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."
And next week... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And next week... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:And next week... (Score:3, Insightful)
AOL would be happy though, they would get the walled garden they always dreamed about.
Re:And next week... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And next week... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:And next week... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And next week... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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]
Re:And next week... (Score:4, Insightful)
Backed by govt copyright laws.
Enforced using US government mandated trade agreements.
I don't see your point
So? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
I was about to lose points, except that she decided to show me the spelling on the chart that she had instead of the book. Imagine her surprise when she discovered that the chart had the official names.
Still a warm memory.
You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
a) you can't jump when you're kneeling,
and
b) you can't ask questions with your mouth full.
Re:You know... (Score:3, Informative)
That's about as much as I got from
Chill. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chill. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chill. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Chill. (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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
Re:Chill. (Score:3, Funny)
So can I also...? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:3, Insightful)
Re:So can I also...? (Score:3, Insightful)
(You can read a lot more about Sealand over at the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].)
Re:So can I also...? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
Comprehensive Data havens [wikipedia.org] may not be too far off, eh?
Why stop with the time limit of the "Bono" law.... (Score:3, Funny)
No need for steps 1 and 2 just proceed to
3. Profit!
The solution is surprisingly simple (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The solution is surprisingly simple (Score:3, Funny)
"Frankly, my dear lawyers, I don't give a damn."
--RJ
Now THERE's an interesting hack of the law! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Now THERE's an interesting hack of the law! (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember Dmitri Sklyarov? He was arrested in the USA, because he worked for a company in Russia that published software that is illegal in the USA.
Do not underestimate the power of US law enforcement.
They only had to wait... (Score:5, Informative)
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:3, Informative)
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 !
Re:They only had to wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Long Live Project Gutenberg (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Long Live Project Gutenberg (Score:3, Informative)
Right now, the CEO of Project Gutenberg is Greg Newby. His response on the gutvol-d discussion list said that they have received letter
U.S. law without borders? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:U.S. law without borders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternatively... (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL - But (Score:3)
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)
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.zip
GWTW .nyud.net link (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.)
2008 Presidential Campaign Issue? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Do unto others (Score:3, Insightful)
We really do want to see this sort of thing thrown out of court immediately.
Works in Public Domain in Aus, but not US (Score:3, Informative)
FTA (Score:3, Interesting)
Ready for a SC challenge (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Ready for a SC challenge (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Used book stores? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Turn this stupidity around (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
.net.au is not under US jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hoist them by own petard? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Public Domain and Derrivive works? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:Long-deceased? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Long-deceased? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Long-deceased? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Long-deceased? (Score:4, Informative)
IIRC that was one of the reasons given for introducing region coding (*spit*) to DVDs.
Re:Long-deceased? (Score:4, Informative)
As to their case against Disney: Peter Pan is currently copyright in the US (where one presumes that the prequel was made) and the EU (where the original work was created), so the only real defence would be a question of timing issues relating to the expiry of the original copyright and extension thereof by EU and US law.
Re:Long-deceased? (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright rules vary greatly from country to country, though lately there's been more harmonization. The general rule is that copyright lasts for X years past the author's death or Y years in absolute terms if the author is in fact a corporation. The values for X and Y vary by country. Even within a country they can vary depending on when the work was created and what copyright legislation was in effect at the time. This makes it extremely difficult to figure out which works are in the public domain or not.
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
The August 17th article on this pages discusses this.
http://ice.citizenlab.org/archives/2004_08
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Very bad precedent; once you start doing that, you will soon find you are obliged to, and are liable if you don't. And anyway, as we all know, proxies make it easy to circumvent. If anything, just use the same kind of disclaimer that they have on cryptography pages: "If you are Osama bin Laden you are not allowed to look at his."
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
www.georgewbush.org/ [georgewbush.org]
Solved (Score:3, Informative)
IPOF gutenberg.net.au blocks access from North America to the Australian ex-copyright materials which might still have a legal millstone around their collective necks in the USA. Same old, same old [archive.org].
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Of course you can always check out the google cache [google.com] if you're desperate.
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
But that just makes sense, after all, when G.W. gets re-elected he, led by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Pearl will concoct a scheme to invade Canada to protect the U.S. from "Salmon of Mass Desctruction".
Even as we speak, salmon are crossing the border into the United States unchecked and thereby threatening the "American Way of Life (tm)".
One reason to "waste" their bandwidth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
Taken from Douglas Adams' unfinished Novel/compilation of essays: "Salmon of Doubt."
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
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:2, Interesting)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
There is (From the GWTW Ebook):
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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:3, Informative)
s/bona-fide/fair dinkum (or the slightly less common "true blue")
s/walkabout/for a wander
s/bang my wallaby/fuck me dead if I'm lying
s/interweb/web (we're not hicks... there is a difference mate)
s/limey outback wanderer from the creek/seppo
s/tinny/beer (pronounced beee-ah)
s/push off/fuck roight off
HTH. =)
Cheers
Stor
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:5, Funny)
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).
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
Donny Rumsfeld actually said this.
Re:Stupid stupid stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
It could also be an American tourist. ;-)
That said I don't have anything against Americans as individuals. I've been there for a year and met a lot of extremely friendly and nice people. I do have some pretty severe problems with the US national policies though
Re:Internet vs local laws... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm in international waters right now, accessing the internet via a company server in the US, how to deal?
Get it now ... Warez Literature!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
And then later on
Psst
Re:Get it now ... Warez Literature!!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you recieved this in error, please e-mail (Score:4, Funny)
So everyone that reads the message should call collect to let them know they recieved the e-mail in error?
Re:Project Gutenberg is Great (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It Isn't a "Threat" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.