Rules regarding reusing files from the Library?

[AnemicOak]

I don't know anything about the overall quality of these books, but remembered reading about them a while back. The Michigan Open Book project is developing creative commons textbooks under a grant from the Michigan Department of Education...

http://textbooks.wmisd.org/


Just something that may be of interest.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

Not so, Amazon care nothing for silly copyright notices.

see (Look Inside) the copyright notice and claim here

You are aware that, despite their power, Amazon isn't actually a court of law, or a law enforcement agency of any kind, right?

[HarryT]

A lot of the time, such silly copyright notices are added purely out of ignorance. A person spends a lot of time creating a nice ebook and thinks (reasonably, though alas mistakenly) that this gives them some claim to it, so they add the copyright notice in the belief it'll stop someone copying the book. Most people know very little about copyright law.

[patrik]

Harry, do I understand correctly that if I take a book (in PD) that there is no digital version of, and create my own digital copy, and I give this for free to others, I can not make any sort of claim of what they do with it? (As in not making money of my specific implementation or removing the page with my info and re-release it.)

[HarryT]

Unless you add some original, creative content to it, that is absolutely correct. Many people find that surprising, but it's true. Doesn't make any difference whether you give it away or sell it; if the content is in the public domain, the recipient can do anything they wish with it, including reselling it themselves.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Best to just keep away from any side - Creationism (Young or Old Earth), Evolution, Intelligent Design, Pastafarian - something is bound to upset someone.

But only one of that is science. I for one wouldn't say, that science is the same as p&r.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unless you add some original, creative content to it, that is absolutely correct. Many people find that surprising, but it's true. Doesn't make any difference whether you give it away or sell it; if the content is in the public domain, the recipient can do anything they wish with it, including reselling it themselves.

But that creative content could be related to just formatting and typography, correct? Then while you couldn't claim any copyright or control over the content, you could over your particular edition?

By the way, this is as good a time as any for my usual admonition:

If you are actually going to be affected by the legality/illegality of any of ths, you really should consult an IP attorney, not a bunch of anonymous strangers on a public Internet forum.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

But that creative content could be related to just formatting and typography, correct? Then while you couldn't claim any copyright or control over the content, you could over your particular edition?

Typographical copyright can certainly extend to something like the layout of a magazine, or the visual presentation of poetry, but I suspect you'd struggle to persuade a court that the layout of a novel was sufficiently creative to merit copyright protection.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

But only one of that is science. I for one wouldn't say, that science is the same as p&r.

The Site Administrators think differently, or did you not see HarryT's statement?

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. The "Politics and Religion" forum is the place for discussing both. You can use the "Reading Recommendations" forum to ask for recommendations for books on any topic, but not to discuss the topics themselves if the moderating team (those people whose names are shown in green rather than black) consider them to be likely to result in heated conversations. That's why we have a dedicated "P&R" forum for people who specifically enjoy such discussions. Despite its name, it actually covers a much wider gamut of topics than Politics and Religion: basically anything that people are likely to be upset or offended by.

(emphasis mine)

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by klmmc13

Yes, religion class (for some, not all), manners & Etiquette that would make any parent proud and Hostess grateful. Also great Living History, if you think on it, teaching how people in the past behaved, and WHY it was that way.

As to Mein Kampf - one who "knows his enemy" can defeat him. There are others I don't agree with either.

I really hope you pick very wisely from those offerings, and add a lot of more up-to-date materials. - If you care to make some suggestions, I'll be more than happy to take a look at them. Thanks.

Perhaps I wasn't clear about Mein Kampf: I wasn't objecting against its presence on the reading list, but its classification as biography.

As for manners and ettiquette, here's a quote from the first book in the "Character & Etiquette" section:

You have all read the story of the kind man, who found a viper lying upon the ground almost dead with cold. He took it up and placed it in his bosom to warm it, and to save its life. And what did that viper do? He killed his benefactor! Vile, vile reptile! Yes! as soon as he was warm and well, he stung the bosom of his kind preserver, and killed him.

But that child, is a worse viper, who, by his ingratitude, will sting the bosoms of his parents; who, by disobedience and unkindness, will destroy their peace, and thus dreadfully repay them for all their love and care. God will not forget the sins of such a child. His eye will follow you to see your sin, and his arm will reach you to punish. He has said, Honor your father and your mother. And the child who does not do this, must meet with the displeasure of God, and must be for ever shut out from heaven. Oh, how miserable must this wicked girl now be, locked up in the gloomy prison! But how much more miserable will she be when God calls her to account for all her sins!—when, in the presence of all the angels, the whole of her conduct is brought to light, and God says to her, "Depart from me, ye cursed!" As she goes away from the presence of the Lord, to the gloomy prisons of eternal despair, she will then feel a degree of remorse which I cannot describe to you. It is painful to think of it. Ah, wretched, wretched girl! Little are you aware of the woes you are preparing for yourself.

If that isn't as black as pedagogy can get... But I'm afraid we're beginning to move into Politics & Religion territory.

[patrik]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unless you add some original, creative content to it, that is absolutely correct. Many people find that surprising, but it's true. Doesn't make any difference whether you give it away or sell it; if the content is in the public domain, the recipient can do anything they wish with it, including reselling it themselves.

Thanks Harry.

Been thinking a bit, and I guess the "creative" part is not in the content per se (as that comes from scanning a book in PD), but in the formatting. All the css-things surely are creative. Couldn't you argue that those things are not within PD and "mine"?

(I'm in the process of digitalizing a very rare book from 1887 which I plan to give out for free, but I would not be happy if someone else pretended it's theirs.)

[HarryT]

You could argue that. Whether a court would agree with you is a matter I'm certainly not qualified to judge, but I wouldn't bet on it. In my experience, CSS tends to be pretty "mechanical" rather than creative.

Even if your copyright claim on the CSS were to be valid, there would of course be nothing stopping anyone from copying the text from your book and using it to create their own.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by klmmc13

Question - do I gather correctly that while discussing the theory of Creationism in this forum area is NOT allowed, discussing the theory of Evolution IS ? Isn't one side of that debate just as inflamatory as the other?

If you wish to discuss the merits of creationism vs evolutionary theory, the correct place to do that would be P&R.

I've never had to rule on discussions of evolutionary theory without a comparison to creationism.

If someone wanted to discuss the merits of punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism, that would probably be OK in the lounge.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by ApK

You are aware that, despite their power, Amazon isn't actually a court of law, or a law enforcement agency of any kind, right?

Pay attention at the back there !

Originally Posted by John F

I disagree.

If I take Through the Looking Glass, put my name on it, and start selling it on Amazon, I start making money.

If I take Through the Looking Glass, put my name on it, and add a generic copyright notice, I can't sell it on Amazon and may get a $2500 fine.

To some people, that is an expensive way to circle a rabbit hole.

IMO. Deal with it!

My added emphasis

[John F]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

Pay attention at the back there !



My added emphasis

Since the emphasis is on my post, I'll clarify my assumption: Amazon would not sell it because it would be a clear violation of the law, and their lawers would advise them against breaking the law, or doing something that may possibly get them into legal trouble. IMO.