Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Project Gutenberg Threatened Over PG Australia

Posted by timothy on Wed Oct 27, 2004 02:54 AM
from the wind-done-gone-wasn't-enough-for-'em dept.
Censorship Books Media The Internet
Jon Noring writes "Michael Hart's venerable Project Gutenberg, based in the United States, is now being threatened with a lawsuit from the estate of the long-deceased author of 'Gone With The Wind.' The threat is being made because Project Gutenberg of Australia (link not provided) has the digital text version of GWTW on its server (GWTW is Public Domain in Australia), which, according to the estate's lawyers, is downloadable from the United States. Further information, including the copy of the 'take down' letter, and some commentary, is given at TeleRead. It is likely the threat is legally meritless, yet it is troubling, showing how online repositories of public domain works may be impacted by threats from other countries where the works are still covered under copyright."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Project Gutenberg Threatened Over PG Australia 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • And next week... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PepsiProgrammer (545828) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @02:58AM (#10639608)
    Next week the japanese government will start issuing cease and desists for porn sites in the US for showing content against their laws.

    • Re:And next week... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Walkiry (698192) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:01AM (#10639622) Homepage
      >Next week the japanese government will start issuing cease and desists for porn sites in the US for showing content against their laws.

      No no, you have it all wrong, according to US laws (read: crap being pushed by Disney & Co. for unlimited and unrestricted copyright) it works only ONE way. That is, you can sue out of the US, but you are supposed to be ignored if you try the other way around.

      • Re:And next week... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tpgp (48001) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:41AM (#10639766) Homepage
        Aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh!

        This really drives me insane - if the US government wants to do this to its people it should do what every other government that wants to limit information in its society does.

        And that's set up a China style firewall around the entire country & limit its citizens information access within its own borders

  • You know... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Walkiry (698192) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @02:58AM (#10639610) Homepage
    I severely doubt this would fly in a court room. Australian law says it's public domain and it's hosted in an Australian server. Now, of course, the problem is that the copyright holder is aiming at "winning" by hoping the GP guys won't fight over it.

    Perhaps Australian politicians like to please the US (as I've read in comments by aussies in some internet boards, no idea if that's the case), but I'd be very surprised if the judges are going to play along nicely when someone tries to push their country laws over their own.

    • Re:You know... (Score:5, Funny)

      by lartful_dodger (821976) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:48AM (#10639791)
      I was going to say that when the Powers That Be in the US say "jump" the Australian 'government' asks "how high?", but

      a) you can't jump when you're kneeling,
      and
      b) you can't ask questions with your mouth full.

  • Chill. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Breakfast Pants (323698) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @02:58AM (#10639611) Journal
    The threat is completely meritless indeed. Its illegal to post nazi propaganda in Germany yet as an American citizen I can post it with no worries from Germany.

    • Re:Chill. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:00AM (#10639618)
      That's because the government and people of certain countries know where their national boundries end, and don't try to force their laws on to the rest of the world.

        • Re:Chill. (Score:5, Informative)

          by k98sven (324383) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @04:06AM (#10639841) Journal
          There's a certain difference between this and the issue at hand here though.

          When did France supposedly sue Google? I haven't heard of that.
          But as for the Yahoo cae: France and Germany were trying to enforce their own laws on their own territory. They weren't trying to stop Yahoo US from selling Nazi stuff, they were trying to stop them from selling them to people in France and Germany, where such a sale would be illegal.

          It seems a relatively reasonable given that there isn't any international law on this subject.

          The case at hand here is a copyright issue. The international rules here are clearer. It's not much a matter of interpretation because this stuff is adressed in the Berne Convention, which the USA has signed.

          As far as I understand Berne, the person downloading from the USA is the one committing the infringement, and liable under US copyright law. But the person in Australia serving the text which isn't copyrighted there is not commiting any crime.

          I think you're comparing an apple to an orange here.

    • So can I also...? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by koi88 (640490) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:34AM (#10639744)

      So if I find a country that has very lax copyright laws or none at all, can I make there a ftp-server?
      Upload games, movies, music and, ok, texts (like Project Gutenberg)... free for everybody to download?
      There must be countries like this, no? Maybe some small island...

      • Re:So can I also...? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by RedBear (207369) <redbear AT redbearnet DOT com> on Wednesday October 27 2004, @05:00AM (#10640028) Homepage
        Sure, everything would be free to download, for people in that country, and for people in any other country with similarly lax copyright laws. While people in other countries would also be able to get to the files and download them, those people would be violating the copyright laws of their own country.

        As in this case, the copyright holders have no right to sue you, because you aren't breaking any laws in your own country, and you also aren't actively violating any laws in their country. The offense is not yours, it is on the part of the people doing the downloading.

        Just because technology is allowing people in some other country to break their own laws, that's not your problem. This is just the typical American hubris, thinking they (we) have the right to tell people in some other country what to do.

      • Re:So can I also...? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nurgled (63197) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @06:22AM (#10640287)

        Be careful. If you put the server in a copyright-free country but continue to reside in a country which has copyright laws, you could find yourself sued or prosecuted. Servers don't break laws, people do.

  • Now THERE's an interesting hack of the law! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TyrranzzX (617713) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:08AM (#10639650) Journal
    In America, it's the sender, not the reciever, who is guilty of copyright infringement. If I make a dub of a DVD and give it away, I am breaking copyright law, not the person I gave it to. Now, if someone from a foreign county is doing the sending legally, then who do you sue?

    Mabye I'm wrong or pointing out canadian law or something, but still, it's pretty funny. They can't do a damn thing about it, heh.

  • They only had to wait... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Col Bat Guano (633857) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:16AM (#10639677)
    Australia has entered a free trade agreement with the USA, which amongst other things, will bring our copyright laws inline with theirs.

    This will mean works that are now in the 50-70 year period after the death of the creator will be back under copyright. :-(

    That and we'll all start enjoying the US's wonderful software patents...

      • Re:They only had to wait... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dbIII (701233) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:34AM (#10639745)
        That and we'll all start enjoying the US's wonderful software patents...
        Hey, some people think it's worth it. We might get to sell more steel and beef to the USA in eighteen years time! Sugar, of course, is not negotiable.

        Australia screwed itself on this one - the party in power was going to get a deal agreed on within the time limit no matter how bad it was, and the US negotiators of course took full advantage of the fact (hence the wierd eighteen year re-negotiation offer). Serves us right really, we went into Iraq not for whatever multiple reasons the USA did , we just did it for the money and got screwed over. The party that did it got three more years, so they don't care.

  • Long Live Project Gutenberg (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ewhac (5844) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:16AM (#10639682) Homepage Journal

    Don't expect Project Gutenberg to back down on this. They were the ones who, with the help of Lawrence Lessig and the EFF, filed suit to have the Sonny Bono Perpetual Copyright Act struck down as failing the "limited times" clause in the US Constitution. Sadly, they lost that case. But it should illustrate that PG does not take $#!t like this lying down. Expect a fight.

    Schwab

  • U.S. law without borders? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ^Case^ (135042) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:17AM (#10639686)
    From the article:

    Please be advised that Project Gutenberg and PGA are subject to U.S. copyright law and to jurisdiction in the U.S.


    So PGA, an australian entity(!), is subject to U.S. copyright law and jurisdiction? Wouldn't that also mean, that australian copyright law is applicable to U.S. entities, or is the U.S. the only country in the world who can dictate their laws unto others?

  • GWTW .nyud.net link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:18AM (#10639689)
    The threat is being made because Project Gutenberg of Australia (link not provided) has the digital text version of GWTW on its server

    You'll find the illegal contraband on this page [gutenberg.net.au].

    And here are some nyud.net cachelinks to the ebook in question:

    Margaret MITCHELL (1900-1949)

    • Gone with the Wind (1936)--Text [nyud.net] (2.3 mb)--ZIP [nyud.net]

    Please spread this work far and wide. Also remember that this is the same greedy estate that killed off a great derivative work entitled The Wind Done Gone [wikipedia.org] . This sort of extreme Intellectual Property protectionism is counter-productive to the intent of copyright, and we must put a stop to it.

    (posted anonymously to preempt karma-whoring whiners.)

  • Sealand (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BlackHawk-666 (560896) <ivan.hawkes@mac.com> on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:20AM (#10639697) Homepage
    This is defintely a case where the services of Sealand [sealandgov.com] and their hosting services [havenco.com] would be useful. It's sickening to see how these corporate bandits can lift stories from the wealth of the public domain, exploit them, then not ever have to contribute back their own derived works (think Disney, Snow White, etc).

  • Used book stores? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheLoneCabbage (323135) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:57AM (#10639818) Homepage
    I can't imagine what they are attempting to gain from this. If your dead set on reading this online you can get it with or without the help of TGP. And if your like me and dislike the eye strain of reading online, you can always go to a used book store and buy it for $2USD. In any of the above cases the estate doesn't see one cent.

    The only case I'd imagine the suit has merits, to lost revenue, is as mandetory reading material for school children. Such as mass purchases by schools for the students (who should be buying it used anyway, but that's not relevent here). In that case there really just gouging schools. Way to go!

    Can anyone else think of a ligitimate reason why this law suit should matter to the estate holders?

  • BULLSHIT!
    BULLSHIT!
    BULLSHIT!
    BULLSHIT!
    BULLSHIT!
    BULLSHIT!
    BULLSHIT!
    BULLSHIT!
    http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ [gutenberg.net.au] is not under US jurisdiction? It's under australian jurisdiction.
    You can see at the adress that you are in an other "country".

    If the US are so eager to push their laws into other countries maybe they should join the International Crime Court [ICC] [icc-cpi.int] and not avoid it like some vampires the sunlight! I think the ROI at WIPO is better than at the ICC!

  • Aussies cant have it both ways Dow Jones v Gutnick (Score:4, Insightful)

    by indaba (32226) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @04:58AM (#10640021) Homepage
    As an Australian, it pains me to admit this, but we can't have it both ways.

    In 2002, the Australian High Court in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56 .html [austlii.edu.au]
    http://vigilant.tv/article/2544 [vigilant.tv]
    said that an Australian defamed on a website hosted overseas could sue, and that Australian courts did have jurisdiction.

    In this landmark case testing the limits of legal jurisdiction in the Internet age, Australia's highest court clearly said that the harm was done to the Australian person defamed, despite and regardless that the material was hosted on a foreign server.

    So, as Australians, we can't then turn around and say that just because it's hosted on servers in Australia, that the harm done is irrelevant to the Americans IP owners

    This is a logical analysis, that doesn't take into account the very dubious merits of the Sony Bono Act. (IMHO)
    Regardless of wether we personally like a law, the courts will attempt to maintain coherence of legal principle.

    In this case, reducing it to mathematics ;

    IF (hosted overseas) AND (harm done in Australia) = within Australian jurisdiction
    then the converse must be true...

    IF (hosted in Australia ) AND (harm done overseas) = within overseas jurisdiction

    If the GWTW party sues and this goes to court, I would expect them to argue the jurisdictional question on the basis of Australian law, and not the merits of Sony Bono.

    This way they can bring the case in Australia, seek Australian remedies, and neatly sidestep the international jurisdictional questions.

    Bugger, hoisted by our own petard !

    • Invalid! (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Famous Brett Wat (12688) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @07:31AM (#10640558) Homepage Journal
      Look, I hate to be picky, but the fact that you've been modded up to +5 insightful is demonstrating a real problem here. So listen up, geeks of mathematics, logic, computer science, and other heavily left-brained things: you can't think like this when the subject is law. Law just doesn't work like that. For starters, you can't assume that law B will be enforced in such-and-such a way because law A is. They are different laws! Copyright and defamation [nutters.org] are entirely different beasts with entirely different legal tests for jurisdictional relevance. In this case, we're not even talking about similar jurisdictions, let alone similar laws. Actually, a jurisdiction doesn't seem to have been chosen yet, since nobody has been summoned to an actual court -- it's just landshark sabre-rattling so far.

      I could go on, but the thing I really want to say is don't reduce law to mathematics, at least not unless you understand a bit about law and the circumstances under which it is reasonable to do so. Failure to do this may result in embarrassingly bad reasoning.

      • Re:Aussies cant have it both ways Dow Jones v Gutn (Score:5, Informative)

        by indaba (32226) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @05:39AM (#10640135) Homepage
        With respect, I didn't forget, and neither did the Australian High Court.
        The defamer was NOT Australian, NOR was the server located in Australia ; so says the Australian High Court:

        # Dow Jones has its editorial offices for Barron's, Barron's Online and WSJ.com in the city of New York. Material for publication in Barron's or Barron's Online, once prepared by its author, is transferred to a computer located in the editorial offices in New York city. From there it is transferred either directly to computers at Dow Jones's premises at South Brunswick, New Jersey, or via an intermediate site operated by Dow Jones at Harborside, New Jersey. It is then loaded onto six servers maintained by Dow Jones at its South Brunswick premises.

        Gutnick claimed that he was defamed , where it mattered to him, Melbourne Australia.

        The Australian High court agreed with him, and said that it had jurisdiction, because the the place of the wrong was Australia.

        This is why this is a landmark, precedent setting case for disputes where one party is claiming jurisdiction because of a percieved wrong performed half a world away over the Internet.

        The good news for PGA, is that following the principles from this case, Gutnick agreed to limit his claim to damage caused in Australia.
        Importantly, in the proceedings before the primary judge the respondent confined his claim to the recovery of damages and the vindication of his reputation in Victoria. He also undertook not to bring proceedings in any other place.

        So, if GWTW brings and action in Australia, then they could presumably only claim Australian copyright infringment damages, and not worldwide damages.

        I think ! - INAL .. (just a law student)

    • Re:Long-deceased? (Score:5, Informative)

      by NoOneInParticular (221808) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:00AM (#10639617)
      In TFA it was stated that the author died in 1949, international copyright expired in 1999, but US copyright (thanks to Bono act) will expire in 2019 or never (whichever has deeper pockets).

      • Re:Long-deceased? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ehack (115197) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @04:06AM (#10639844) Journal
        An interesting variation would be some country deciding that *all* copyright lasts for 90 years, and allowing publishers *there* to sue the US and rest of the world for infrigement everytime a public domain text is posted elsewhere. This the exact symmetry of the US vs rest of world situation.

    • Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mistlefoot (636417) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:03AM (#10639632)
      During the Olympics, North America ip addresses were blocked from watching much of what was available to Europeans. This was done so that NBC could retain there rights. This seems to be something that could easily be considered for links to works that are not 'legal' everywhere.

      The August 17th article on this pages discusses this.
      http://ice.citizenlab.org/archives/2004_08. html

    • Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Funny)

      by tigress (48157) <rot13.fcnzgenc03@8in.net> on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:07AM (#10639643)
      "And, if you're in Australia..."

      Now, if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go and see if that Swiss Bikini-team is still hiring. I'm so tired of working in the Swedish Army Knife factory...

    • Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by spiralscratch (634649) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:20AM (#10639696)
      Why not have a simple piece of text 'if you are in Austria you can download this, otherwise, sorry, move on.'

      And we all know how well this method works at keeping the little ones out of the porn sites. "Oh golly gee! The operators of this fine web site dealing in adult wares do not wish those of us with few years to see what is contained within! I had best comply or risk substantial consequences to myself, my family, and the operator of this grand establishment!"

      Yeah, the whole thing is silly. Who wants to read Gone With The Wind anyways?

    • Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:23AM (#10639712)
      Why not have a simple piece of text 'if you are in Austria you can download this, otherwise, sorry, move on.'

      There is (From the GWTW Ebook):
      Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the

      copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing this
      or any other Project Gutenberg file. /blockquote?

    • Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by iceteep (771873) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @04:01AM (#10639830)
      sigh...

      At a Vienna train station, they sell T-shirts with a picture of an orange road warning sign with a Kangaroo on it (you Aussies will know what I mean).

      In large text above and below the picture are the words:

      "There are no Kangaroos in Austria!!"

      This is entirely for the benefit of visiting Americans who are apparently unaware that Australia is not actually a small country next to Germany.... :-)

      • Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:4, Funny)

        by tod_miller (792541) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @04:32AM (#10639942) Journal
        It was an optical read error! Gutenburg conjures up german speaking nations to me, and I was skim reading and well, the same applies.

        Except the read through would be:

        "Strewth mate, if yer not a bona-fide aussie then maybe you wanna go walkabout this arvo, because bang my wallaby, shielas gone and put some book of sorts on this interweb site, and you some limey outback wanderer from the creek trying to get it right? have a tinny and push off!"

        Needs some work. creative commons license.

        • Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Funny)

          by UserGoogol (623581) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:43AM (#10639773)
          (Joe is an American taxi driver, or something, while Dirk by most observable metrics not.)

          "Who exactly is the client?"


          "An Australian gentleman, he sounded like," said Joe. His voice was rather high and whiny.

          "Australian?" said Dirk, in surprise.

          "Yes sir, Australian. Like you."

          Dirk frowned. "I'm from England," he said.

          "But Australian, right?"

          "Why Australian, exactly?"

          "Australian accent."

          "Well, not really."

          "Well, where's that place?"

          "What place?" asked Dirk.

          "New Zealand," said Joe. "Australia's in New Zealand, right?"

          "Well, not precisely, but I can see what you're ... well, I was going to say I can see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure I can."

          "What part of New Zealand are you from, then?"

          "Well, more sort of England, in fact."

          "Is that in New Zealand?"

          "Only up to a point," said Dirk.


          Taken from Douglas Adams' unfinished Novel/compilation of essays: "Salmon of Doubt."

      • Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:53AM (#10639809)
        They only see what they wanna see, like the dead people in 6th Sense....Remember in the American Bizarro take on the world the following are all true:
        1) Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are brothers
        2) Iraq is full of WMDs
        3) Torturing Human beings, killing innocents and holding prisoners in violation of the Geneva convention are all okay if you think you have a big dick.
        4) The Metric system is for wimps
        5) Anybody who's neither black nor white must be a terrorist.
        6) India = Pakistan, Australia = Austria and there is no such country as Kazakhstan.
        7) Pakistan is a liberal secular democracy which respects human rights, is responsible with it WMDs and good team player, and thus merits the purchase of F-16s and Stinger Missiles, miraculously similar to those owned by Osama Bin Laden's Men.
        8) India is a place where people rid on elephants and camels. If you're not an elephant-rider or camel-fucker, then you must be a software developer who stole an American's God-given right to own an SUV.
        9) Those dang Brits have corrupted "American" and speak it with funny accents, spelling and words. (Who the fuck takes a 'lift' to the 4th floor anyway?).
        10) (my Favourite) It is better to be committed to your cause and completely wrong, then to support a cause and change your position on the release of new information(i.e. flip-flop).

    • Get it now ... Warez Literature!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)

      by OzPeter (195038) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @03:12AM (#10639666)
      I can just see the warez crowd racing to download GWTW and other works, just because you can get a copy while its still legal.

      And then later on ..

      Psst .. can I swap you a copy of GWTW for a Moby Dick???

      • Re:Get it now ... Warez Literature!!!!! (Score:5, Funny)

        by programminandy (543144) * on Wednesday October 27 2004, @04:16AM (#10639877) Homepage
        There is a Warez Literature Club just down the street from where I live. The door to the club is guarded by unassuming little old ladies so the Authorities won't know what's happening.

        Ratios are strictly enforced too. Each club member has a card that tracks what Warez Literature they take home. Fines are levied by the little old ladies if a member doesn't bring in at least as much Warez Literature they left with on previous visits and the member can not take any more Wares Literature if the fines are not paid.

    • Re:It Isn't a "Threat" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jonathan_ingram (30440) on Wednesday October 27 2004, @09:19AM (#10641388) Homepage
      Note that PG and PGA, while related, are distinct entities. When PGEU and PGCanada get going (both are in the planning stages), then we'll have a group of projects, all with the same aim, but tailored to their particular geographical areas. PGEU, in particular, will concentrate on the large amount of *non-English* public domain material out there -- you can help proofread some of it by joining the European version [rastko.net] of the US-based Distributed Proofreaders [pgdp.net].

      It's a nonsense to say that the only things PG should publish should be public domain in *all* countries -- indeed, the major difference between copyright laws in the US and those in the *entire rest of the world* is the main reason to want to branch out and create regional 'editions' of PG. Due to corporate interests, no new material will enter the public domain in the US for at least the next 14 years -- in the rest of the world, new material is added to the public domain on January 1st each year. By 2018, when material published in 1923 becomes public domain in the US, every work published by authors who died before 1948 (for the EU), 1958 (for India), or even 1968 (for Canada) will be public domain in those areas.

      The US is currently trying to push life+50 countries to become life+70. When it succeeds in this, it will start pushing for life+70 countries to become life+90. The trend for ever-increasing copyright terms has to be resisted. One of the key ways to do this is to build people's understanding of the need for, and benefits of, the public domain. PG is a key part of this.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.