Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
Project Gutenberg is only concerned with US copyright law. The issue in this case is that a serialisation was later published as part of a later novel with a different name. PG didn't notice the connection until it was pointed out to them.
Here's their response: http://cand.pglaf.org/bear-response.txt |
Actually the timeline is:
September: The Bears contact PG requesting the Anderson stories be taken down
October: PG responds (pdurrant's link) saying they are taking down The Escape (because copyright was renewed under a different title) and that they are checking with their lawyers about the other Anderson stories but that they're pretty sure they're on solid legal ground to keep them up.
November: The Bears respond with the press statement quoted at ereads.com (thrawn_aj's main link) saying that they are unhappy that PG haven't changed their official guidelines yet like they promised they would and urging people who believe they hold the copyright on other PG works to send DMCA takedown notices to PG, manybooks etc.
As for my opinion on the matter: Aarrghh. Current history has proved that copyright arguments have nothing to do with what's fair or right, and are purely about figuring out what the current law actually means. Nice people get screwed and evil selfish people hoard and steal on both sides of the author/distributor divide. Figuring out which category the Bears and PG fit into in this case is completly pointless. All that matters is what's legal this week. And the only people who will figure that out is the lawyers
