Quote:
Originally Posted by rlauzon
That's why Google's database is pretty much useless. For well-known works, Amazon's own database works better.
|
If that was true, then the Harry Potter books would not have been up there, would they?
Quote:
|
Electronic or not is irrelevant since we are talking about works that saw print and were digitized - as opposed to works that went straight to digital without ever seeing print.
|
Sorry, but this is nonsense. If the electronic rights are seperate from the physical, which is normal for most commercially published books, then those are the rights which must be respected. There's no permission for Harry Potter ebooks sales, in this case.
Quote:
|
So, Obscure J. Author writes a book in 1970 and in the 80's dies. Conde Nast claims that they own the copyright to that book (even though they don't), and makes Project Gutenberg take it off the site.
|
If you make false claims punishable, then in situations of disputed copyright, the side with the better lawyers is going to get things settled out of court in their favour every time, as happens in other, similar situations in law -
regardless of the actual authorship.
As to the DMCA, it's up to the actual copyright holder to pursue the companies involved making the false claim of ownership. This is generally not cost-effective.