Copyfraud - public domain's fate?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

By that logic, why have copyright laws at all. Copyright laws exist to protect content producers (actually distributors) from the harmful (to content distributors) actions of other members of society. If you are going to legislate to protect content distributors, why not legislate to protect content consumers as well.

Conversely, if you dont want to legislate to protect content consumers, why legislate to protect content distributors.

People don't need to be protected over the possibility of losing a few dollars because they didn't take the time to do their homework. It would be a total waste of tax dollars.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

No, the right to sell modified PD works has to exist. The right to sell format shifted but otherwise unmodified work does not.

That sounds like a slippery slope, Kovid. The extreme situation where somebody used calibre on PG text and then turned around to offer it for a mere "pittance" of $10 is a case where most of us will agree that it is a highway robbery.

On the other side, what ahi did with his PDF versions of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" can easily be qualified as a "format shifting", to PDF, of Lionel Giles' translation, which is available from PG. Let's put aside what both you and I think of PDF as a format for e-books, when ahi offered his version(s) to the MR users, quite a few of them liked it a lot.

I am not so sure that "modification" can be easily distinguished from "format shifting".

[kovidgoyal]

Herding cats. First there were the people that objected because fraud is a "legal term". Now there are people that object because, even if it is vraud, it's impossible/inefficient/inelegant to enforce a law against this type of vraud.

That's not the point. We are not sitting in a legislative body trying to frame a law. We are trying to decide, as a community, whether somebody selling an identical copy of a public domain text with no notice that it is freely available elsewhere is to be condoned or not.

Can we all agree first, that it is vraud. Then we can move on to discussions about what, if anything, should be done about it.

And if you don't agree, then please present a counter argument that addresses the classification of the act, not its legal definition or legislative consequences.

Let me put the question to you another way. Say tomorrow someone comes to you with an idea for making a quick buck. He says, "Let's download all the books from PG and run them through calibre, then sell them for $x."

Would you encourage this person, or not?

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Hmm so can we expect you to be setting up a shop selling bottled atmosphere tomorrow?

There have been oxygen bars...

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Let me put the question to you another way. Say tomorrow someone comes to you with an idea for making a quick buck. He says, "Let's download all the books from PG and run them through calibre, then sell them for $x."

Would you encourage this person, or not?

Is it illegal to do this?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Hmm so can we expect you to be setting up a shop selling bottled atmosphere tomorrow?

No. As you know very well, I choose to give my hand-formatted books away for free, but that's my personal choice. I could sell them if I wished to, and I certainly wouldn't criticise anyone who did make that choice.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Is it illegal to do this?

So you believe in letting Congress do all your thinking for you?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

So you believe in letting Congress do all your thinking for you?

No, but I also don't see anything wrong with doing what you proposed; unless calibre prohibits it. Does it?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

No, but I also don't see anything wrong with doing what you proposed; unless calibre prohibits it. Does it?

You see nothing wrong in profiting from one set of people's work by deceiving another set of people? Really? Then I'm afraid I can think of nothing more to say.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

You see nothing wrong in profiting from one set of people's work by deceiving another set of people? Really? Then I'm afraid I can think of nothing more to say.

No one is under any obligation to tell anyone else that what they're doing for profit is available elsewhere for free.

You see that as deceit and I don't. We're at an impasse, so there's really no point in hashing this out any further.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

You see nothing wrong in profiting from one set of people's work by deceiving another set of people? Really? Then I'm afraid I can think of nothing more to say.

I see things wrong in deliberately deceiving people for profit. I don't see anything unethical about not overtly telling them that a substantially identical product is available elsewhere for less, or for free.

Bottled water doesn't contain a warning notice that says "this contains the same nutrients that you can get from any kitchen sink." People are expected to know that they're paying for convenience and packaging.

Project Gutenberg is not a new, obscure website; people who don't know that "the classics" are often available for free online, or don't want to go looking to figure out from where, don't deserve any special consideration from people who reformat ebooks for sale.

That said--I'd love ebooks, or rather, all books, to carry ACCURATE copyright information. Not just "Copyright (year) by (publisher)," but "text copyright (year) by (author); this edition's formatting & introductory notes copyrighted (year) by (author/publisher)."

I hate that the same book can have six different copyright dates in its various reprints. Especially for the pre-1963 books, where initial publication date is very relevant to when it'll hit the public domain. And I'd like public domain books to be labeled as having PD text, and claiming copyright on the contents, rather than the layout, to be considered legal fraud.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think you suspicion is wrong. People I have discussed this with see nothing natural or obvious with lifetime. Most think that a much shorter time is much better and more reasonable given the goal of the copyright laws.

I think that lifetime is a good. The perceived value of one book can be increased by the author writing another, so as long as the author still writes, there should be the copyright to all the older works.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Let me put the question to you another way. Say tomorrow someone comes to you with an idea for making a quick buck. He says, "Let's download all the books from PG and run them through calibre, then sell them for $x."

Would you encourage this person, or not?

This can be good if they offer all the PD books in a nice zip file. I'm sure that many would prefer to be able to get all the books at once, and not have to download them one-by-one.

[charonme]

kovidgoyal, just to be sure, do you consider selling some product but not advertising all the possible competition's alternatives a fraud/vraud/deception/immoral/unethical ?

It is one thing to repackage/rebrand/formatshift and sell something which someone else already offered for less, and completely another thing to use the power of the state to prohibit everyone else to do the same.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by charonme

kovidgoyal, just to be sure, do you consider selling some product but not advertising all the possible competition's alternatives a fraud/vraud/deception/immoral/unethical ?

But that case is totally different. We expect that there will be other people selling nearly the same thing. But we do not expect that people will try to sell us something that is totally free.

Also if it is a book I would expect to be told the source of the text.