Re: Re: Amazon remotely deletes 1984

From: "Erica Frank" 
> On 7/26/09, joseph harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>> From: "Erica Frank"
>>
>> Sorry, Erica, but this isn't so. It is the work, published or unpublished, that is copyright, and the ownership is not affected.
> 
> Ownership is not affected. But what can legally be done with the
> content, can be affected by publication.

Erica,

I suspect you are talking about perception rather than law. Publication puts anything out into public view, while creation of a work is in itself hidden from that view. But there is nothing I know of that prevents me from using fair use [if I am i n the US - the UK has a fair dealing rule wich starts from different antecedents] to quote from an unpublished document - assuming I have sight of that document. Privacy laws might create other barriers.

> 
>>  And I wasn't just talking about length of rights, but
>>  > copyright protections--they're stronger for unpublished works.
>>
>> How do you make this out? Only in the US and one or two other countries are protection
>> of *published* works stronger if they are registered at the copyright office. This is counter
>> to Berne, of course, but a relic of US copyright-past.
> 
> Published works have more protections (in the US) if they're registered.
> Unregistered, unpublished works (like a private diary, or incomplete
> research notes) have more protections against fair use excerpts and so
> on.

You'd need to quote me chapter and verse on this. I can't see that under copyright.

> 
> (New) Published works are protected for Life + X. Unpublished works,
> published posthumously, are allowed to be copyrighted by the publisher
> for 25 years (in the UK, as I've been told; I'm unclear on US laws
> about unpublished works released posthumously).

Again I'd need to know more. This rings no bells.

> 
> However, exact copyright length on unpublished works is not mostly
> what I'm concerned with. Rules like copyright protections in different
> countries change based on publication, and fair use restrictions are
> stronger for unpublished works.

I still don't know where you are taking this from. Copyright law applies to the work, not to what licences are issued by, or with the permission of, the rights owner. I've just never come across this view before.

> 
> The point is--published and unpublished works are *different*. That
> means we need a clear definition of "published"--and we don't
> currently have one.

Well on is in public view and the other is not is about the only difference, and copyright law itself is blind to that difference. Licences are matters of negotiation, so what is claimed during negotiation is between the parties to it. But there is surely clarity between being brought to public view and not.

..........The point is that the publisher can be held
> liable for the contents of a book; if Amazon is "publishing"
> Kindlebooks (they certainly are for the user-submitted ones, otherwise
> those books are unpublished, a ridiculous notion), they might be held
> liable for violations of copyrights that occur with those books.

Self-publishing has been around for centuries, so that is not to me a proof. I cannot see liability as publisher of the works, but certainly with any laws that apply as retailer.

>> Outsisde the US that has been the way for over a century.
> 
> It wasn't particularly important until copying, especially digital
> copying, became simple & cheap. More and more, copyright law is
> looking like an artificial scarcity to create demand--and while that's
> a useful mechanism to encourage authors to publish ebooks, it's
> getting in the way of a lot of scientific and creative efforts that
> aren't looking for a profit.
> 

I really don't think many people have a problem with 'if it isn't mine I ought to pay or ask'. But there is a determined movement to break the sound concept of paying for things. If it succeeeds on the web it may well look further afield. However that movement has almost certainly peaked and is on the wane.

Artificial scarcity comes from cornering supplies - usually essential ones; that does not apply to publishing. The concept is one of faulty or even dishonest logic. And copyright does not get in the way of any rights owner declaring open licence in their own work. Suggestions otherwise are either from lack of knowledge or from hidden agenda.

Just to show I am not all-cantankerous, I completely agree wit h your view of licence and sale of ebooks in your reply to Chris. [Chris won't worry, he already thinks I'm cantankerous]

;-)

Joseph

Joseph Harris  -  Debt Control Man
author: Control Your Debt Crisis on Your Own Terms
blog: http://debtcontrolman.wordpress.com
http://www.controlyourdebtcrisis.co.uk
debt dictionary: http://www.controlyourdebtcrisis.co.uk/debtwiki/



------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/