Subj : Re: Family History
To   : CA & JE
From : Alan Zisman
Date : Sat Oct 01 2005 12:12 pm

-=> CHARLES ANGELICH wrote to JAY EMRIE <=-


 JE>>>>> Well, yes there is a need. My aim was to have each of
 JE>>>>> my kids and older grand kids (oldest now 35) and each
 JE>>>>> of my brother's kids have a copy of the Family HIstory.

 CA>> You found a publisher who _sells_ your family's geneology
 CA>> in print for $93 and now you intend to make illegal copies
 CA>> for your children and grandchildren?

 CA>> Something of a role model aren't you?

 JE> OK smart A** Remember I DO have an original copy of the
 JE> book.

 CA> OK, j*rk *ff, I have an original copy of the encyclopedia
 CA> Britanica, does that mean anything?

 JE> Further, it doesn't have any indication that it is copy
 JE> righted or otherwise protected. That wasn't much of an
 JE> issue in 1890.

 CA> That a publisher is selling it for $93 is proof enough for me.
 CA> Someone has bothered to keep the book available and you want to
 CA> cheat them out of the money they deserve.

OK... let's drop the n*me-c*lling... But first, a few comments on copyright.

1) In the US, as in most other countries, authors own copyright on their 
original writings whether there is a (c) symbol or not and whether a copyright 
registration form has been sent to the government or not. (This has been the 
case in most countries, but has only become the case relatively recently in the 
USA).

2) The US has been busy extending the term of copyright protection, but it does 
not extend back to 1890... so the content of Jay's book is in the public 
domain. That means that it can be copied, reprinted, (etc) freely. Many 
commercial publishers print and sell versions of public domain books-- but 
others can legally make their own copies or publications based on the same 
text. (Note that if the publisher has made additions to the text more 
recently-- an introduction, for instance, or updates, these WOULD be under 
copyright).

3) I know that Project Guttenberg has been busy for quite some time getting 
volunteers to scan and create digital versions of books in the public domain, 
which are then made freely available online. I believe they use OCR software to 
create text-file versions of the text rather than (as Jay is suggesting) making 
a PDF file consisting of images of the scanned pages. I suspect this is to keep 
file-size relatively low, rather than due to copyright issues.

As a result, Jay's project would appear to me to be legal. Charles has 
indicated (in this thread and in others over the course of years) that he has a 
strong moral sense regarding obligations to support and protect publishers, 
software authors, etc-- a sense of moral obligation that goes beyond the letter 
of the law. Charles is entitled to hold those sensibilities.

However, Charles needs to also be aware that not everyone shares those 
sensibilities to the same degree-- and that implying that others are thieves 
(yes, I know he was a bit more subtle than that in this thread) is, at best, 
not a good way to convince others. These discussions in WIN95 have too much 
similarity to arguements over abortion, or between Hindus and Moslems about the 
relative merit of eating cows vs pigs... dogmatic discussions that rapidly 
devolve into name-calling.

It MIGHT have been possible for CA to ask JE whether the book was still covered 
by copyright, for instance, and if so, to point out that scanning and 
distributing multiple copies of copyright material go beyond fair 'personal 
use'. Since, in this case, the book appears to be in the public domain, Jay's 
rights to copy it are unlimited. 

When a discussion in this echo leads to n*me-c*lling, it's time to move on. 
Both Jay and Charles have had a chance to call one another n*mes. So please 
stop quibbling... at least in this public place.

-- az (moderator: WIN95)
.... Inet mail to: alan at zisman dot ca
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000)

.