Copyfraud - public domain's fate?

[murraypaul]

People are willing to pay for convenience, which is why in the supermarket I can buy tinned whole tomatoes, or I could pay slightly more and buy tins of chopped tomatoes.

[kovidgoyal]

Again, "The deception is implicit, unless you state on the product page, very clearly, that this very same text is available for free, elsewhere. "

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

The deception is implicit, unless you state on the product page, very clearly, that this very same text is available for free, elsewhere.

That isn't really a refutable statement, you think it is, I think it isn't, so I'm guessing we aren't going to get any further here.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

And that's the problem with current copyright law - it should be forever.

I don't think you will persuade anyone to this point of view if you just state that, without at least showing what led you to this conclusion.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

So you consider taking a public domain text, running it through an automated converter and then selling it for (potentially infinite) profit, not be fraud?

Certainly not fraud. As has been said numerous times, you can do ANYTHING with a work that's in the public domain, and that includes selling it.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly not fraud. As has been said numerous times, you can do ANYTHING with a work that's in the public domain, and that includes selling it.

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

[kovidgoyal]

And to head off the endless meaningless objections about how fraud is a legal term (why that means you cannot use it in conversation, I have no idea, but...).

I am withdrawing my claim that selling what people can get free elsewhere without making them aware they can get it for free elsewhere is fraud. Instead I am coining a new word called vraud.

Which co-incidentally has the following definition

"deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. "

And I am now claiming that selling what people can get free elsewhere without making them aware they can get it for free elsewhere is vraud.

EDIT: Oh and vraud is pronounced in the Germanic way with v sounding like f.

EDIT2: Also the fact that my definition of vraud happens to coincide with the dictionary definition of fraud is purely co-incidental, honest.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

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

Well, if the shop was in orbit or deep under the sea...

I always first check MR, even when the same book exists on PG. So, however infinitesimally small the value of "proofed and prepared by MR users" label is in comparison to the authors work, it still exists.

I wouldn't feel cheated to spend a couple of bucks for Penguin's electronic edition of the classic work, despite the fact that it is available as a free download from PG site. For a "luxurious" ebook version of the classical work to show up, the right to sell PD work has to exist.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Ankh

For a "luxurious" ebook version of the classical work to show up, the right to sell PD work has to exist.

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

EDIT: And I should clarify. I'm not claiming that you should not be allowed to sell even unmodified PD works, I'm claiming that if you do, you must inform your customers that a free version of the exact same thing exists.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Well you could stop using words like fraud, which have a legal definition,.

No, it has many legal definitions. We have more then one country here in the world.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I suspect that most people don't actually have an issue with copyright extending for an author's lifetime; the question is how far after the author's death - if at all - should it extend. I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to get a book published within my lifetime for free.

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.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I don't think you will persuade anyone to this point of view if you just state that, without at least showing what led you to this conclusion.

I suspect it is reading too much Ayn Rand. It usually is the cause of these kind of opinions.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Harmon

No, it's not. The book does not belong to him. What belongs to him is the right to commercial exploitation of the book.

When the copyright owner fails to exploit his copyright, it should be regarded as abandoned property, and revert to the general public.

It's his book and he can do whatever he wants with it. For the law to say otherwise is ridiculous.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

EDIT: And I should clarify. I'm not claiming that you should not be allowed to sell even unmodified PD works, I'm claiming that if you do, you must inform your customers that a free version of the exact same thing exists.

I disagree - caveat emptor. This smacks of needless government interventionism. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and quit this constant dependence upon government to protect them from every little bump in the road.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I disagree - caveat emptor. This smacks of needless government interventionism. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and quit this constant dependence upon government to protect them from every little bump in the road.

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.