Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

I'm confused, the Amazon folks were complaining that he was trying to sell otherwise free information [1], did the OP just miss that? Seems like putting the Kindle version up for free would have removed their complaint.

[1] Amazon has had a huge problem with people who run through Google Books, find a book from before 1923, and then re-publish it for money in the Kindle store, only to have Amazon's customers get angry and bent out of shape when they realize they have been 'ripped off' buying something they could have gotten for free.

View on HN

I've published a book for the Kindle on Amazon that was published shortly after the Civil War. The price is nominal, but I put a lot of work into formatting the book, proofing it, preparing the illustrations, etc.

It was a labor of love for a book I really liked, and I don't expect to make any real money off of it, but I think a small fee is entirely justifiable. And if one doesn't like that fee, one can go find another copy elsewhere.

That is an interesting area of Copyright Law as well. You do in fact own the copyright on your new 'work' even through it was derived entirely from this previous book. Good examples of this are the classics like Homer's Odessey which is available here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Odyssey-Homer/dp/0140268863 the translator and their publisher put some work in getting it from Greek to English and voila, new work.

The issue that Amazon was cracking down on was folks who went to Google Books, found some work like *"The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla, With Special Reference to his work in Polyphase Currents and High Potential Lighting" and then downloaded it from Google and uploaded it to the Kindle store [2], [1]

[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=bhrreukJiLgC&printsec=f... is the Google Books version

[2] http://www.amazon.com/Inventions-Researches-Reference-ILLUST... is the Amazon Kindle rip-off version.

A translation is entirely different from a reformat. Translating Homer from Greek to English is more than simply matching up words. It is a creative venture that results in a fair amount of originality. According to the Supreme Court of the United States, "the sine qua non of copyright is originality."[1] Effort is generally irrelevant when it comes to determining copyrightabilty, so a reformatted version would need a certain level of originality to be copyrightable.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm Also argued to be 'uniqueness' by a Professor at Miami School of Law: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1906047

I invite you to argue that way against Sony among others, who have taken works out of copyright and republished them in alternate forms establishing their own copyright. They argue that converting the work to the new format meets the transformation standard set by existing law.

Somehow I don't think Walter will go out and sue people if they make copies of this e-book but I do expect that should he do so he would prevail.

So off list one of the Gutenberg folks pointed out this exception:

"Chuck they get away with this by adding a new introduction or critical essay to be book, delete that and its back to public domain."

And notes that every republished work by various publishers that use public domain material does add an introduction or a bit about the author to establish that Copyright.

So I take it all back, Walter you should introduce your book with your thoughts on how appropriate it is and then charge what ever you want :-)

LOL, but I don't really mind that much. Like I said, I like the book and think everyone should enjoy it.

I also have a crapton of out-of-print books that are available nowhere, that I would put online for free if it weren't for the dang copyright laws. Some I have attempted to find the copyright owners, but I just find deadends.

It's really a sad state of affairs.

My personal opinion (and I make my living selling copyrighted software) is that copyrights should be good for 20 years. After that, you can keep the copyright going only if you're willing to send in a $1000 fee every year for each copyright, and that fee should go up a percent a year or so.

That'll put all the abandoned works into the public domain.

I agree with that, but I do think there needs to be some amount of effort that justifies putting out a new "edition" of the book, so to speak (which it sounds like you're doing). What Amazon is having problems with is large-scale automated stuff that doesn't bother to do good formatting at all, like the folks who are just repackaging Wikipedia articles, or PDFs directly from Google Books. I'm guessing Amazon just doesn't want to put in the resources to distinguish those cases.

Selling based false pretenses is unethical and potentially illegal.

Perhaps Amazon should have policy that sources are referenced, contributions described.

BTW, Amazon asked me several questions about the book before they allowed it on their site, and evidently they found my answers satisfactory.

> And if one doesn't like that fee, one can go find another copy elsewhere.

There is no sweat of the brow copyright in American law.

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:No_Sweat_of_the_Brow...

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat092303.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural

I mean, just so you know.

That doesn't mean he can't charge for it though. It just means he can't stop (via copyright law) someone else doing exactly the same thing and not giving him a cut.

Amazon aren't taking action on this so of thing because it is legally wrong (because it isn't) or because it is morally wrong (that argument could go on for some time and isn't relevant anyway so I'll not start it by expressing my opinion either way!).

They are cracking down on that sort of thing because it is irritating their userbase, and they think that the damage done by having the content there is much more significant then any cut of purchasing fees they would take. Taking more selective action (i.e. not dropping the few works where significant effort to nicely format the content for Kindle like devices, while getting rid of the great many hasty "copy, paste, done" jobs) would likely be far too much hassle too, relative any possible benefit (i.e. cut of the proceeds, and the less tangible "library completeness").

Irrelevant, though. Sure, there may be no copyright preventing anyone else from ripping off his reformatting work, but that doesn't prevent him from charging for it. He just has to endure the risk that he may not get for it what he charges for it when somebody else rips it off and sells it for $0. This is analogous to selling a nice, commercially pressed DVD of a linux distro for $5. You have no protection against the next guy giving an equivalent item away for free, but there is no law preventing you from charging money either.

Except since the cost of production for individual units is $0, it's more akin to crafting a really nice distro, not a DVD.

The software community is set up so that there is social compensation for open source labour. To a certain extent, the community of authors is the same way. The publishing community is certainly not set up so people are used to recogizing publishers for their contributions.

"Recognizing" To wit: with money

And some in the past tried charging for the result (rather than charging for support instead or as well, as RedHat and their ilk do).

It didn't work of course, but due to user education [the sort of people looking for Linux know they are likely to be able to get the same thing or better for free (plus media/transmission costs where relevant) elsewhere] rather than because it is wrong legally speaking, copyright or otherwise.

where exactly does it say he's trying to sell it?

I can't see that anywhere.

edit: looks like only amazon refer to it as being 'sold', can't see the author mention it.

That is the confusing part, Amazon talks about 'selling' it and he talks about 'managing copyright'. So it seems like they are talking about two different things, tied together by the liability of selling someone else's copyright protected material. I was looking for the response that said,

"Yes this stuff is available for free on the web, and it is available for free in this kindle book, I've just collated it into Kindle form to make it more accessible for people. All of the rights holders have explicitly allowed this use."

So that was my source of confusion.

Keep in mind that free books on the Amazon/Kindle store are still sold, there's just no charge for the sale.

Even if it is sold for $0.00, I wouldn't expect that to remove Amazon's issue with it. Whether or not the book is generating income, the person who "published" it does not have demonstrable rights to its contents.

Which is completely irrelevant because whoever does have the original copyright has already licensed them to everyone under publicly available conditions.

But is it really irrelevant?

The GPLv2 has made it clear something can be made freely available to the public, yet still have redistribution conditions. So, simply being "licensed to everyone" does not also grant distribution rights to everyone.

That's actually... exactly what GPLv2 enables?

Which is still completely irrelevant because this document is licensed under the GFDL.

Source? Why does e.g. Debian or other free software distributors think they can distribute GPLv2 software then?

I'm not saying the GPLv2 withholds distribution rights; rather, it grants them conditionally, and if you can grant them conditionally you can withhold them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com