Comments on: Conde Nast side calls Blackmask publisher ‘a rogue’; World eBook Library removes Doc Savage & friends

By: Glenn Hopp

Glenn Hopp — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:15:11 +0000

I am not sure which page here is the one for updates on the Blackmask situation or even if I’m pointing out something that people already know. But there is some information (an exchange of emails between David Moynihan and lawyers for Conde Nast) about his effort, if I read it right, to have non-disputed titles offered elsewhere. The judge seems not to have ruled on the original matter. There is a good bit of legal and computer language to work through, but it’s interesting. As of now (8/30), this is all at http://www.blackmask.org

By: Branko Collin

Branko Collin — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:26:03 +0000

“The reasoning from Conde Nast …”

… is perhaps interesting, but completely irrelevant.

The reason the entire site got shut down, is because it is the American law to destroy 100% of a good thing when it is “tainted” by 0.001% of what a judge still has to determine might be a bad thing.

If anyone knows who the judge is for this case, I’d be glad to write some sort of official letter explaining that this is gross abuse of the DMCA. Although it would probably be better if an American wrote that letter.

David, don’t you live a stone’s throw from the court house?

By: David Rothman

David Rothman — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:54:32 +0000

An excellent question, Josh. The reasoning from Conde Nast would might be something along these lines–I’m guessing as a layman:

We warned the SOB again and again that he was infringing on a copyright that most any judges would consider valid. He ignored us. Therefore we are entitled morally, not just legally, to hurt him in a major way and have his business shut down, in effect.

Meanwhile I’d be very curious to know what David M. is up to these days. I’ve heard zilch from him. Is he fighting back in any other way? Or did he use this incident as an excue to get out of the public domain business because it was starting to bore him?

I continue to miss Blackmask and hope that David’s site will return. Don’t count on it, however.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:01:25 +0000

I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again (since I’ve gotten no answers thus far): Why was all of BlackMask shut down when it was only the two books mentioned that were in question? Shouldn’t they have only had to have the two books shut down instead of having the baby thrown out with the bathwater?

By: RH

RH — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:35:29 +0000

Actually, it sounds to me like the dispute is over who holds the trademark — which is probably what is worth more. (It is almost certain that the company sueing could care less, aside from the fact that certain judges have ruled that the failure to defend one’s copyrights like a starving dog would defend its food consituted abandonment of said copyrights…)

For the record… There was a Shadow movie, and a Doc Savage movie. Both tanked, and I am doing my best to forget having ever seen the Doc Savage one. (I actually love the Shadow movie, but I’m weird and like bad movies.) It is unlikely another movie for either will be made…

…especially since it’s incredibly unlikely that Conde Nast shall bother getting the original books republished. It is, on the whole, too expensive to do through traditional means.

Frankly? I think their best bet would have been to avoid picking on the fanbase — which is what they are doing — and instead urge Blackmask to make a licensing deal. You are allowed to make licensing deals for absurdly low prices, and it would be smart to simply insist that the books they claim be in the pay section, with them getting a share of the sales.

As several people have pointed out…Conde Nast is not actually making any money off of the books right now.

It would not actually cost them anything to offer Blackmask a very nice deal to license the books to them — and it is quite possible to license only part of a property — in exchange for all of the books being in the pay-sections and part of the sales.

The end result? They actually have money coming from an otherwise barren property, good relations with what would be an otherwise stagnant (perhaps even shrinking) fanbase…

Possibly more importantly, should they get movies made again, they would have a chance of not suffering from what hurt Sky Captian so much: an audiance with no familiarity and thus no understanding of the pulp genre.

By: Chris Duffy

Chris Duffy — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:48:45 +0000

I loved Blackmask and wish it was still up…with our without Doc Savage, Shadow, the Avenger…I was using it to work my way through 19th and early 20th century gothic fiction…and having a blast!

Does anyone know if there’s a way to offer help to the man who ran Blackmask? I always meant to volunteer transcribing or buy a product, but never got around to it, shamefully…

By: Glenn Hopp

Glenn Hopp — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:47:15 +0000

The comment above by Ela is a very nice one–and reminds me again how the real sad thing about all this is that many thousands of readable, enjoyable, quality e-books in many different convenient formats were sucked down the drain in a who’ll-blink-first dispute over titles that were, even by the most generous assessment, sort of a zircon in the diadim of American literature.

By: Ela Szlufik

Ela Szlufik — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:40:39 +0000

I live in Poland. Blackmask online was the PERFECT, very well organized source of old and mostly forgotten literature in English.
For many like me , living in Eastern Europe Blackmask was the best ambassador of USA. Most people here still think an American literature is some famous names of 20th c and the nothing before.
Sort of -some great writers living among savages like Hollywood, mob, country and western etc

By: David Rothman

David Rothman — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:54:01 +0000

Well put, Michael. I remain baffled why David M/L was so eager to do a kamikaze act, except that maybe he was getting tired of running Blackmask.

By: Michael Ward

Michael Ward — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:59:48 +0000

AFAIK the site was shut down because the webhost received a cease-and-desist notice. Probably that wouldn’t have happened if David had removed the works in question.

Certainly he could put it back up somewhere else, without them; but this would happen only if he wanted to, and had the time, the money, and the desire.

There are plenty of books improperly still in copyright due to the digital mickey-mouse act (aka DMMA), but invoking the Rights of Man isn’t going to change it. Voting for a different set of politicians, that can change it.

By: Steve DeLong

Steve DeLong — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:46:51 +0000

Blackmask DID sell paperback versions of the Doc Savage books; I know, because I bought some, and really enjoyed them. Had I known there was going to be trouble, I’d have bought all the stories he’d published, but I got on board late!

By: JHarvat

JHarvat — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:18:37 +0000

The thing that gets me is that the entire Blackmask website is shut down for what is essentially a very small part of its total offerings. Was Blackmask given the option of dropping those works which were legally in question without completely pulling the plug?

By: Robotech_Master

Robotech_Master — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:44:51 +0000

Legally, Conde Nast is in the right here, assuming the copyright renewals were valid—which I’ve heard from at least a couple of different sources that they are. The renewal notices weren’t available on-line for some time, but that didn’t make them invalid.

Let’s not get confused here by thinking that just because the law is (in our opinion) morally wrong, Blackmask should have the right to do what it pleases with the books. The law doesn’t work that way—and whether we like it or not, Conde Nast’s position is very likely legally valid.

Sure, Moynihan can still do what he pleases with the books—but he also has to take the consequences of his actions. That’s called “civil disobedience,” and it was used to great effect by the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.

The part of me that roots for the underdog hopes that Moynihan succeeds in his adverse-possession gambit—but realistically, Conde Nast will probably lawyer him into bankruptcy. And don’t forget the old adage about the man who represents himself having a fool for a client…

By: Robert Nagle

Robert Nagle — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:15:48 +0000

Garson, I wanted to point out something that is the flip side of Eldred. What the State taketh away, the State can give back as well. If lawmakers wanted, they could easily revert back to 75 years, even if certain media owners complain. Nothing in the constitution prevents that kind of law. David Rothman’s leading question “Do you think copyright terms are too long?” is exactly the right question to be asking. If it’s too long, change it. Nothing in the constitution or legal precedent is preventing this.

By not intervening in Eldred, the Court refused to let the rights of “incumbency” (for lack of a better term) become justification for preventing changes to the law.

By: KP

KP — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:53:51 +0000

What I don’t get is why is CN actually bothering with it? The only real value I can see in The Shadow and Doc Savage properties these days is movie deals, and seeing how the Sky Captain essentially tanked, I’d say pulp just doesn’t have much general appeal.

As for the copyright extensions: they haven’t been negotiated with the people, ever; they’ve been bought from the legislators by the publishing industries. The current trends towards essentially eternal copyright is endangering culture everywhere, and steps should be taken back towards shorter copyright terms, where a work has at least potential chances of going into the public domain in reasonable time, for the benefit of all. The rights-owners of the Shadow and Doc Savage have had plenty of time to make a buck out of them.