Quote:
Originally Posted by HorridRedDog
Is this a carryover from another thread?
I feel like I've missed large portions of the conversation that you are referring to.
|
No, it's just additional derailment of the original topic that started with your example of downloading Gone with the Wind being theft of income. Blue Tyson just corrected my statement that Mitchell's heirs sued PG Australia, when what actually happened was that the heirs sent PG Australia a cease and desist letter (possibly the Australian equivalent to DMCA takedown notice, if they have one), and PG Australia told them they had no standing because it was PD in Australia. Since then the Australia parliament folded to the demands of the US and EU and bumped the copyright term from life+50 to life+70. Fortunately, not retroactively, so Gone with the Wind is still PD in Australia, but there won't be any new PD materials in Australia for about 15-17 years, just as there won't be any new PD materials in the US until 2019.
I have no sympathy for any lost income for Margaret Mitchell's heirs. Margaret Mitchell was dead for 29 years when the book's copyright was extended the first time in the US, from 1992 to 2011 (like that would encourage her to produce new works), and then again to 2031. The big IP owners stole 39 years of public domain from us, just so they could make money on less than 1% of all of copyright material.
Getting back on topic, I wouldn't be surprised if the darknet site's advertising was served by a legitimate advertiser, like Google Adwords, and because the page had some keyword like book, Barnes & Noble's ad was served. I agree with Kali Yuga (there's a first time for everything), that "It is ironic, but almost certainly unintentional."