The Ethics of Typesetting

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Once it's in the public domain, we are all the copyright holder. That's what "public domain" means--it's everyone's IP.

And even if it's not in the public domain, the publisher's contract almost certainly gives them the right to edit the book.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Jovvi

Well I think some people just love words, they like to discuss meanings and interpretations, I do, too, sometimes (Swedish words with my friends), but when reading a literary text, I usually prefer not having to look too many words up in the dictionary (occasional words are fine) because doing that distracts me from the story and for me the story is the most important thing about books.

Whereas for me, looking up words is like savoring the nuances of a presentation of perfectly confected truffles, or the variations between vivid-colored wings in a lepidopterist's display. I even love the vocabulary of difficult poetry, which can taste like a dense chocolate cake with seemingly infinite layers of different fillings or, alternately, fill the eye like a mixture of nacreous coprolite and glittering adamantine stones.

When a fiction writer employs a rich vocabulary, I revel in it. The only time I don't like it is when a writer uses an odd word to impress you and then stands there pointing at it (David Foster Wallace, I'm gazing at your well-intentioned ghost).

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That is not true. When a work is in the public domain, anyone has the right to do with it as they wish. Earlier, you objected to the copyright holder making changes to the Nancy Drew books. Those changes were far more sweeping, because they didn't create an alternative version alongside the original, the edited version replaced the original. You could only find the original if you could get an old copy. You couldn't buy it in stores, because the only version available was the version edited by the copyright holder. The copyright holder is under no obligation to tell you what changes were made or to tell you that changes were made at all.

I'm not talking about some legal right. I'm talking about a moral right.

I objected to the changes in Nancy Drew because the originals were turned into pablum--there may be some Nancy Drew fans who prefer the revisions to the originals, but I've never come across one. I do not question the right of the publisher to have made any changes, only their judgment.

With public domain works, if there is a problem, it is clearly less of a problem than edited books under copyright, because the original version remains dominant. Project Gutenberg isn't going to carry an edited version, and at the book outlets, the original has a major advantage in being free. I have paid for public domain books, I haven't paid much, but I have paid. I have paid when the version has added value. I bought the complete set of Baum's Oz books, for the convenience in having them in one volume, and having an interactive table of contents. If people think that this edited book has value, they will buy it. If they don't, they will go with the original, which they can get for free.

This is all really irrelevant. The Ruth Plumly Thompson book in question, for instance, isn't available at PG. Likewise other public domain books are sprinkled all over the Web--look at the library here, or at Munseys--without necessarily being at PG. I have a certain faith in PG to give me the straight text, but now I'm not so sure about other sources. What's to stop them from going all PC? If I'm familiar with a story, maybe I'll notice. If I'm not, then what? I could be reading a highly censored version and never know it. It may be legal for people to edit the works of the past, but it's still wrong.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Once it's in the public domain, we are all the copyright holder. That's what "public domain" means--it's everyone's IP.

Yeah, so changes shouldn't be made unless all of us agree to them.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I'm not talking about some legal right. I'm talking about a moral right.

I objected to the changes in Nancy Drew because the originals were turned into pablum--there may be some Nancy Drew fans who prefer the revisions to the originals, but I've never come across one. I do not question the right of the publisher to have made any changes, only their judgment.

So, you are saying the copyright owner had no moral right to make changes to the Nancy Drew books? The point is that with the Nancy Drew books, the changes were made without informing the reader what changes were made and without informing the reader what changes were made. The problem that you think is so bad with e-books is clearly worse with paper books, because with paper books, the original gets buried.

This is all really irrelevant. The Ruth Plumly Thompson book in question, for instance, isn't available at PG. Likewise other public domain books are sprinkled all over the Web--look at the library here, or at Munseys--without necessarily being at PG. I have a certain faith in PG to give me the straight text, but now I'm not so sure about other sources. What's to stop them from going all PC? If I'm familiar with a story, maybe I'll notice. If I'm not, then what? I could be reading a highly censored version and never know it. It may be legal for people to edit the works of the past, but it's still wrong.

It is possible that their could be some wild conspiracy to eradicate the original version, but it is extremely unlikely. Amazon, for example, COULD eradicate the original version of a book from its servers, and only chose to stock an edited version. But is every retailer going to be in on the conspiracy? If it is documented that the book is not the original, but is edited, there's no problem. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[Jovvi]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Yeah, so changes shouldn't be made unless all of us agree to them.

Or, the changes could be made if the changes was clearly labeled, but the original could not be buried and forgotten unless all of us agreed to it (and that would clearly not happen).

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Whereas for me, looking up words is like savoring the nuances of a presentation of perfectly confected truffles, or the variations between vivid-colored wings in a lepidopterist's display. I even love the vocabulary of difficult poetry, which can taste like a dense chocolate cake with seemingly infinite layers of different fillings or, alternately, fill the eye like a mixture of nacreous coprolite and glittering adamantine stones.

When a fiction writer employs a rich vocabulary, I revel in it. The only time I don't like it is when a writer uses an odd word to impress you and then stands there pointing at it (David Foster Wallace, I'm gazing at your well-intentioned ghost).

Maybe you should become a Philologist! [nudge] I've had a bit of a hankering for it but I'm horrible with languages... *sigh*

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

So, you are saying the copyright owner had no moral right to make changes to the Nancy Drew books? The point is that with the Nancy Drew books, the changes were made without informing the reader what changes were made and without informing the reader what changes were made. The problem that you think is so bad with e-books is clearly worse with paper books, because with paper books, the original gets buried.

Are you deliberately misreading?

I said--and you can go back to the original post when I brought up Nancy Drew--that Nancy was a Syndicate creation and the Syndicate could do whatever it liked with the character and the books. They own the rights. I don't have to like it, and I don't, but I never questioned the absolute right of the creator/copyright holder to do what they will.

I don't believe an individual with a computer has a moral right to tinker with the text of someone else's published work in the public domain (beyond, possibly, the correction of an obvious typo, like teh for the). Obviously, if you do it for your own personal version of the text, that's your business, but I think it's wrong wrong wrong to foist your sanitized/corrected/new and improved version on the masses and pretend it's the real McCoy.

It is possible that their could be some wild conspiracy to eradicate the original version, but it is extremely unlikely. Amazon, for example, COULD eradicate the original version of a book from its servers, and only chose to stock an edited version. But is every retailer going to be in on the conspiracy? If it is documented that the book is not the original, but is edited, there's no problem. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Oh come on. Who said there's a conspiracy? Who even hinted at it? What is entirely possible, though, is a confusion of different versions. The Silver Princess book, for example, is now published in one version. Don't you think someone else--or several someone elses--might publish another version, with different changes, maybe documented, maybe not. Changes and/or errors can be perpetuated endlessly, until the original is a faint memory.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't believe an individual with a computer has a moral right to tinker with the text of someone else's published work in the public domain (beyond, possibly, the correction of an obvious typo, like teh for the). Obviously, if you do it for your own personal version of the text, that's your business, but I think it's wrong wrong wrong to foist your sanitized/corrected/new and improved version on the masses and pretend it's the real McCoy.

How do you feel about changing spellings, Catlady? Should they be modernised, in situations where they've changed?

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

So, you are saying the copyright owner had no moral right to make changes to the Nancy Drew books?

I barely think the author has the moral right, though I do grudgingly concede it. So I certainly don't think the publisher has the right.

[QuantumIguana]

No one is talking about passing off a changed work as the "Real McCoy." If changes were made without informing the reader than changes were made, then yes, that would be deceptive. But from the beginning, it has been clear that what is being discusses involves books where it is made clear to the reader that this is an edited version.

For an edited version to replace the original would require that all the sellers supress the original in favor of the edited version. That's a conspiracy.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How do you feel about changing spellings, Catlady? Should they be modernised, in situations where they've changed?

Well, if I say no, are you going to bring up Chaucer?

What spellings are so altered in the last 200 or so years as to be completely incomprehensible now?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Well, if I say no, are you going to bring up Chaucer?

What spellings are so altered in the last 200 or so years as to be completely incomprehensible now?

No, I was actually thinking of more modern things. Eg, in the original Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew books, they often use the then-common spelling of "clew", rather than "clue". Would you change that, or leave it as it is?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No one is talking about passing off a changed work as the "Real McCoy." If changes were made without informing the reader than changes were made, then yes, that would be deceptive. But from the beginning, it has been clear that what is being discusses involves books where it is made clear to the reader that this is an edited version.

For an edited version to replace the original would require that all the sellers supress the original in favor of the edited version. That's a conspiracy.

No. As I said, if you are faced with a choice of, oh, 10 versions of Silver Princess a year from now, none of them being from PG, how do you know which one to download if you want the undoctored original? Not conspiracy: confusion.

I used to run Web site that included a lot of links to public domain children's books. Usually the links were to PG, but sometimes other sites seemed to have "nicer" versions (this was back before e-readers when PG's versions were text files). Turned out that some of those other versions were bowdlerized, which I only learned because some readers pointed it out. Certainly the sites where the books were offered didn't. I had no way of knowing, nor did the people who followed my links for downloads.

[QuantumIguana]

We are at least in agreement that if a work is altered, whether edited for content or for size, that it should be be clearly labeled as an altered work. If someone is getting a condensed version, they should be informed that they are getting a condensed version, if someone is getting a version that is edited for content, they should be informed of that. If someone is editing works and not it is not made clear in the text, that is a problem.

People don't tend to get their e-books from just any random website. The easiest source is to go with the seller associated with the reader. When I go to Amazon for a public domain book, the free version is on top of the list. Anyone making edited version and attempting to sell has to compete with a free version, and that's tough to do unless you can convince the reader that there is added value over the original. I don't know Amazon's policy, but I expect that an edited version of a book that did not contain a disclaimer would be flagged pretty quickly. At the very least, it would get poor reviews, and thus drop down the list.

I have a copy of the text of the original Silver Princess in Oz, if I can find a copy of the original title page, maybe I will upload it to PG.