Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

[kirchh]

I'd be interested to see the ethical theory that justifies those two disparate viewpoints.

Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.

I disagree with the embedded premise. They are one viewpoint, not two disparate viewpoints.

See my post that explains the difference between ownership of copyright on a work and the creation and ownership of an instance of a copy of a public-domain work.

Under copyright law, the contents and appearance of a public-domain work do not belong to anyone, by definition, but a particular copy of such a work belongs initially to the creator of the copy. Reward for acquiring materials and reproducing them can be obtained through the existence of an incentive -- financial or otherwise -- that can be constructed using contracts, though not via the assertion of copyright. The establishment of such an agreement-based reward mechanism which produces an incentive can thus result in the availability of otherwise difficult-to-obtain materials.

--Daniel

[dneal]

Thanks for all that. To continue the analogy: It looks like you lost possession of your photocopy, saw a copy that just looks like it and are claiming it's yours. Maybe you should have marked it in a way that you could prove ownership.

Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.

[kirchh]

Thanks for all that. To continue the analogy: It looks like you lost possession of your photocopy, saw a copy that just looks like it and are claiming it's yours. Maybe you should have marked it in a way that you could prove ownership.

First, let's correct a stark error in your recitation of the events: the documents posted to archive.org are the ones in the PCA library. I don't want there to be any further confusion on this point that could provide an opportunity for some specious claim that the archive.org documents are different scans of the source documents. It is trivial to determine that the documents are the same.

I agree that the PCA should have marked the documents to make this determination easier, but the fact stands that they are the same documents.

The PCA should also have anticipated that their incentive/reward mechanism was incomplete without an attached set of terms on the distribution of their copies; they have now rectified that.

Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.

You continue to be confused about the distinction between the ownership of the copyright on a work and the ownership of a particular reproduction of a public-domain work. There is no ethical issue with freely deciding to undertake the reproduction, classification, storage and distribution of a public-domain work because of a particular reward that would ensue (notwithstanding that the PCA had a flaw in their implementation of this process). You haven't pointed out anything that the PCA did, or tried to do, that was unethical. Do you believe that any person or organization that possesses a public-domain work is under an ethical obligation to distribute copies of that work for free to the public?

--Daniel

[david i]

I note that no evidence has been offered that a legal right of any sort exists to limit distribution of digital copies of public domain works, no matter who made said digital copy. I note that evidence has been presented at Fountain Pen Board that those who make digital copies of public domain works in fact have no legal right to limit distribution of said copies by... anyone. I note that those who engage in legal maneuvers to prevent dissemination of digital copies of public domain material put themselves at risk of committing copyfraud, a potentially actionable offense.

Attempts legally to control one's digital reproduction of public domain works appear to be nonsense.

I am inclined to test the theory on a large scale.

regards

david

[david i]

Thanks for all that. To continue the analogy: It looks like you lost possession of your photocopy, saw a copy that just looks like it and are claiming it's yours. Maybe you should have marked it in a way that you could prove ownership.

Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.

Hi Dneal,

I don't see any ethical problem with PCA offering an easy-access portal to public domain works and charging a fee for the ease of access. I note merely that this appears to be a somewhat tenuous business model, given that we have learned-- thanks to the issues raised by Jon Veley at Fountain Pen Board-- that said material is free for anyone to use and given that offering such material at different websites or via other media is easy to do. Something about closing Pandora's box, putting the Djinn back in the bottle. Entropy can be a bitch.

regards

David

[dneal]

First, let's correct a stark error in your recitation of the events: the documents posted to archive.org are the ones in the PCA library. I don't want there to be any further confusion on this point that could provide an opportunity for some specious claim that the archive.org documents are different scans of the source documents. It is trivial to determine that the documents are the same.

I agree that the PCA should have marked the documents to make this determination easier, but the fact stands that they are the same documents.

The PCA should also have anticipated that their incentive/reward mechanism was incomplete without an attached set of terms on the distribution of their copies; they have now rectified that.

Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.

You continue to be confused about the distinction between the ownership of the copyright on a work and the ownership of a particular reproduction of a public-domain work. There is no ethical issue with freely deciding to undertake the reproduction, classification, storage and distribution of a public-domain work because of a particular reward that would ensue (notwithstanding that the PCA had a flaw in their implementation of this process). You haven't pointed out anything that the PCA did, or tried to do, that was unethical. Do you believe that any person or organization that possesses a public-domain work is under an ethical obligation to distribute copies of that work for free to the public?

--Daniel

Oh, I'm not confused at all about the issue. Your presentation of it is quite confusing. You also seem to be unable to separate the notions of legal and ethical. I'm addressing the latter. We can talk ethics, and feel free to pick your philosophy/philosopher/school of thought. Bentham and utilitarianism? James and Pragmatism? Kant and the categorical imperative?

[dneal]

Thanks for all that. To continue the analogy: It looks like you lost possession of your photocopy, saw a copy that just looks like it and are claiming it's yours. Maybe you should have marked it in a way that you could prove ownership.

Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.

Hi Dneal,

I don't see any ethical problem with PCA offering an easy-access portal to public domain works and charging a fee for the ease of access. I note merely that this appears to be a somewhat tenuous business model, given that we have learned-- thanks to the issues raised by Jon Veley at Fountain Pen Board-- that said material is free for anyone to use and given that offering such material at different websites or via other media is easy to do. Something about closing Pandora's box, putting the Djinn back in the bottle. Entropy can be a bitch.

regards

David

Honestly, I don't have a problem with PCA offering the documents either. I do recognize that once they attempt to assume the high moral ground, that their position (strictly speaking) is shaky.

[kirchh]

First, let's correct a stark error in your recitation of the events: the documents posted to archive.org are the ones in the PCA library. I don't want there to be any further confusion on this point that could provide an opportunity for some specious claim that the archive.org documents are different scans of the source documents. It is trivial to determine that the documents are the same.

I agree that the PCA should have marked the documents to make this determination easier, but the fact stands that they are the same documents.

The PCA should also have anticipated that their incentive/reward mechanism was incomplete without an attached set of terms on the distribution of their copies; they have now rectified that.

Now that the legal silliness is out of the way, I'm looking at the ethical problem. PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing. I understand the usefulness in funding the organization, but if you want to get down to brass tacks... it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place. Get past that objection and maybe I would care about what happened thereafter.

You continue to be confused about the distinction between the ownership of the copyright on a work and the ownership of a particular reproduction of a public-domain work. There is no ethical issue with freely deciding to undertake the reproduction, classification, storage and distribution of a public-domain work because of a particular reward that would ensue (notwithstanding that the PCA had a flaw in their implementation of this process). You haven't pointed out anything that the PCA did, or tried to do, that was unethical. Do you believe that any person or organization that possesses a public-domain work is under an ethical obligation to distribute copies of that work for free to the public?

--Daniel

Oh, I'm not confused at all about the issue. Your presentation of it is quite confusing. You also seem to be unable to separate the notions of legal and ethical. I'm addressing the latter. We can talk ethics, and feel free to pick your philosophy/philosopher/school of thought. Bentham and utilitarianism? James and Pragmatism? Kant and the categorical imperative?

Your confusion is evident in your statement, "PCA didn't create or own the documents, but had no problem selling them via a membership mandatory to viewing." The PCA did not create the original works, nor did they own the copyright to those works or to any copies of those works, but they did own the instances of the reproductions they acquired or created, and the PCA had discretion as to the terms under which they made those reproductions available. I hope that clears up the confusion.

You've made no specific ethical objection; merely asserting, "it wasn't the most ethical thing to be doing in the first place" is not a line of ethical reasoning. I posed a specific ethical question, which you failed to answer: Do you believe that any person or organization that possesses a public-domain work is under an ethical obligation to distribute copies of that work for free to the public? That's talking ethics, and the "school of thought" should be yours.

--Daniel
P.S. To clear up another error, there is no issue of "copyfraud" here, as the question under discussion does not revolve around a claim that the PCA holds the copyright to the materials in question, per the definition of that term provided by Wikipedia.

[david i]

To emphasize:

I note that no evidence has been offered that a legal right of any sort exists to limit distribution of digital copies of public domain works, no matter who made said digital copy. I note that evidence has been presented at Fountain Pen Board that those who make digital copies of public domain works in fact have no legal right to limit distribution of said copies by... anyone. I note that those who engage in legal maneuvers to prevent dissemination of digital copies of public domain material put themselves at risk of committing copyfraud, a potentially actionable offense.

Attempts legally to control one's digital reproduction of public domain works appear to be nonsense.

I am inclined to test the theory on a large scale.

regards

david

[kirchh]

Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.

I want to emphasize the error here. Nobody -- including the public -- owned the copyright to the works. The reproductions were owned by the creator (or party who arranged for their creation, etc.).

If you photocopy a copy of a public-domain Parker catalog, do you believe that you do not own that photocopy (not the copyright, just the actual photocopy), and that furthermore you must provide any member of the public access to it for free?

--Daniel

[david i]

I cheerfully note that there are no digital rights owned by any creator of a digital copy of a public domain works. "Reproductions" in this context is an unfortunately ambiguous term. The creator of a photocopy of a public domain work has the right to the few pieces of paper in his hand, not because he has any rights to the image, but because he owns... the physical paper. One may not take another person's 8 sheets of paper without his permission. To do so would be to steal. However, no one owns a digital copy of a public domain work. Once it is accessed it may be legally distributed at will. Nothing has been stolen, as any current possessor of the digital information has no claim to it.

I note that while no one has an obligation to distribute a digital copy in his possession of a public domain work free or otherwise (what does "for free" mean?), no one-- including he who copied first the public domain work-- can prevent others from disseminating further copies.

fun stuff.

-d

[david i]

I was sent this by a fellow collector as an example of digital material in the public domain, free for distribution at will.

[IMG] [/IMG]

regards

david

[dneal]

Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.

I want to emphasize the error here. Nobody -- including the public -- owned the copyright to the works. The reproductions were owned by the creator (or party who arranged for their creation, etc.).

If you photocopy a copy of a public-domain Parker catalog, do you believe that you do not own that photocopy (not the copyright, just the actual photocopy), and that furthermore you must provide any member of the public access to it for free?

--Daniel

David answered your question, but I'll make the issue simple:

PCA has a library of scanned catalogs that were printed by others.
PCA thinks they have control or ownership of these scans (this is the first debatable point).
Similar scans of these catalogs are also available at archive.org.
PCA thinks these documents are copies of their documents (debatable, but probable and I'll even concede that they did come from PCA for the sake of the argument).
PCA thinks it is illegal for these documents to have been uploaded to archive.org (I think this is a point you are making, but we can toss it out if you're not).
PCA thinks it is unethical for someone else to upload their documents for free distribution to archive.org (the second debatable point).
PCA thinks it will lose revenue because of these documents being on archive.org (debatable, but I'll concede this point as well).

For the first point, I do not agree. I sympathize. It runs down many avenues on where the "originals" that were scanned came from, but the bottom line is that the information is owned by the public and not PCA.
For the second debatable point, I again sympathize. I do not agree. Public information is made available to the public. There is nothing unethical about that. It can't have been stolen, because that implies that PCA had ownership. They didn't. PCA was selling convenience, not the information itself.

[Jon Szanto]

[Laura N]

Well, this thread has been extremely useful. It reminded me just what a worthy organization the PCA is. What a shame more people don't support it.

Unfortunately, I was very busy and let my PCA membership slide this spring. Thanks to this thread, I've now renewed.

[HughC]

Let's go over it once more!!

If I purchase an old, out of copyright catalog, I don't acquire a copyright on the contents of the catalog. If I make a photocopy of the catalog, I don't acquire the copyright on the photocopy. However, no one has the right to reproduce my photocopy without my permission, because they would need my permission to possess the photocopy in order to reproduce it. This is not due to any copyright ownership. No one can assert that because the photocopy is not protected by copyright, I must permit anyone who requests it to borrow it so that they can copy it, and certainly no one can assert that I must distribute or otherwise make available my photocopy to the public because it's not copyrightable. Therefore, I control my reproduction through possession, not via copyright. I can grant someone permission to make a copy under a set of terms that I craft, which may include restrictions on any further dissemination; a potential acquirer of such a copy is free to accept or to reject these conditions for receiving access to the copy. All of the preceding applies to a digital copy as well as to a paper photocopy.
--Daniel

Nice argument Daniel but wrong. While physical ownership confers rights to the actual item it doesn't extend to the content of public domain documents so coping content that you have no rights to is not an issue, again in monetary terms you have not been affected unless the original sustains damage in the process. True you can try to control via ownership of original but you have no control over any copy that's made, again because you don't own the content. What you suggest amounts to trying to control public domain documents by asserting ownership of a document confers this right, which it doesn't.

The PCA should also have anticipated that their incentive/reward mechanism was incomplete without an attached set of terms on the distribution of their copies; they have now rectified that.
--Daniel

I just read all that on the PCA site, unfortunately means nothing except reinforcing the ethical issues. It is a good idea to mark where they came from but noting in the digital era this is easily removed.

PCA has a library of scanned catalogs that were printed by others.
PCA thinks they have control or ownership of these scans (this is the first debatable point).
Similar scans of these catalogs are also available at archive.org.
PCA thinks these documents are copies of their documents (debatable, but probable and I'll even concede that they did come from PCA for the sake of the argument).
PCA thinks it is illegal for these documents to have been uploaded to archive.org (I think this is a point you are making, but we can toss it out if you're not).
PCA thinks it is unethical for someone else to upload their documents for free distribution to archive.org (the second debatable point).
PCA thinks it will lose revenue because of these documents being on archive.org (debatable, but I'll concede this point as well).

Assembling a collection such as PCA has is a commendable and very worthwhile effort and does deserve due respect ( a key point). That PCA would like to exercise some control is certainly understandable due to the time and effort put in. Unfortunately not owning the content means they have no right to control it, they have the same right to copy it as everyone else has (key point) which is a point overlooked regardless of whether they had to pay for access to the original. I have no doubt it's unethical to simply take the documents and upload them somewhere else as it does not recognize the effort in obtaining and assembling this collection ( a key point). It should be recognized a number of people do feel (justifiably) hurt by this, this shouldn't be overlooked in judging the issues.

So the circle goes around again to legal v ethical. I, personally, think the ethical issues out weight the legal in the way I view it and I joined the PCA for that reason.

Regards
Hugh

[Jon Szanto]

Assembling a collection such as PCA has is a commendable and very worthwhile effort and does deserve due respect ( a key point). That PCA would like to exercise some control is certainly understandable due to the time and effort put in. Unfortunately not owning the content means they have no right to control it, they have the same right to copy it as everyone else has (key point) which is a point overlooked regardless of whether they had to pay for access to the original. I have no doubt it's unethical to simply take the documents and upload them somewhere else as it does not recognize the effort in obtaining and assembling this collection ( a key point). It should be recognized a number of people do feel (justifiably) hurt by this, this shouldn't be overlooked in judging the issues.

So the circle goes around again to legal v ethical. I, personally, think the ethical issues out weight the legal in the way I view it and I joined the PCA for that reason.

Hugh, I can't thank you enough for that. It was bothering me so much - the overlooking of important ethical issues in favor of all manner of microscopic inspection of legalistic details - that I had to shut off the computer and go over to the gym.

I beat myself up over there for almost two hours, and feel great, and felt better about coming back to the thread. Now, you've said all that needs to be said from my perspective. I just had a wonderful weekend amongst pen people up in San Francisco, where you can sense the community and good nature of the members and attenders. To read about someone simply ripping off the good will of an organization, over and above any of the mechanisms and protocols that caused those materials to be in place, just galls me no end. That people choose to focus on the other aspects, and not the harm to the good nature and spirit with which those materials were prepared by individuals who cared about pens and pen people, makes it worse.

I figured I was alone, but I value what you've written above, and that you've done so in a much less histrionic manner than I could have. Thank you.

[kirchh]

Nobody (except the public) owned the documents. The outrage is ridiculous, and sounds like sour grapes because it is more difficult to profit from something that didn't belong to anyone in the first place.

I want to emphasize the error here. Nobody -- including the public -- owned the copyright to the works. The reproductions were owned by the creator (or party who arranged for their creation, etc.).

If you photocopy a copy of a public-domain Parker catalog, do you believe that you do not own that photocopy (not the copyright, just the actual photocopy), and that furthermore you must provide any member of the public access to it for free?

--Daniel

David answered your question, but I'll make the issue simple:

PCA has a library of scanned catalogs that were printed by others.
PCA thinks they have control or ownership of these scans (this is the first debatable point).
Similar scans of these catalogs are also available at archive.org.
PCA thinks these documents are copies of their documents (debatable, but probable and I'll even concede that they did come from PCA for the sake of the argument).
PCA thinks it is illegal for these documents to have been uploaded to archive.org (I think this is a point you are making, but we can toss it out if you're not).
PCA thinks it is unethical for someone else to upload their documents for free distribution to archive.org (the second debatable point).
PCA thinks it will lose revenue because of these documents being on archive.org (debatable, but I'll concede this point as well).

For the first point, I do not agree. I sympathize. It runs down many avenues on where the "originals" that were scanned came from, but the bottom line is that the information is owned by the public and not PCA.
For the second debatable point, I again sympathize. I do not agree. Public information is made available to the public. There is nothing unethical about that. It can't have been stolen, because that implies that PCA had ownership. They didn't. PCA was selling convenience, not the information itself.

I'm not sure whether you addressed the questions I asked -- I can't quite tell what you are answering where, so I'd appreciate a clarification:

If you photocopy a copy of a public-domain Parker catalog, do you believe that you do not own that photocopy (not the copyright, just the actual photocopy)?

Do you believe that you must provide any member of the public access to your photocopy for free?

--Daniel

[david i]

I note that no evidence has been offered that a legal right of any sort exists to limit distribution of digital copies of public domain works, no matter who made said digital copy. I note that evidence has been presented at Fountain Pen Board that those who make digital copies of public domain works in fact have no legal right to limit distribution of said copies by... anyone. I note that those who engage in legal maneuvers to prevent dissemination of digital copies of public domain material put themselves at risk of committing copyfraud, a potentially actionable offense.

Attempts legally to control one's digital reproduction of public domain works appear to be nonsense.

I am inclined to test the theory on a large scale.

regards

david

[david i]

I cheerfully note that there are no digital rights owned by any creator of a digital copy of a public domain works. "Reproductions" in this context is an unfortunately ambiguous term. The creator of a photocopy of a public domain work has the right to the few pieces of paper in his hand, not because he has any rights to the image, but because he owns... the physical paper. One may not take another person's 8 sheets of paper without his permission. To do so would be to steal. However, no one owns a digital copy of a public domain work. Once it is accessed it may be legally distributed at will. Nothing has been stolen, as any current possessor of the digital information has no claim to it.

I note that while no one has an obligation to distribute a digital copy in his possession of a public domain work free or otherwise (what does "for free" mean?), no one-- including he who copied first the public domain work-- can prevent others from disseminating further copies.

fun stuff.

-d