether relevant copyright material is still protected in that country, and therefore whether any permissions may be needed in relation to the use of the material in that country.

http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/

[dwig]

For solid, reliable advice you need to talk to a copyright lawyer or lawyers (at least one for each country involved).

That said, note:

• Being free and/or DRM-free has nothing to do with copyright. Allowing a work to be distributed free of charge in no way waves copyright nor does it grant any permission for further distribution unless expressly stated.
• Books, like many works, have multiple copyrights. The author's rights are for the words and the words only. Typography, artwork (cover or internal), binding treatment (if any), ... all have their own copyright, usually held by the publisher and/or artist. The words may be PD but the rest of the book may be copyrighted, possibly preventing any further/free distribution.

[Billi]

As a short rule, the works of all authors who died in 1941 or before, are in the public domain in the life+70 countries like Australia. So, of your two examples Chesterton (1874-1936) and Shaw (1856-1950) the first one is in the public domain in Australia, the second not.

Another possibility is to check whether you find works of the authors in question in Project Gutenberg (Australia).

Our own library here generally follows the copyright law of Canada which is one of the life+50 countries. So you will find books here that you are - strictly speaking - not allowed to download because the authors are still in copyright in Australia.

[bgalbrecht]

I am not a lawyer, and I don't know Australian laws. My suspicion is that even an Australian lawyer wouldn't know unless there's been a court case in your jurisdiction concerning this. My best guess is that if you download something that is PD from Australia or another country where it is also PD, you have nothing to worry about. If you were to download it or bittorrent it from a country where it's not PD, you may be guilty of copyright infringement. I doubt that a US company would attempt to go after a foreign occasional (from their point of view) infringer, but your safest action is to see if you can find a copy to download from a country where it is PD, like Canada.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by dwig

For solid, reliable advice you need to talk to a copyright lawyer or lawyers (at least one for each country involved).

That said, note:

• Being free and/or DRM-free has nothing to do with copyright. Allowing a work to be distributed free of charge in no way waves copyright nor does it grant any permission for further distribution unless expressly stated.
• Books, like many works, have multiple copyrights. The author's rights are for the words and the words only. Typography, artwork (cover or internal), binding treatment (if any), ... all have their own copyright, usually held by the publisher and/or artist. The words may be PD but the rest of the book may be copyrighted, possibly preventing any further/free distribution.

DWIG imo you're quite right in your comments and observations, and it's obvious how simplistically Copyright can be considered if one were to think of the authors words as being the only intellectual property involved in the downloading of what otherwise is ostensibly a legal out of copyright download via a torrent stream or the like.

But what neither of us has alluded to - and what I'm wanting to hear discussion around is 'provenance'.

It seems to me that provenance of the original material that is being offered for download may be a major consideration as to the legal download of the author's words (leave out of the equation the metadata).

So, what do you think -is 'provenance' something that needs to be considered by the ordinary person in the street when contemplating an out of Copyright download of an author's words?

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Billi

As a short rule, the works of all authors who died in 1941 or before, are in the public domain in the life+70 countries like Australia. So, of your two examples Chesterton (1874-1936) and Shaw (1856-1950) the first one is in the public domain in Australia, the second not.

Another possibility is to check whether you find works of the authors in question in Project Gutenberg (Australia).

Our own library here generally follows the copyright law of Canada which is one of the life+50 countries. So you will find books here that you are - strictly speaking - not allowed to download because the authors are still in copyright in Australia.

Hi Billi

In Australia our copyright is the 50 year post death rule up until 2005 - when the Act changed because of reasons of 'Free' Trade between Aus and US. (Read we were held to ransomon this matter and a number of others, imo)

So therefore - if the author died pre 1955 then the work is out of copyright.

The change to 70 years post death was not retrospective.

As a result of your comments I have highlighted that aspect in my OP - to make it clearer.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

I am not a lawyer, and I don't know Australian laws. My suspicion is that even an Australian lawyer wouldn't know unless there's been a court case in your jurisdiction concerning this. My best guess is that if you download something that is PD from Australia or another country where it is also PD, you have nothing to worry about. If you were to download it or bittorrent it from a country where it's not PD, you may be guilty of copyright infringement. I doubt that a US company would attempt to go after a foreign occasional (from their point of view) infringer, but your safest action is to see if you can find a copy to download from a country where it is PD, like Canada.

So ... following on from this thinking ..... if one were to download a torrent from a Swedish based provider then one needs to establish the why's and wherefore's of Swedish Copyright laws.

But how did an English language edition of the book's get to Sweden? Again provenance seems to be the question.

What do you think?

[DrNefario]

I am of the opinion that if you download anything, it is deemed to be copied in Australia. Otherwise everyone could download from servers in countries with the least copyright with impunity.

As such, it doesn't matter where you get it from. If you have the right to copy it in Aus, then you are fine.

It's a ridiculous state of affairs, though, really. I have books I'm not sure I should have, and it's quite a lot of work to figure it out. I'm thinking of giving up caring.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I am of the opinion that if you download anything, it is deemed to be copied in Australia. Otherwise everyone could download from servers in countries with the least copyright with impunity.

As such, it doesn't matter where you get it from. If you have the right to copy it in Aus, then you are fine.

It's a ridiculous state of affairs, though, really. I have books I'm not sure I should have, and it's quite a lot of work to figure it out. I'm thinking of giving up caring.

Yep - what you say resonates with moi!!

If I download something from a torrent, or like site, that has servers in countries other than Australia, it seems to me that it's irrelevant whether or not that source material was in or out of copyright in the originating country.

To use the material for personal use in Australia doesn't seem to invoke the ire of the Aus gov't with respect to how you acquired the material provided it meets the year of death qualification.

For the ordinary person in the street, this is not straightforward .....

Having said all that .... provenance is still an unresolved issue in my mind ....

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by dwig

• Books, like many works, have multiple copyrights. The author's rights are for the words and the words only. Typography, artwork (cover or internal), binding treatment (if any), ... all have their own copyright, usually held by the publisher and/or artist. The words may be PD but the rest of the book may be copyrighted, possibly preventing any further/free distribution.

Doubtful. The things you list would generally be work for hire and not separately copyrighted.

[martienne]

.
Why do you care about this?

You would not get caught, and the law is ridiculous/wrong and protects outdated business models and greedy publishers. It's not like you steal anything and in the case of most filesharing, there is no possibility that the sharer would have bought the book otherwise. Downloading it simply saves you having to walk to the library while it is actually open (odds are you are working then) and return the book on time. Cost is 0 either way.

I can think of only one reason to care and that is a sincere sense of morality based on religious views, regardless of the laws of present society. This is my only reservation from my perspective.

The law is too complicated and varies from country to country while the internet is international. It depends on age of the author, location of publisher, and tons of other things that are impossible for an individual to keep track of. Most classics are no longer under copyright in some part of the world, and in some languages. It's impossible to make heads or tails of it.

For example: I as an individual live in two/three countries depending on how you look at it. I read in several different languages. I am not letting myself be concerned with this.

.

[DrNefario]

I don't know why you thnk religion has anything to with it. I'm not sure any religion has anything at all to say on the matter. I am an atheist, myself.

I certainly think the laws could do with looking at, preferrably without the idiotic lobbying of corporate interests, trying to keep extending the term, but "nobody is going to catch me" is not a great thing to build an ethical framework on.

[plib]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

but "nobody is going to catch me" is not a great thing to build an ethical framework on.

It seems to work for the lobbyists.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I don't know why you thnk religion has anything to with it. I'm not sure any religion has anything at all to say on the matter. I am an atheist, myself.

I certainly think the laws could do with looking at, preferrably without the idiotic lobbying of corporate interests, trying to keep extending the term, but "nobody is going to catch me" is not a great thing to build an ethical framework on.

Exactly, you don't have to be religious to say "screw them, I will just do what I want, period". Not being selfish to the extreme that pirates are doesn't mean one is religious. I, certainly, am not.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by plib

It seems to work for the lobbyists.

Yes, lobbyists and pirates, the both sides of the same coin. Just that the lobbyists are being smarter.