Which classics fall out of copyright in 2012?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ankh

That's just ... weird. So, it is OK for me (Canadian, accessing MR from Canada) to download every book on MobileRead, burn it to CD, then send it to a fellow in USA? It is the same thing as him bringing the copies in, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

it's legal for you to download, burn and send; it's Illegal for the US citizen to receive it...

(Welcome to the wonderful world of law!)

I disagree. It's perfectly legal for him to receive the CD-ROM. No unauthorised copies have be made anywhere except where the works are in the public domain.

I believe that US case law also makes it legal for him to make temporary in-memory copies while reading the contents of the CD-ROM on his computer.

It may even be that case that once he legally owns a copy, he has fair-use rights to make a copy for use on an ebook reader.

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Actually, we're talking about a farmer whose field was contaminated by Monsanto's seeds and, as per standard practice for at least five thousand years of agriculture, gathered and used the seeds, hopelessly contaminating much of his next crops.

Yup. They discussed this at length in the documentary 'Food Inc.' This guy wasn't even using their seeds but a neighbouring farm was and the field got contaminated. Monsanto made him destroy his whole crop, then blacklisted him so he couldn't even buy from them legitimately. I am all for 'pay if you use' but this would be equivalent to prosecuting people if a car driving by their house had the radio on and their ears heard music they didn't pay for, or if I was at my parents house and glanced through a magazine on their coffee table.

I notice how you don't address the actual literary example I gave As I said, we can debate how long the copyright should last before a work goes into the public domain, but eventually it *should* go into the public domain because creators don't create in isolation. And that is different from the production of a physical object. If I commission a house, I pay the labourers and then I own the house and can will it, pass it onto others, rent it out etc. I can't pay William Shakespeare for his ideas because he died hundreds of years ago. So, as part of the social contract of our shared culture, I am allowed to draw upon his work. But in return, I agree that after a time, my work will therefore join this social contract too, fall into the public domain, and be there for others to draw upon just as I drew upon those who came before *me.* I see nothing wrong with this.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

Actually, we're talking about a farmer whose field was contaminated by Monsanto's seeds and, as per standard practice for at least five thousand years of agriculture, gathered and used the seeds, hopelessly contaminating much of his next crops.

Do you have a link? All a search turns up for me is Monsanto being sued (mass tort) by organic farmers for contaminating their farms.

[ficbot]

How about this?

[HansTWN]

Yup, that's it. Thanks!

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Do you have a link?

Here is another from an impartial source:

The trial judge found that “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s crop ((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).

It's like someone found the complete works of Stephen King on my Kindle, and my defense was that they must have gotten there accidentally when I downloaded free first chapters from Amazon. Except that here the result of making it impossible to defend intellectual property wouldn't be fewer professionally crafted and edited horror novels, but less food to feed a hungry planet. I still don't understand how ficbot admitting disrespect for seed patents does anything to strengthen his or her case on copyright.

My view is obviously pro-seed-patent, but also in favor of enforced copyright for limited periods. While I don't treat the US Constitution as some kind of infalible Bible, its implication that both patent and copyright be similarly limited seems good to me. From Article I, Section 8:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I disagree. It's perfectly legal for him to receive the CD-ROM. No unauthorised copies have be made anywhere except where the works are in the public domain.

I believe that US case law also makes it legal for him to make temporary in-memory copies while reading the contents of the CD-ROM on his computer.

It may even be that case that once he legally owns a copy, he has fair-use rights to make a copy for use on an ebook reader.

I'm not so sure. There is an extradition case before the British Court on whether or not the US can extradite a British Citizen for having a web site that provided links to pirate video torrents. Providing the links is apparently legal under British law, the website was in Britian and the person never left Britain. The US (MPAA) is claiming that since the product being pirated originated in the US, Us law should take precedent...

Something to think over...

[HansTWN]

deleted

[ficbot]

I never disrespected anything. I was just responding to people who say that books are a special thing and this does or does not apply to real, physical things like property or physical goods, and I was giving an example where it did. I am absolutely NOT saying that if you want to use Monsanto seeds, you shouldn't pay for them. I was only pointing out in that specific case that they were abusing the protections patent law was giving them in going after people who were explicitly choosing NOT to use their stuff, just as I feel the endless extensions of copyright for works which reasonably should fall into the public domain (for society's benefit just as those authors themselves benefited from the works of others) is imho just as much an abuse of this same protection. That is ALL. Please do not put words in my mouth. That is a sign of sloppy discourse.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by Billi

Yes, it's okay. Hemingway is now in the public domain in Canada.

I just made a legal version and uploaded it to MR. I don't know about the cover though (I left it without one) does anyone know what kind of covers are allowed? I would expect that they are all in copyright right?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by The Terminator

I just made a legal version and uploaded it to MR. I don't know about the cover though (I left it without one) does anyone know what kind of covers are allowed? I would expect that they are all in copyright right?

Covers are generally covered by copyright; published bookcovers shouldn't be included in MR editions w/o permissions.. You have the choice of either skipping a cover, using an auto-created one like Calibre's, or making one yourself, potentially from photos or art on Flickr or deviantart that's released under a creative commons license.

When I convert public domain ebooks for myself, I make covers for them.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'm not so sure. There is an extradition case before the British Court on whether or not the US can extradite a British Citizen for having a web site that provided links to pirate video torrents. Providing the links is apparently legal under British law, the website was in Britian and the person never left Britain. The US (MPAA) is claiming that since the product being pirated originated in the US, Us law should take precedent...

Something to think over...

I was under the impression that you can't extradite from something that isn't illegal where the person to be extradited is. For example you can't extradite someone in the US to Thailand for lese-majesty since it isn't illegal here.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I was under the impression that you can't extradite from something that isn't illegal where the person to be extradited is. For example you can't extradite someone in the US to Thailand for lese-majesty since it isn't illegal here.

But it seems he also did something illegal in the US (indirectly). It is not a clear cut case, interesting to say the least.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

But it seems he also did something illegal in the US (indirectly). It is not a clear cut case, interesting to say the least.

*woosh*

Missing the whole point for 300 please Alex.

He didn't do something illegal in the UK ergo the UK can't extradite him. You only extradite people to other places if what they're accused of is a crime in both places.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

*woosh*

Missing the whole point for 300 please Alex.

He didn't do something illegal in the UK ergo the UK can't extradite him. You only extradite people to other places if what they're accused of is a crime in both places.

If it was that easy they wouldn't even have applied to have him extradited.