Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 601

Thread: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by HughC View Post
    Let's go over it once more!!



    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.
    Incorrect. You are mixing up two distinct things. Ownership of a copy of a public domain work does not confer the right to control the work itself. When a work is in the public domain, it is the content that is in the public domain, not any particular instantiation. If I acquire an original pen catalog that is in the public domain, and I make a photocopy of that catalog, the photocopy is not in the public domain; it's mine, and I can tuck it in a drawer and never show it to anyone if I choose. I am controlling that instantiation of the public domain document, but I am not controlling the work itself -- I cannot exert, nor do I claim to exert, any control over the work itself; I cannot say, "I photocopied that catalog, so you cannot get or distribute your own copy of that catalog."

    Therefore, you are wrong when you say that what I suggest amounts to trying to control public domain documents.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    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.
    I'm not sure what you mean when you say the agreement on the PCA site means nothing. Are you offering a legal opinion that it represents a contract that is illegal?

    Is it your opinion that the agreements between users and such companies as Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com, and NewspaperARCHIVE.com "mean nothing"?

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    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.
    To be clear: Are you saying that a person or entity who makes a reproduction of a public-domain work has no right to impose conditions for viewing their reproduction, such as the setting of a fee?

    --Daniel
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    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).
    They do have control and ownership of the instances of the scans that they possess.

    Similar scans of these catalogs are also available at archive.org.
    Incorrect. I'm not sure why you continue to imply that the documents in question at archive.org are not the same ones as those in the PCA library.

    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).
    Incorrect. It is not debatable, and there is no actual debate. Even you have not claimed that they are not the same. I'm disappointed that you continue to take this position, but it's wrong.

    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).
    If you think this is a point I am making, you must have some statement of mine that made you think that. Please provide the statement of mine that made you think this is a point I am making. That will allow us to determine the basis of your belief.

    --Daniel
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  3. #43
    Senior Member david i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    994
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 980 Times in 320 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Back to core points. 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 R. Isaacson, MD

    http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.

    The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.

    The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.

    Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
    31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy

  4. #44
    Senior Member david i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    994
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 980 Times in 320 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    An interesting tangent. I have copies of original pen catalogues and such that did not come from the PCA.

    regards

    -d
    David R. Isaacson, MD

    http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.

    The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.

    The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.

    Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
    31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 379 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post

    Incorrect. You are mixing up two distinct things. Ownership of a copy of a public domain work does not confer the right to control the work itself. When a work is in the public domain, it is the content that is in the public domain, not any particular instantiation. If I acquire an original pen catalog that is in the public domain, and I make a photocopy of that catalog, the photocopy is not in the public domain; it's mine, and I can tuck it in a drawer and never show it to anyone if I choose. I am controlling that instantiation of the public domain document, but I am not controlling the work itself -- I cannot exert, nor do I claim to exert, any control over the work itself; I cannot say, "I photocopied that catalog, so you cannot get or distribute your own copy of that catalog."
    I should have said "copy not in your possession" but I'm sure you understood what I meant. Of course you own the physical photocopy but not the content, you can do whatever you like with it but if you let someone else copy your copy then your control ends regardless of any restrictions you try to put in place because, as has been said so many times, you have no right over the content.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh;93981Therefore, I [I
    control[/I] 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...
    --Daniel
    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post

    Therefore, you are wrong when you say that what I suggest amounts to trying to control public domain documents.
    I'm only reading what you wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean when you say the agreement on the PCA site means nothing. Are you offering a legal opinion that it represents a contract that is illegal?

    Is it your opinion that the agreements between users and such companies as Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com, and NewspaperARCHIVE.com "mean nothing"?
    I think it has little real meaning for the reason they have no right to the content. If the content is public domain you can't actually "steal" it, if it's made available then it can be copied by "whoever" bearing in mind that person has already paid to access the information via membership. The terms and conditions then aim to impose control over public domain content, while clearly you would breach those by posting content from PCA elsewhere I would doubt the value of trying to enforce them. As I said in, practical terms, it means nothing. Likewise with the others, from a practical view the cost outweighs any possible chance of success. The music industry highlights the difficulties even when copyright exists, if I gave you a copy of a CD are they going to "chase" me? Even if it's on a torrent site with 1000's of illegal downloads...not much happens....at the moment anyway. This is the practical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    To be clear: Are you saying that a person or entity who makes a reproduction of a public-domain work has no right to impose conditions for viewing their reproduction, such as the setting of a fee?

    --Daniel
    No I'm not. PCA (or any entity) can charge for viewing (as it does through membership), could charge per download if it wanted to and could charge for a physical copy. What I'm saying is that once the public domain content moves off their site they no longer have any control over it or how it's used. While PCA term and conditions seek to limit the public domain content being copied I doubt it's of much real value.

    Regards
    Hugh
    Last edited by HughC; August 28th, 2014 at 09:27 PM.

  6. #46
    Senior Member david i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    994
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 980 Times in 320 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Indeed, the PCA presumably could terminate a membership based on violating a user agreement. Anything stronger would not stand up to scrutiny. More charming of course is that all the PCA's public domain materials long ago were downloaded, I am told.

    -d
    David R. Isaacson, MD

    http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.

    The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.

    The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.

    Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
    31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by HughC View Post

    I should have said "copy not in your possession" but I'm sure you understood what I meant. Of course you own the physical photocopy but not the content, you can do whatever you like with it but if you let someone else copy your copy then your control ends regardless of any restrictions you try to put in place because, as has been said so many times, you have no right over the content.
    You have no copyright rights over the content. That is, you couldn't raise a copyright infringement claim. But on what basis do you claim that you cannot enter into a valid agreement with someone to restrict their redistribution of a reproduction you made of a public-domain work? That is, do you have a specific legal citation that shows that the law will not recognize such agreements, and that they are void?

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh;93981Therefore, I [I
    control[/I] 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...
    --Daniel
    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post

    Therefore, you are wrong when you say that what I suggest amounts to trying to control public domain documents.
    I'm only reading what you wrote.
    No, you're misreading what I wrote. What I suggest amounts to trying to control instantiations of reproductions of public domain works, not the works themselves. I guess I have to repeat this: I am not suggesting that by entering into an agreement with a person who wishes to view a reproduction that I have made of a public domain work, I can therefore try to control the work itself. If a person agrees to view a reproduction that I have created of a catalog on condition that they do not disseminate it further, I am not preventing him or her from disseminating a copy of the catalog that they obtain from another source, or that he or she creates him/herself. I am not exerting control over the public domain work, any more than I would be by simply not showing anyone my copy at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean when you say the agreement on the PCA site means nothing. Are you offering a legal opinion that it represents a contract that is illegal?

    Is it your opinion that the agreements between users and such companies as Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com, and NewspaperARCHIVE.com "mean nothing"?
    I think it has little real meaning for the reason they have no right to the content.
    Again, you are confusing copyright with the right to propose agreements that have terms for viewing reproductions of a public-domain work.

    If the content is public domain you can't actually "steal" it,
    Again, you are confusing the violation of a copyright with the violation of the terms of a contract freely entered into. Now, you may also believe that terms of use such as those at the above-named sites are illegal, but you haven't provided any support for such a claim.

    if it's made available then it can be copied by "whoever" bearing in mind that person has already paid to access the information via membership. The terms and conditions then aim to impose control over public domain content, while clearly you would breach those by posting content from PCA elsewhere I would doubt the value of trying to enforce them.
    To be precise, the T's & C's impose control over a particular reproduction of public domain content, not over the content itself. Again, you offer a legal opinion about whether such redistribution terms are enforceable; what is the basis for that claim? I haven't seen a specific citation that definitively voids such terms, but I am always open to new information.

    As I said in, practical terms, it means nothing. Likewise with the others, from a practical view the cost outweighs any possible chance of success. The music industry highlights the difficulties even when copyright exists, if I gave you a copy of a CD are they going to "chase" me? Even if it's on a torrent site with 1000's of illegal downloads...not much happens....at the moment anyway. This is the practical reality.
    This is a completely different argument. You now seem to be saying not that the rights don't exist -- via copyright or contract -- but that it's hard to catch violators and expensive to litigate. But that's not the issue under discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    To be clear: Are you saying that a person or entity who makes a reproduction of a public-domain work has no right to impose conditions for viewing their reproduction, such as the setting of a fee?

    --Daniel
    No I'm not. PCA (or any entity) can charge for viewing (as it does through membership), could charge per download if it wanted to and could charge for a physical copy. What I'm saying is that once the public domain content moves off their site they no longer have any control over it or how it's used. While PCA term and conditions seek to limit the public domain content being copied I doubt it's of much real value.
    Again, this gets back to your assertion that as a matter of law, one cannot impose via contract any restrictions on redistribution of reproductions of public-domain works. I haven't seen any citations that support this specific claim, but I would be interested to learn of some.

    --Daniel
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  8. #48
    Senior Member david i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    994
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 980 Times in 320 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Back to core points. 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 R. Isaacson, MD

    http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.

    The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.

    The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.

    Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
    31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy

  9. #49
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post

    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).
    Incorrect. It is not debatable, and there is no actual debate. Even you have not claimed that they are not the same. I'm disappointed that you continue to take this position, but it's wrong.

    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).
    If you think this is a point I am making, you must have some statement of mine that made you think that. Please provide the statement of mine that made you think this is a point I am making. That will allow us to determine the basis of your belief.

    --Daniel
    Clearly you are not able to discuss this rationally. Example? I offer a point that I clearly say I'm not positive on, and clearly say we can ignore the point if need be. I offer a point but am willing to concede it for the sake of argument. You fixate on said point(s) and want proof (ignoring the fact that it is not my burden to prove that the archive.org documents are PCA's). Amazing.

    I'll tell you what. I'll make sure I print and re-scan any documents I might find on the internet so I'll know through my time and effort expended that they're mine.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post

    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).
    Incorrect. It is not debatable, and there is no actual debate. Even you have not claimed that they are not the same. I'm disappointed that you continue to take this position, but it's wrong.

    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).
    If you think this is a point I am making, you must have some statement of mine that made you think that. Please provide the statement of mine that made you think this is a point I am making. That will allow us to determine the basis of your belief.

    --Daniel
    Clearly you are not able to discuss this rationally. Example? I offer a point that I clearly say I'm not positive on, and clearly say we can ignore the point if need be. I offer a point but am willing to concede it for the sake of argument. You fixate on said point(s) and want proof (ignoring the fact that it is not my burden to prove that the archive.org documents are PCA's). Amazing.

    I'll tell you what. I'll make sure I print and re-scan any documents I might find on the internet so I'll know through my time and effort expended that they're mine.
    That's a disappointing cop-out, but I can't compel you to defend your statements. Your assertions here are strange; I never requested proof that the archive.org documents are or are not the PCA's, as a simple examination of my post will show (thanks for quoting it so this examination is facilitated).

    You think I made a very specific point, but you apparently refuse to show any statement of mine that supports this claim. At least that much has been made clear.

    Do you think someone who possesses a copy of a public-domain work is ethically obligated to make reproductions of that work available to the public for free?

    --Daniel
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 379 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post

    You have no copyright rights over the content. That is, you couldn't raise a copyright infringement claim. But on what basis do you claim that you cannot enter into a valid agreement with someone to restrict their redistribution of a reproduction you made of a public-domain work? That is, do you have a specific legal citation that shows that the law will not recognize such agreements, and that they are void?
    Due to the public nature of the documents I doubt enforceability, there may be precedence, may not but I'm not going to bother looking. You can write as many conditions as you like but when broken what are going to do about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    No, you're misreading what I wrote. What I suggest amounts to trying to control instantiations of reproductions of public domain works, not the works themselves. I guess I have to repeat this: I am not suggesting that by entering into an agreement with a person who wishes to view a reproduction that I have made of a public domain work, I can therefore try to control the work itself. If a person agrees to view a reproduction that I have created of a catalog on condition that they do not disseminate it further, I am not preventing him or her from disseminating a copy of the catalog that they obtain from another source, or that he or she creates him/herself. I am not exerting control over the public domain work, any more than I would be by simply not showing anyone my copy at all.
    Hardly worth arguing over. To be able to set conditions and enforce them legally you would need to demonstrate an ownership of said item (being content) as well as a loss by the action. It's hard to argue you've been wronged if there's no loss and you don't "own" the content.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    Again, you are confusing copyright with the right to propose agreements that have terms for viewing reproductions of a public-domain work.Again, you are confusing the violation of a copyright with the violation of the terms of a contract freely entered into. Now, you may also believe that terms of use such as those at the above-named sites are illegal, but you haven't provided any support for such a claim.
    Not at all. What I'm saying if the T.& C. are broken they're basically unenforceable. I'm not saying they're illegal ( how you came up with that beats me) just useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    This is a completely different argument. You now seem to be saying not that the rights don't exist -- via copyright or contract -- but that it's hard to catch violators and expensive to litigate. But that's not the issue under discussion.
    Of course it's the issue !! For it be legal it has to be enforceable under whatever jurisdiction is involved. One needs to consider the costs before action versus the chance of success, in the PCA instance it's a no brainer that action would cost more than it gains with little chance of winning...hence the issue becomes a "non issue" effectively voiding any T.& Cs. That's the reality of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    Again, this gets back to your assertion that as a matter of law, one cannot impose via contract any restrictions on redistribution of reproductions of public-domain works. I haven't seen any citations that support this specific claim, but I would be interested to learn of some.
    Again it's enforceability. I've already addressed this earlier. There's probably not much point in looking at this further unless you have something specific to "toss" around.

    Regards
    Hugh

  12. #52
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    That's a disappointing cop-out, but I can't compel you to defend your statements. Your assertions here are strange; I never requested proof that the archive.org documents are or are not the PCA's, as a simple examination of my post will show (thanks for quoting it so this examination is facilitated).

    You think I made a very specific point, but you apparently refuse to show any statement of mine that supports this claim. At least that much has been made clear.

    Do you think someone who possesses a copy of a public-domain work is ethically obligated to make reproductions of that work available to the public for free?

    --Daniel
    My assertions are quite rational. Your reading comprehension is what appears to be lacking, or you are being disingenuous or manipulative with your interpretations.

    (Example 1.) I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal
    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).
    I am not asserting that they did or didn't originate at PCA. I'm addressing the question.

    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh
    Incorrect. It is not debatable, and there is no actual debate. Even you have not claimed that they are not the same. I'm disappointed that you continue to take this position, but it's wrong.
    You are asserting that they did originate at PCA. I do not have to provide a quote of you phrasing it in that manner. By eliminating the questionability, you are making an assertion and the burden of proof falls on you.

    (Example 2.) I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal
    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).
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh
    If you think this is a point I am making, you must have some statement of mine that made you think that. Please provide the statement of mine that made you think this is a point I am making. That will allow us to determine the basis of your belief.
    It is clear from my post that I am not sure if you are making that assertion. Identifying that, I even offer to disregard that part of the argument. It is somewhat of a tangent and not the crux of the argument. Rather than disregard something that might not be relevant; you want me to "prove" that you made the assertion, ignoring that I wasn't clear on if you were making the assertion. See your post here.

    This is freshman-level critical thinking. If you don't get it, there's no reason for me to continue the with discussion you. If you do get it and are being disingenuous by parsing the argument, there's no reason for me to continue the discussion with you.



    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh
    Do you think someone who possesses a copy of a public-domain work is ethically obligated to make reproductions of that work available to the public for free?
    No I do not.

    Do you think someone who possesses a copy of a public-domain work is entitled to control of copies of the copy?
    Last edited by dneal; August 29th, 2014 at 06:47 AM.

  13. #53
    Senior Member Quantum Sailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    312
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 259 Times in 105 Posts
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Just my two cents from what I've been reading of this thread. There have been similar cases in the IT industry where a company has tried to claim copyright over generally considered public domain material, i.e. unix code and linux code kernels that are not proprietary anymore. Most of the time from what I've seen, and it may be a limited sample, it's held that unless you are the original copyright holder you can't claim any copyright unless you create something new. Photo copies/scans are not new in the sense that reproducing computer code is not new code. So I would say there is some legal precedent that would deny PCA having any standing. The practice in the IT industry is something akin to patent trolls to my understanding but in a reverse way.

    I have also heard of the original copyright owner coming back and suing the company claiming a new copyright and winning a judgment against them.

    Admittedly it's late and I'm going off of remembering things I've read but ultimately it's a legal moot point if I am remembering correctly. If they are not the original copyright holder they have no say in what happens to the copies of materials that are in the public domain, unless they obtained the copyright from the legal holder. However since there is no copyright holder in the public domain and you can't apply for a copyright on that material there's no standing. Unless they had gone through the material and constructed a new book/publication that incorporated that material in their own new setting. But I don't think the public domain material would be copyrighted just the distribution of the new material they produced. Copies do not constitute new material. If they could prove someone hacked into their servers and stole data then that is another thing entirely, but posting public domain information is not illegal and there really is no recourse in my understanding. If a member who had legal access to their archives took the data and posted it unless there was a binding contract in the membership clause about nondisclosure then that member legally had every right to do whatever he wanted with the data he/she was allowed access to.

    As for the morality of taking it and posting it somewhere else, that's a gray area that one could stand on both sides of. I don't really see why there's a big fuss about posting public domain documents, if you're about the dissemination of knowledge for knowledge sake then who cares where it goes. If on the other hand you're trying to profit off of public domain information that should be out there for free you may find yourself on the wrong side of morality as well.

    This is all my opinion and I'm no lawyer by any means, just remembering some precedent that I had read about in similar cases in the IT world. So it's pretty much worth what you paid for it, if there is precedent for the flip side of the argument I'd be interested to hear it as well.
    Last edited by Quantum Sailor; August 29th, 2014 at 02:04 AM.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Quantum Sailor For This Useful Post:

    dneal (August 29th, 2014), pajaro (July 12th, 2015)

  15. #54
    Senior Member dneal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    6,001
    Thanks
    2,403
    Thanked 2,281 Times in 1,306 Posts
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Sailor View Post
    As for the morality of taking it and posting it somewhere else, that's a gray area that one could stand on both sides of. I don't really see why there's a big fuss about posting public domain documents, if you're about the dissemination of knowledge for knowledge sake then who cares where it goes. If on the other hand you're trying to profit off of public domain information that should be out there for free you may find yourself on the wrong side of morality as well.
    Very well said.

  16. #55
    Senior Member david i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    994
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 980 Times in 320 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Back to core points. 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 R. Isaacson, MD

    http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.

    The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.

    The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.

    Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
    31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy

  17. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 379 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by david i View Post
    Back to core points. 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
    Okay, I'm glad your cheerful ......you've made your point...which is correct.....I think there's only one left who won't admit it .

  18. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    350
    Thanked 379 Times in 187 Posts
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Sailor View Post
    Just my two cents from what I've been reading of this thread. There have been similar cases in the IT industry where a company has tried to claim copyright over generally considered public domain material, i.e. unix code and linux code kernels that are not proprietary anymore. Most of the time from what I've seen, and it may be a limited sample, it's held that unless you are the original copyright holder you can't claim any copyright unless you create something new. Photo copies/scans are not new in the sense that reproducing computer code is not new code. So I would say there is some legal precedent that would deny PCA having any standing. The practice in the IT industry is something akin to patent trolls to my understanding but in a reverse way.

    I have also heard of the original copyright owner coming back and suing the company claiming a new copyright and winning a judgment against them.

    Admittedly it's late and I'm going off of remembering things I've read but ultimately it's a legal moot point if I am remembering correctly. If they are not the original copyright holder they have no say in what happens to the copies of materials that are in the public domain, unless they obtained the copyright from the legal holder. However since there is no copyright holder in the public domain and you can't apply for a copyright on that material there's no standing. Unless they had gone through the material and constructed a new book/publication that incorporated that material in their own new setting. But I don't think the public domain material would be copyrighted just the distribution of the new material they produced. Copies do not constitute new material. If they could prove someone hacked into their servers and stole data then that is another thing entirely, but posting public domain information is not illegal and there really is no recourse in my understanding. If a member who had legal access to their archives took the data and posted it unless there was a binding contract in the membership clause about nondisclosure then that member legally had every right to do whatever he wanted with the data he/she was allowed access to.

    As for the morality of taking it and posting it somewhere else, that's a gray area that one could stand on both sides of. I don't really see why there's a big fuss about posting public domain documents, if you're about the dissemination of knowledge for knowledge sake then who cares where it goes. If on the other hand you're trying to profit off of public domain information that should be out there for free you may find yourself on the wrong side of morality as well.

    This is all my opinion and I'm no lawyer by any means, just remembering some precedent that I had read about in similar cases in the IT world. So it's pretty much worth what you paid for it, if there is precedent for the flip side of the argument I'd be interested to hear it as well.
    Correct as far as I'm concerned. I doubt a "binding contract in the membership clause about nondisclosure" extends , in the case of public domain documents, to being enforceable to anything other than being denied membership (banned!!). I see no issue with, say the PCA, trying to recoup their costs of scanning, hosting and like. Really the core issue here is the personal ones by those who have put the "hard yards in". The legal bits have well and truly been addressed many times ( regardless of one posters stance to the contrary) leaving only the moral/ethical ones standing and that's a personal choice. Thank you for your post.

    Regards
    Hugh

  19. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by HughC View Post

    Due to the public nature of the documents I doubt enforceability, there may be precedence, may not but I'm not going to bother looking. You can write as many conditions as you like but when broken what are going to do about it?
    This argument is in line with your previous example of copying music -- it's expensive to litigate and maybe difficult to identify those who have engaged in the offending act. I understand those points, though I was not discussing those practicalities, but rather the rights themselves, which are a distinct issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    No, you're misreading what I wrote. What I suggest amounts to trying to control instantiations of reproductions of public domain works, not the works themselves. I guess I have to repeat this: I am not suggesting that by entering into an agreement with a person who wishes to view a reproduction that I have made of a public domain work, I can therefore try to control the work itself. If a person agrees to view a reproduction that I have created of a catalog on condition that they do not disseminate it further, I am not preventing him or her from disseminating a copy of the catalog that they obtain from another source, or that he or she creates him/herself. I am not exerting control over the public domain work, any more than I would be by simply not showing anyone my copy at all.
    Hardly worth arguing over. To be able to set conditions and enforce them legally you would need to demonstrate an ownership of said item (being content) as well as a loss by the action. It's hard to argue you've been wronged if there's no loss and you don't "own" the content.
    Here you are getting into a specific legal question -- whether, to enforce a contract freely entered into by two parties and then violated by one of them, there needs to be a showing of ownership of the content of the works at issue. I understand that this is your opinion on this legal question, but that you don't have (or at least have not presented) any references that support this opinion.

    The question of harm or loss is yet another matter, which would bear primarily on any award; I believe a reasonable showing can be made on this in the general case of the violation of a restriction on reuse of an item for which a fee is charged, and you believe that it cannot. We can agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    Again, you are confusing copyright with the right to propose agreements that have terms for viewing reproductions of a public-domain work.Again, you are confusing the violation of a copyright with the violation of the terms of a contract freely entered into. Now, you may also believe that terms of use such as those at the above-named sites are illegal, but you haven't provided any support for such a claim.
    Not at all. What I'm saying if the T.& C. are broken they're basically unenforceable. I'm not saying they're illegal ( how you came up with that beats me) just useless.
    Again, I gather you mean such terms are unenforceable in the same way that you will not be "chased" and prosecuted for copying a music CD. That is, it is unlikely that a particular violator will be identified and successfully sued or prosecuted. That may be, but it is a distinct issue from that of the legality of such terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    This is a completely different argument. You now seem to be saying not that the rights don't exist -- via copyright or contract -- but that it's hard to catch violators and expensive to litigate. But that's not the issue under discussion.
    Of course it's the issue !! For it be legal it has to be enforceable under whatever jurisdiction is involved. One needs to consider the costs before action versus the chance of success, in the PCA instance it's a no brainer that action would cost more than it gains with little chance of winning...hence the issue becomes a "non issue" effectively voiding any T.& Cs. That's the reality of it.
    Again, here you contend that it would be prohibitively expensive to litigate or prosecute violators, just as it often is with those who copy or redistribute music without permission, which effectively voids the protections present for music publishers, as you've explained. As noted, that's not the point I'm addressing.
    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh View Post
    Again, this gets back to your assertion that as a matter of law, one cannot impose via contract any restrictions on redistribution of reproductions of public-domain works. I haven't seen any citations that support this specific claim, but I would be interested to learn of some.
    Again it's enforceability. I've already addressed this earlier. There's probably not much point in looking at this further unless you have something specific to "toss" around.
    Thanks for clarifying that. I now understand that you are not offering an opinion on the legality of such terms, but on the practicalities of pursuing violators, parallel to the situation with the copying of digital music.

    --Daniel
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

  20. #59
    Senior Member david i's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    994
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 980 Times in 320 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Back to core points. 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 R. Isaacson, MD

    http://www.vacumania.com : Sales site for guaranteed, restored collectible pens.

    The Fountain Pen Board /FPnuts : Archived Message Board with focus on vintage.

    The Fountain Pen Journal: The new glossy full-color print magazine, published/edited by iconic fountain pen author Paul Erano.

    Facebook pen group "Fountain Pens"/FPnuts: Davey's casual Facebook group for collectible pens.
    31000 members and growing. World's heftiest daily vintage pen eye candy

  21. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    43
    Thanked 237 Times in 116 Posts
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: Public Domain Pen Documents Now Online

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal View Post

    My assertions are quite rational. Your reading comprehension is what appears to be lacking, or you are being disingenuous or manipulative with your interpretations.

    (Example 1.) I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal
    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).
    I am not asserting that they did or didn't originate at PCA. I'm addressing the question.
    You said it was debatable, but it's not. Now, if you want to make it debatable, by debating it, you are free to do so. But you haven't.

    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh
    Incorrect. It is not debatable, and there is no actual debate. Even you have not claimed that they are not the same. I'm disappointed that you continue to take this position, but it's wrong.
    You are asserting that they did originate at PCA. I do not have to provide a quote of you phrasing it in that manner. By eliminating the questionability, you are making an assertion and the burden of proof falls on you.
    I did not request a quote of me phrasing it in that manner. I pointed out that you claimed it was debatable, but that it was, in fact, not debatable; no one has taken the position that the documents are not the same as the ones from the PCA.

    (Example 2.) I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by dneal
    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).
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh
    If you think this is a point I am making, you must have some statement of mine that made you think that. Please provide the statement of mine that made you think this is a point I am making. That will allow us to determine the basis of your belief.
    It is clear from my post that I am not sure if you are making that assertion. Identifying that, I even offer to disregard that part of the argument. It is somewhat of a tangent and not the crux of the argument. Rather than disregard something that might not be relevant; you want me to "prove" that you made the assertion, ignoring that I wasn't clear on if you were making the assertion. See your post here.
    To be precise, you said "I think this a point you are making." I requested the basis for your thinking that. You evade, and engage in a disappointing tactic by purporting to quote me using the word "prove," which I did not do. If you wish to retract your statement because you now realize that you had no basis for forming your belief, you are free to do so.

    This is freshman-level critical thinking. If you don't get it, there's no reason for me to continue the with discussion you. If you do get it and are being disingenuous by parsing the argument, there's no reason for me to continue the discussion with you.
    It's disappointing that you are engaging in ad-hominem argument. I'd discourage that course of action.

    Quote Originally Posted by kirchh
    Do you think someone who possesses a copy of a public-domain work is ethically obligated to make reproductions of that work available to the public for free?
    No I do not.

    Do you think someone who possesses a copy of a public-domain work is entitled to control of copies of the copy?
    Yes.

    Do you think someone who possesses a copy of a public-domain work is unethical if they make reproductions of that work available for a fee?

    --Daniel
    “Every discussion which is made from an egoistic standpoint is corrupted from the start and cannot yield an absolutely sure conclusion. The ego puts its own interest first and twists every argument, word, even fact to suit that interest.”
    ― Paul Brunton, The Notebooks of Paul Brunton

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •