Quote:
Originally Posted by koland
They didn't actually remove the notes (those are in a text file, shared for all notes taken). And his professor had told him he could not use that edition for the class, so it was a convenience issue (not that it would stop any attorney to argue incorrect facts or exaggerate claims). The bigger issue was whether or not amazon was a publisher or content provider - claiming to be protected in the same manner as an ISP would seem more advantageous, but that isn't the route Amazon has taken. Still, even though they do check things out, copyrights can be so muddled as to be nearly impossible to determine in some cases.
|
Thanks for the clarification, and agreed. I don't
expect Amazon to vet the rights on everything they sell. They
can't. They are at the mercy of the vendor whose goods they are selling.
Quote:
|
For these, weren't most printed in magazines (and thus have fairly short copyright)?
|
In magazines originally, and in book collections next. While magazines bought rights, back then those rights had a time limit, and had to be renewed. A lot of magazine fiction
didn't get renewed and lapsed into the public domain while the book versions did get renewed and did not lapse. The site I mentioned earlier has permission from Smith's estate and from Arkham House (who published collections as books) to host the material in electronic form for non-profit purposes, so presumably
somebody currently holds rights on the material.
The question is whether whoever issued the Kindle and nook editions actually dealt with the rights holder and negotiated the rights to offer these volumes. I don't know.
______
Dennis