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.
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.
[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
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 :-)
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.
Perhaps Amazon should have policy that sources are referenced, contributions described.
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.
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.
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").