Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Books Media The Internet

Project Gutenberg Threatened Over PG Australia 628

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Project Gutenberg Threatened Over PG Australia

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • 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

        • I'd say we block the US back to the stone age, and let them rot in their IP-infested hole until they realize they have fallen so far behind the times, they need to do something about their problem.

          AOL would be happy though, they would get the walled garden they always dreamed about.

          • Re:And next week... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @06:22AM (#10640282) Journal
            Actually, this is almost a sensible suggestion. ISPs are generally very keen on doing anything they can to avoid exposing themselves to litigation. Since so much copyright-related litigation originates in the US, it would be a fairly simple measure for the rest of the world to just block all IPs allocated to the USA until they bring their legal system back into line with the rest of the world. Call it trade sanctions, if you will...
          • Re:And next week... (Score:3, Informative)

            by shri ( 17709 )
            Rather than block, we prefer to use geotargeting from vendors like ip2country on projects where we don't want visitors from certain countries bugging us.

            We mainly use it to block African IP blocks. We've had MAJOR problem with nigerian spammers signing up on forums and classifieds and sending their spam to our users using private messaging / blind email functions. Also saves us the hassle of having to read through dumb email solicitations requesting products to be shipped to Lagos.
          • by Ohreally_factor ( 593551 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @07:56AM (#10640684) Journal
            Lets not stop with just information. Total quarantine and seal he borders. Just give me a chance to get out.
          • I say we throw out the bums that turned the 28-year copyright into virtually eternal. Sonny Bono, who did huge harm, is dead already (I'm not gonna say God was punishing him... not gonna say it). I'm betting Orrin Hatch is party to this since he loves the media companies so much. Any others?

            Seriously though, this is one of the worst instances of corporations buying themselves influence and power from Congress at the complete expense of the public domain. How does the artist or creator benefit when the
        • Re:And next week... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jbrw ( 520 )
          And that's set up a China style firewall around the entire country & limit its citizens information access within its own borders

          Here's a fun game to play for those of you outside of the US - try to go to http://www.georgewbush.com/ [georgewbush.com]
  • So? (Score:3, Funny)

    by ATAMAH ( 578546 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @02:58AM (#10639609)
    The car that is parked in a street is "steelable".
  • 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.
    • 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:3, Informative)

        by InsaneGeek ( 175763 )
        Which countries would this be? France has sued google for allowing other companies to use certain word phrases, France & Germany have sued Yahoo US over Nazi stuff.
        • 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.
          • Re:Chill. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by InsaneGeek ( 175763 )
            I should have been more descriptive on the google/France, I put it out in relation to the previous post how he was alluding that the US sues. Just like the US isn't suing, an individual is; multiple companies inside of France sued Google over it's adwords business.

            Back to topic, and what do you think this is then?

            Germany & France sues Yahoo because people in their country can see auctions for nazi material on US servers, even though it's allowed in the country it's being housed at.

            Person threatens s
      • It appears to us that Australians have established the Commonwealth of Australia to permit the commission of acts that are proscribed in the U.S. and elsewhere. The Australians' willful, knowing and unauthorized action is a blatant violation of our nation's rights under applicable statutes and common law of the US Planetary Government. If Australia does not take down its government and apply for status as a US Protected Territory within five (5) days of receipt of this letter, we shall be forced to, er, sho
    • 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...
      • Ever heard of allofmp3.com [allofmp3.com]? It's based in Russia, and from what I've read it wouldn't be legal in an awful lot of other countries. It might still be illegal for you to download the music, but it's not illegal for them to share the material.
      • You mean like HavenCo [havenco.com], on the principality of Sealand [sealandgov.com]?

        (You can read a lot more about Sealand over at the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].)
      • by RedBear ( 207369 ) <redbear@redbearn e t . 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.

      • 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.

      • For example (Score:3, Informative)

        by SeanDuggan ( 732224 )
        One example I know of is that there's a crack site (http://www.cracks.am/ [cracks.am]) situated in Armenia due to legal reasons.

        Comprehensive Data havens [wikipedia.org] may not be too far off, eh?

  • by N Monkey ( 313423 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:01AM (#10639624)
    I think they should extend it back indefinitely and then I'm going to prove that I'm the only living heir of the estate of Shakespeare

    No need for steps 1 and 2 just proceed to

    3. Profit! :-)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:04AM (#10639635)
    You must delete the work within 24 hours of downloading. Seeesh, you'd think that a reader of /. would know that by now.
  • 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.
  • 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...

    • Sorry, but you are wrong..
      The FTA does not require retrospective protection of copyright material already in the public domain. http://www.acuiti.com.au/index.cfm/p/content-04-04 02/t/cfm/pubId/249 [acuiti.com.au]

      So, GWTW is in the PD in Australia, and will remain that way , despite the forthcoming FTA.

      Pity it will lock up content for an additional 20 (25 ?) years , if they are currently still within copyright, even by a day !

  • 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

  • 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?
  • by _Hellfire_ ( 170113 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:18AM (#10639687)
    I would say the distinction would be that PG is simply making the text available. They are not "pushing" it to other countries per se, they are simply making it available to download. As someone mentioned above, you should be able to post Nazi related material on your website with no fear of action by French or German governments.

    If on the other hand I emailed Nazi related material to a French or German person, perhaps there would be grounds for a cease and desist order. Just making it available to those users to ignore if they want to abide by the law in their own country shouldn't be.

    I guess it is also comparable (although it's the other way round) to the posting of encryption technology on US websites. I would argue (although IANAL as mentioned previously) that it should not be the responsibility of the webmaster to enforce US export law in regards to countries like Syria and North Korea since this is almost impossible to do. If it was like this you would have to check everything you post just in case there was an obscure law relating to giving material to foreign nationals of any country (since every country on earth has the potential to read your site).

    From the sounds of it the Stephens Mitchell Trusts sound like litigious bastards anyway.
  • Doubleplusungood (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rupan ( 723469 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:18AM (#10639688) Homepage
    Hmm. At the risk of committing thoughtcrime, here is the links:

    http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.zip
  • 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.)

  • by discontinuity ( 792010 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:19AM (#10639694)

    Securing our nation's "digital boarders" to prevent American-hating foreigners from terrorizing dead artists by cutting into their profits.

    Seriously, the IP address blocks that went on during the Athens Olympics (US IPs were blocked from live streams so that NBC could time-shift to our primetime) are evidence that this will become something of an issue (though not necessarily in the 2008 election). Protectionism extends beyond tarrifs on steel. Protecting rights is good, but protecting business models is bad. Where to draw the line? It seems that global communication and information technologies do not fit the nation-state model of government.

    Something somewhere has to give. During the last wave of "globalization" (European colonization), it was native peoples who got trounced. Who gets it this time?

  • Sealand (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BlackHawk-666 ( 560896 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:20AM (#10639697)
    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).
  • Do unto others (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:25AM (#10639723)
    Does the USA really want to set precedents like this? Do US journalists really want to face the most draconian libel laws on the planet if they criticise a regime somewhere, and their article is published on the net?

    We really do want to see this sort of thing thrown out of court immediately.

  • by tpgp ( 48001 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:32AM (#10639738) Homepage
    Are here [gutenberg.net.au]
  • FTA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by strider44 ( 650833 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:38AM (#10639761)
    I'm interested to know what would happen to PG Australia once the free trade agreement comes along. Since we're going to most probably adopt US Copyright laws will PG Australia have to delete twenty years of material off their servers? Also will all the people who downloaded the material have to delete the copies?
  • by goneutt ( 694223 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:45AM (#10639784) Journal
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries Aricle I Section 8

    I glanced over the wikipedia article on the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, and it looks like Bono were working to protect the hugely profitable characters and works, but without thinking about other works, such as all those crap films that wind up in the $2 bin after two years.

    I think that perhaps what is needed is language giving copyrights extensions but with a high fee(much more than the $25 it currently cost to get a copyright), that way items that have been forgotten about or no current holder intrest can pass into public domain.

    This isn't fully thought out, but a blanket extension approaching perpetuity should probably be denied by the Supreme Court. Heirs rights are an interesting issue, but corporations can be around forever. Therefore, if you say for the "Authors lifetime" and you define the corporation as the author the copyright WILL NEVER EXPIRE. This ramble left open for riddiclue, but at least I'm not trying to be funny.
    • perhaps what is needed is language giving copyrights extensions but with a high fee(much more than the $25 it currently cost to get a copyright), that way items that have been forgotten about or no current holder intrest can pass into public domain.

      Who has to pay $25? -- copyright is free, though I understand some registrars charge you to document it. Aside from that, I don't think you need a high fee -- a nominal charge for an extension beyond an initial period (say 20 years) would shake out a lot of stu

  • the same people (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eean ( 177028 ) <slashdot AT monroe DOT nu> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:51AM (#10639802) Homepage
    These are the same people that brought the case againist a parody of the Gone with the Wind all the way to the Supreme Court. They can't be making that much money off Gone with the Wind, the whole estate must be devoted to paying their lawyers.
  • 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?

  • by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:05AM (#10639838) Homepage Journal
    Their case is based on the wholly ridiculous assumption that one country's laws apply in all countries. All they need to do is find a country with decent anti-barratry laws (there must be one somewhere!) and threaten to counter-sue under their laws.

    If creating a world-wide infinte copyright extension was as easy as finding just one country that would pass a law like that, do these people really think that Disney would have bothered buying their own senator and bribing the government do it in America?
  • 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!
  • by indaba ( 32226 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @04:58AM (#10640021)
    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.

  • by mattr ( 78516 ) <{mattr} {at} {telebody.com}> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:56AM (#10640193) Homepage Journal
    Well I surfed and unfortunately it looks like I was denied this classic in school. Says it was the most popular book (and film) ever or close to it. Anyway, there is a huge list of external reviews at imdb [imdb.com]
    and according to this one [culturedose.net], the film at least and maybe the book for all I know glorify marital rape. Who'd a thunk?
    I wonder how hard it would be for a concerted email bomb^H^H^H^H writing campaign to get this book and maybe film banned from schools and maybe libraries and rental? Seems for the U.S., revisionism is only the next step, and if books are already being banned in one state or another why not add one that is so richly deserving, seeing as how its owners wish it to be so hard to find. I don't know if it is supposed to be a parody or a snapshot of the time (since I haven't read it yet, doh) but this case is just way over the top. Now they want to stop the Internet, better call Al Gore.
  • by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot@keir[ ]ad.org ['ste' in gap]> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @06:02AM (#10640207)
    How can something be removed from the public domain?

    For example - say I took the existing GWTW text, which is in the public domain, and inserted a new paragraph, changed the name of one of the key characters everywhere in the book, and released the new text into the public domain as well. When this law is enacted, what is the status of the text? It is no longer GWTW, it is a derrivitive work - so the copyright does not belong to the original GWTW writer. And it was made a derrivitive work under a public domain work?

    Any lawyers care to explain?

  • Where's the beef? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @12:06PM (#10643746) Homepage Journal
    The server isn't a person - it isn't "acting". The act of copying, whether legal or otherwise, is performed by the person clicking the link, typing the command, or otherwise acting to initiate the transaction. Unless they're going to go after the programmers, sysadmins and managers who installed the systems, whose acts "enabled" the copying act. Based on that sensible jurisprudence, where humans have rights to, and responsibility for, our actions, and machines have no rights or responsibilities, the greedy GWTW estate can find liability only in Americans who download, if GWTW is under copyright here.

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...