Whatever came of the Blackmask/Conde Nast Saga?

[NatCh]

A little over a year ago, Blackmask.com became the target of a copyright enforcement "example making effort." It's since been re-incarnated as Silk Pagoda and Munseys -- sans the Doc Savage and Shadow works that were the subject of that particular witch hunt -- but what really happened?

Clearly something must have come of it, but what's the story?

A fellow MobileReader, who seems to wish to remain unknown (please pipe up if I'm mistaken! I just got that impression from your PM ) has pointed us to a blog entry by the guy behind the Black Mask that explains the matter in some detail.

It's quite interesting and informative, but it is also written mostly in a stream of consciousness approach, so be ready for that, when you click here to read it.

[Mikou]

Well, I was ready, but it didn't help. While I could appreciate a certain flair for drama, I really didn't get the gist of it.

Anyone care to summarize briefly?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

All I got out of it was that David was still screwed, but not as bad as he could've been, because:

1. While Conde Nast dragged the case out, he was able to find and forward legal documents to the estate of Walter Gibson that would hose Conde Nast's plans for film and television deals for The Shadow;

2. He also uncovered embarrassing evidence that CN had hidden from Lester Dent's widow Norma that she could have sold her movie and TV rights to Doc Savage, an established print goldmine, at any time, possibly keeping her out of poverty. Then CN finally bought film and TV rights to Doc Savage from clueless Norma for lunch money.

...but I'm not sure of the text myself... it might say that the real Shadow swept in and frightened Conde Nast from lowering the final boom, I'm not really sure.

Little help?

[Liviu_5]

I posted the result a while ago, but to repost:

If you go here

http://gutenberg.cc/Black_Mask/pulpfiction.htm#0_0_3

and click on any Doc Savage e-book, you get your answer:


"The eBook you are looking for has been removed because the source of the eBook, Blackmask Online, provided the eBook in violation of the rights of the copyright owner, The Conde Nast Publications.

In recent litigation between Conde Nast and Blackmask Online, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the books are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced or distributed without Conde Nast's permission.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Leach, 466 F.Supp.2d 628 (D. Md. 2006).

Conde Nast has authorized a series of reprints of many of The Shadow and Doc Savage books, and they are available from Nostalgia Ventures"

http://www.nostalgiaventures.com/mai...2_content.html

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

All I got out of it was that David was still screwed, but not as bad as he could've been, because

...but I'm not sure of the text myself...

Little help?

That's about what I got out of it too, Steve.

[rlauzon]

This whole Blackmask/Conde Nast thing just shows that the real threat to the media industry is itself - not the "pirates".

Something else comes to mind, though:
If I was an art dealer and I saw a Van Gogh at a garage sale for $5, according to the law, if I purchased the painting for $5, I would be committing a crime. The intent of the law is that I know that the painting is worth far more than $5 and that by paying only $5 I would be defrauding the people who are selling the painting.

Now, what's the difference between that and the Content Cartel paying (effectively) peanuts to get the rights to some content?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

If I was an art dealer and I saw a Van Gogh at a garage sale for $5, according to the law, if I purchased the painting for $5, I would be committing a crime. The intent of the law is that I know that the painting is worth far more than $5 and that by paying only $5 I would be defrauding the people who are selling the painting.

You certainly wouldn't be committing a crime in the UK. It's up to the seller to set the price of something, and the buyer has absolutely no obligation to inform the seller that the price is too low.

Is this really the law in your country?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You certainly wouldn't be committing a crime in the UK. It's up to the seller to set the price of something, and the buyer has absolutely no obligation to inform the seller that the price is too low.

Is this really the law in your country?

That's my understanding.

That law does not apply to everyone. If you were NOT an art dealer (i.e. didn't know the difference between a fake and a real Van Gogh), then buying the Van Gogh at $5 wouldn't be illegal.

A similar case many years ago came to light when a person purchased a cool purple rock at a garage sale. He found out later that he had purchased the largest amethest ever found. The person who sold it tried to use the law to get his "cut" of the money, but the courts turned him down saying that the purchaser had no knowledge about what he was buying.

But if the purchaser had been a geologist and knew that he was purchasing a large amethest, then the law would have gotten him. At the very least, the person who sold it would have gotten money.

[HarryT]

That sounds like an absolutely extraordinary law to me - it makes "bargain hunting" into a crime, from what you're saying! If I see something for sale for $10 and I think that it's really worth $20, I'm committing a crime by only paying $10 for it?

[NatCh]

I'd call that extraordinary myself -- any chance you have a law reference, rlauzon? I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I just have to read something like that for myself!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

The best part about a stupid law like that is, it demands the buyer plays stupid to avoid getting pinched. So it encourages obfuscation and shady dealing... the backbone of capitalism in America...

The moral: Always bring your game face to the garage sale.

Best trick: Tell the seller "My kid is into this stuff, he/she'll think it's cool/pretty!"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Now, what's the difference between that and the Content Cartel paying (effectively) peanuts to get the rights to some content?

I think (based on my reading of the blog) that is why Conde Nast suddenly got quiet... they knew they could be found liable for fraud, or at least, be revealed as an underhanded company that no one would want to do business with.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That sounds like an absolutely extraordinary law to me - it makes "bargain hunting" into a crime, from what you're saying! If I see something for sale for $10 and I think that it's really worth $20, I'm committing a crime by only paying $10 for it?

No. The intent was to prevent experts from paying $5 for a $5,000,000 piece of art.

If an expert saw the painting for $5. Let the owner know the real value, then offered by buy it immediately for $4,000,000, that wouldn't be a problem.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I'd call that extraordinary myself -- any chance you have a law reference, rlauzon? I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I just have to read something like that for myself!

Unfortunately not. I tried Googling for the information, but I can't find it.

I remember it because the stories seemed so anti-P.T. Barnum.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The best part about a stupid law like that is, it demands the buyer plays stupid to avoid getting pinched. So it encourages obfuscation and shady dealing... the backbone of capitalism in America...

Actually, the intent was the opposite.

The intent is to prevent people with knowledge from doing the "immoral" thing and "scamming" people.