TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home

Archive for the ‘copyright ghosts’ Category

By Robert Nagle

You may remember that I was raving about Dorothy Scarborough’s 1925 novel The Wind a while back. Here’s a public domain 1920 essay she wrote for Harpers.

Guess who needs a one year subscription to Harpers?

Update: I guess the point of this post was not clear. Harpers has graciously put public domain works online, but is charging people money for it.  Those who control the access also control the public domain. The fact that Harpers would put this essay on the website and simultaneously refuse access to it unless you paid for it is both hilarious and sad. Boo Public Domain! Horray for capitalism!

By Robert Nagle

Perhaps Mickey shouldn’t be smiling.

Remember the copyright-related mischief in Washington, D.C., that kept The Great Gatsby and many great works from making it into the public domain for now? Corporations such as Walt Disney lobbied for the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, popularly known as the Mickey Mouse Act—intended to protect the rodent, among other Disney properties.

Last week, however, Lawrence Lessig at Stanford University Law School reported that a unanimous 10th Circuit Court decision about copyright extensions might reopen another legal challenge to the law.

“In a unanimous vote, the Court held (PDF) that the ‘traditional contours of copyright protection’ described in Eldred as the trigger for First Amendment review extend beyond the two ‘traditional First Amendment safeguards’ mentioned by the Court in that case. It thus remanded the case to the District Court to evaluate section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (’URAA’) under the First Amendment, which removed material from the public domain.”

Opt-in vs. opt-out copyright system: New legal climate

Lessig continues: “In Golan, the issue is a statute that removes work from the public domain. In a related case now on cert to the Supreme Court, Kahle v. Gonzales, the issue is Congress’s change from an opt-in system of copyright to an opt-out system of copyright. That too, we have argued, is a change in a ‘traditional contour of copyright protection.’ Under the 10th Circuit’s rule, it should merit 1st Amendment review as well.

“I suspect this decision will weigh heavily in the Supreme Court’s determination whether to grant review in the Kahle case (PDF).”

See an earlier background report on the Kahle case and the most recent information.

Less cheer from Google’s William Patry

Meanwhile William Patry, senior copyright counsel at Google, provides a less sanguine opinion about the recent decision:

“But, Eldred did state that First Amendment scrutiny might be appropriate if copyright legislation ‘altered the traditional contours of copyright protection,’ 537 U.S. at 221, and that’s how the Tenth Circuit spent the remaining 21 pages of its opinion. Of course, one might lose even if the contours were believed to have been altered, and that’s what the remand is about. (more…)

By Robert Nagle

I am not a lawyer. But every time I reach a point in my understanding of copyright law where I feel as though I finally understand it, something comes up that makes it clear I don’t know nuthing.

When did this feeling of helpless incomprehensibility first come about? It was probably when I realized that Americans will be traveling in space elevators before they can legally post an mp3 of Andrew Sister’s Bei Mir Bist du Schon (1937) on a website. (Current estimates are that we may even have space elevators before it will be legal to sing the 1893 song Happy Birthday in public). I guess we will have to consult Lawrence Lessig or William Patry about the legality of singing the Warner-Chappell song inside a U.S. built space elevator.

But another legal can of worms involves the use of images for Wikipedia (and its sister projects). It has implications that reach far beyond U.S. borders. (more…)

By David Rothman

E-books for kids: Where to find ‘em—modern titles, not just public domain books alone

Bend away! PVI’s flex e-paper is on the way! Maybe final versions by mid-2008

Sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle: Scribd.com deserved a DMCA takedown notice

Illustrated Sony primer for newbies—plus more FBReader basics

Free Internet Public Library will answer your queries, via site or human help

Gizmo alerts: Fujitsu T2010 Tablet PC, iLiad woes, AlphaSmart word-processors

Jane’s warnings to e-book authors: Heed even if you’re just a reader

Let the meteors fall where they may? The pitfalls of Jon Evans’ publishing scenario

SFWA issues mistakenly broad DMCA takedown notice—unwittingly harming sci-fi writers such as Cory Doctorow

Meanwhile don’t forget to scroll below for today’s TeleBlog posts.

By Bill McCoy

Google, Others Contest Copyright Warnings, in the Wall Street Journal, notes a pending complaint that the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) , a trade group in which Google, Microsoft and others are members, is filing about copyright notices that, according to the CCIA, misled users by not noting legitimate fair-use reproduction rights.

What Google’s role, if any, in the complaint is not entirely clear, but it certainly seems ironic that Google is being associated with this complaint, at the same time as they are putting putting highly misleading notices on scanned public domain works.

Supposedly “essential” watermark

The Google notice, found as page 1 on downloadable PDFs of public domain works available via Google Book Search, “asks” users to:

Make non-commercial use of the files. We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes…Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

There is clear U.S. precedent that scanning a public domain work does not create a new copyright so there seems to be absolutely zero legal basis for restricting use or forcing users to preserve inserted per-page watermarks-cum-advertisements. (more…)

By Robert Nagle

I spent Sunday downloading lots of PG texts and converting things into the e-book format of choice at the moment (Mobipocket). A month ago my eBookwise broke, so I had to redownload everything into a usable format. I encountered some difficulties with manybooks files (see my earlier post about Manybooks vs. Project Gutenberg).

Poetry poses unique challenges. Sometimes the ASCII text files of PG destroys the stanzas and indents; sometimes the small size of the PDA breaks lines which shouldn’t be broken (This happens even with the more recent html versions being produced by PG).

I recently found out about the American Verse Project which, in addition to having several complete poetry collections, lets you view a book as a single web page. That’s the key thing for easy e-book conversion. I was now easily able to download poetry by Carl Sandburg, Phillip Freneau, Phyllis Wheatley (pictured above), Vachel Lindsay and others. The key is making sure to click the View Complete Text on the right side of the page. (This is all courtesy of the power of TEI). (more…)

By Chris Meadows

Found via BoingBoing:

Stanford University has opened an on-line copyright renewal search database, covering the period from 1923 to 1963 when preventing a work from passing into the public domain required renewing its copyright registration. Prior to this database, there had been no easy or inexpensive way to search renewals for this period.

This database will assist both prospective publishers of orphaned works and public domain scanning groups such as Project Gutenberg.

By Robert Nagle

“You are all a lost generation”
Gertrude Stein, quoted in preface to Hemingway’s Sun Also Rises (1926)

Pity poor Herman Melville. He wrote tons of stuff, was underappreciated in his time and worked on Billy Budd, the novella widely considered to be his masterpiece between 1888 and 1891. It went unpublished until scholars found the work among Melville’s papers in the 1920’s (and critics during the time praised it highly). Nonetheless the edition published by Raymond Weaver in 1924 was later acknowledged as defective. Four years later he revised the 1924 version, but it wasn’t until 1962 that Hayford and Sealts produce a version that seem more in keeping with the author’s intentions.

Because the work was originally published in 1924, this version was supposed to enter the public domain in the year 2000. Actually though, because of the Freeze-the-public-domain legislation passed by Congress , these works will enter the U.S. public domain only in 2019. And the improved Hayford and Sealts edition was published in 1962; that will enter the public domain in 2058, a full 177 years after Melville finished working on it). This is a perfect example of the paradox of scholars working on classic texts. Each generation of scholars “improves on” the prior edition, delaying the date at which the “latest/greatest” edition enters the public domain. No matter how much time goes by, a later edition (complete with annotations and critical introductions) will be repackaged and resold as a new edition–always under copyright. (David Padilla has edited an amazing hyperlinked version of Billy Budd).

(more…)

By Robert Nagle

See also: Welcome to 1922! (Introduction), Ghosts of 1924

All the works listed below were scheduled to go into the U.S. public domain in 1999–except that a 1998 law mandated a 20 year delay–causing higher prices for students, teachers and libraries. Instead of 1999, these works will become part of the U.S. public domain only in 2019.

Caveat: This is a work in progress. It may not be accurate. However, it will be updated over time (and hopefully made more accurate). Some of the works listed below might be very well be in the public domain or special arrangements might have been made to make them available in digitalized form. Always google to be sure. If you have edits/additions, send them to me here: idiotprogrammer at fastmailbox.net .

(more…)

By Robert Nagle

Welcome to 1922! Welcome to 1922!

You know about that year, don’t you?

In January 1 1998, films and literary works from 1922 went into the public domain. This New Year’s ritual was something that been happening for decades. But in 1999 everything stopped. Every New Year’s Eve, we go to sleep awaiting the next batch of public domain releases available for free sharing and distribution. And on New Year’s Day, 2000, audiences find that the latest public domain works released are once again…1922. And in 2001, once again, the latest public domain works are… 1922. And in 2002, and so on all the way until the year 2018. Extending public domain by 20 years means that for 20 years (until the year 2018) Americans must live without any new creative works added to the public domain.

I’m reminded of Bill Murray in Groundhog Day who wakes up and finds the same song repeating over and over again, the same Sonny and Cher song on the clock radio, I’ve got you babe. Who would have ever thought that Sonny Bono, the man who sings this song (and whose voice signals to Bill Murray that he is stuck in that same time-frozen lunatic universe) would be the same man whose legislation would keep American public culture frozen in a perpetual state of 1922?

Welcome to 1922! You’re better get used to it, because we have 12 more years to enjoy that damn year. (more…)