Doc Savage Novels?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

I don't see anything pertaining to the Internet in that list.

I think this part covers digital copies to the court's satisfaction:

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

Note that the wording does not specify method of transmission, so it can apply to the Internet as well as anything else.

This is the part that notably also applied to people making tape copies of movies and music at home, which is why making your own tapes (or digital copies) is technically illegal. But as I've pointed out earlier, it has never been considered practical to prosecute that, except in cases where people made multiple copies and sold them at significant profit (or potentially cost the copyright owner significant profit).

Thanks to the internet, making uber-multiple copies and risking significant potential profit is now easier than ever, hence the RIAA and their insistence on following the letter of the law.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

You may not be in violation of the law if you didn't know it was illegal when you did it. But what happens if you are told it is illegal, because you do not have the right to distribute it, and you continue to do so anyway. Are you then in violation of the law? I'd bet you are.

It depends if the things you are tolds gives you reasons to think that the material is not OK to distribute. Somebody just saying "you do not have the right" without any further arguments or clarification is probably not enough.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

It depends if the things you are tolds gives you reasons to think that the material is not OK to distribute. Somebody just saying "you do not have the right" without any further arguments or clarification is probably not enough.

Pardon, but that sounds ridiculous. Being told "you do not have the right" should be enough of a reason to avoid distribution right there. Are you saying your courts would force you to make the person who told you that produce the relevent documents, and their credentials, before you are required to believe them and accept their statement?

In the U.S., they would laugh that notion out of court. In fact, it would be my responsibility, upon being told "I did not have the right," to find and examine the documentation and credentials myself before ignoring that statement and distributing anyway.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by tompe

It depends if the things you are tolds gives you reasons to think that the material is not OK to distribute. Somebody just saying "you do not have the right" without any further arguments or clarification is probably not enough.

OK. I assume you would want some proof from the claimant to back the claim. Let's say they provided it (like, say, a copy of a copyright registration) when they served you with a take down order. That sounds like clear and unarguable infringement to me.
______
Dennis

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

OK. I assume you would want some proof from the claimant to back the claim. Let's say they provided it (like, say, a copy of a copyright registration) when they served you with a take down order. That sounds like clear and unarguable infringement to me.

In that case you seem to have good reasons to suspect or believe that it is not OK to distribute it and you should stop. But that does not makes what you did before illegal. There seems to be a lot of bogus claims of having copyright floating around or other kind of claims that what you have on an web page is not allowed. So it is not resonable that you have to believe every claim without some other evidence to support the claim.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by tompe

In that case you seem to have good reasons to suspect or believe that it is not OK to distribute it and you should stop. But that does not makes what you did before illegal. There seems to be a lot of bogus claims of having copyright floating around or other kind of claims that what you have on an web page is not allowed. So it is not resonable that you have to believe every claim without some other evidence to support the claim.

I never said what you did before was illegal, though that will depend upon where you live and what laws govern you. I was asking specifically about Sweden: if you host material on a site in Sweden, and someone claims they own the rights and ask you to take the material down, and provides what you would consider proof that they owned the rights, what happens if you refuse to take it down? Are you then in violation of Swedish law? Can you be taken to court and compelled to remove the material? I'll be very surprised if the answer is not yes to both questions.
______
Dennis

[RWood]

It gets even more mucky under the DMCA. I no longer have to register my copyright with the copyright office (part of the Library of Congress) to have a valid copyright.

Let's take a real world example -- say I bought a bunch of Steve Jordan's books. (I have and they are great, check them out.) What do I have?

I have an electronic copy of the book and a good copy of a color cover. So what can I do with that?

I could post the files on my web site and sell them. As long as Steve doesn't catch me he loses pay for every copy that is downloaded.

I could post them on the darknet and perhaps kill all of his sales for while.

Are any of these actions legal? No. I have no rights to distribute his works. If he fails to enforce his rights he is subject to having those rights stripped from him. If I posted the works (even for free) and he becomes aware of it and fails to exercise his rights the works may fall into the public domain. It is a civil matter which means that the Government will not take any action on its own, but only as Steve goes to court to get them to exercise a judgment against his works being posted elsewhere.

Was it illegal to post Steve's works before he noticed and told me to take them down? Yes. Then there is the secondary point of damages. How much does Steve want? This is why lawyers get the high fees that they charge.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by RWood

If he fails to enforce his rights he is subject to having those rights stripped from him. If I posted the works (even for free) and he becomes aware of it and fails to exercise his rights the works may fall into the public domain. It is a civil matter which means that the Government will not take any action on its own, but only as Steve goes to court to get them to exercise a judgment against his works being posted elsewhere.

Actually, David M (and Conde Nast) may argue that that isn't necessarily the case. Even if I did not enforce my claim, I don't think the works would simply fall into public domain. They would still be mine, and if I decided the day before they officially fall into public domain to sue, I could conceivably be awarded damages for every violation.

Originally Posted by tompe

In that case you seem to have good reasons to suspect or believe that it is not OK to distribute it and you should stop. But that does not makes what you did before illegal. There seems to be a lot of bogus claims of having copyright floating around or other kind of claims that what you have on an web page is not allowed. So it is not resonable that you have to believe every claim without some other evidence to support the claim.

In the U.S., it would be the duty of the distributor to stop distributing the moment they were told it was not okay, whether they had proof or not. Because, if proof was produced afterward, the distributor would be held fully liable for breaking the law after he was notified.

In the informal situation, the "burden of proof" would be placed on the distributor to establish the validity of the owner's claim. They could always ask the owner for proof, but the owner is under no compulsion to comply with the request... he can simply say "go look it up," and that's all. (Usually, they provide the proof, so there is no question.)

Interestingly enough, in the formal situation of court, the "burden of proof" would be on the copyright owner to produce the documents before the judge. If they did not produce the documents, the judge would likely let the distributor off.

Fun system, huh?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by RWood

It gets even more mucky under the DMCA. I no longer have to register my copyright with the copyright office (part of the Library of Congress) to have a valid copyright.

Yes, but this is not directly related to the DMCA. The US is a signatory to the Berne copyright convention. Coyright exists automatically upon completion of the work. Registration is not necessary to have a copyright. This was true before the DMCA existed.

If he fails to enforce his rights he is subject to having those rights stripped from him. If I posted the works (even for free) and he becomes aware of it and fails to exercise his rights the works may fall into the public domain.

And this is the fundamental issue. The applicable laws are formulated in such a manner that if you don't defend your rights, you can lose them.

Fantasy writer Katherine Kurtz went through that some years back. Some fans wanted to publish a fan magazine with stories set in Kurtz's Deryni universe, which they planned to sell. They wrote to Katherine for permission. She said no. They went ahead and published anyway!

Katherine had to sue them. She didn't particularly want to, but if she didn't, she risked losing her rights, because she didn't defend them. She sued, won, and the fans in question had to do things like take out expensive ads in trade publications acknowledging that they had violated her rights and apologizing.

Was it illegal to post Steve's works before he noticed and told me to take them down? Yes. Then there is the secondary point of damages. How much does Steve want? This is why lawyers get the high fees that they charge.

And damages are a good reason to pay the fee and register the copyright. They provide legal proof that copyright existed on the completed work as of the date the registration was made, and make it a lot easier to go for damages in an infringement suit.
______
Dennis

[kacir]

Originally Posted by GatorDeb

How many Doc Savage novels were there total?

see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels

[kacir]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you certain about that, Lauzon? I would be very surprised if that were true. You are breaking the copyright law if you download an unauthorised copy of an item which is under copyright protection, surely?

I do not know the situation in the USA, but here, in my country (EU member) this is indeed how it works. DOWNLOADING copyrighted work is not illegal. Only distributingthe copyrighted work without consent of the copyright holder is illegal.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kacir

I do not know the situation in the USA, but here, in my country (EU member) this is indeed how it works. DOWNLOADING copyrighted work is not illegal. Only distributingthe copyrighted work without consent of the copyright holder is illegal.

(Huh... to me, that's like saying it's not illegal to loot something from a broken storefront display... it's only illegal to break the window...)

This is why I really think there needs to be a set of international agreements and understandings on what, exactly, a digital work is considered, and how it should be considered under international law. Without that, I don't see how we're ever going to work out these differences and issues, which threaten to undermine any hope for a workable international digital market.

Failing that, the only other solution I see is for countries to erect digital "borders" which allow them to block specific countries from commerce. And I don't think many people want that.

[Nate the great]

Why are these stories posted on Project Gutenberg Australia? So far as I can tell most of the stories are still in copyright everywhere. Did I miss something?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

(Huh... to me, that's like saying it's not illegal to loot something from a broken storefront display... it's only illegal to break the window...)

It may be recognition of reality.

It's a bit like drug traffic: the cops want to bust the dealer. Busting the user is normally more trouble than it's worth.

This is why I really think there needs to be a set of international agreements and understandings on what, exactly, a digital work is considered, and how it should be considered under international law. Without that, I don't see how we're ever going to work out these differences and issues, which threaten to undermine any hope for a workable international digital market.

That will happen, but it will be a complex process having far more to do with politics than technology.

Failing that, the only other solution I see is for countries to erect digital "borders" which allow them to block specific countries from commerce. And I don't think many people want that.

That exists now, witness mainland China's attempts to block access to various resources elsewhere critical of the Chinese government, or the various Islamic countries imposing proxy servers at the ISP level that block access to various things considered prohibited by Islam. (Surfing for porn in a place like Saudi Arabia is a very risky thing to do.)
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Why are these stories posted on Project Gutenberg Australia? So far as I can tell most of the stories are still in copyright everywhere. Did I miss something?

Which files? The Kenneth Robeson material? I have no idea why they are there. Ask the chap that runs the site.

In practical terms, I don't think CN will go after them. Going after Blackmask is one thing, since the site and proprietor were in the US. Going after a site and site owner in Australia is a far more complex and costly operation. CN's interest in shutting down Blackmask appeared to be clearly establishing they owned the rights to the stories, in anticipation of potentially lucrative licensing deals for films based on the characters. I'd say they've done that. They may not consider the time and expense of going after a site in OZ worth it.
______
Dennis