Project Gutenberg Improperly PD’d Copyrighted Works, Authors Claim

By misreading copyright law Project Gutenberg may have infringed the rights of some authors and improperly put their books into the public domain, say science fiction author Greg Bear and Astrid Anderson Bear, his wife and daughter of another SF author, Poul Anderson.  Gutenberg’s release of several Poul Anderson works into the public domain provoked an investigation by the couple, who have issued the statement reproduced below in its entirety.

RC

********************************

The online site Project Gutenberg (PG)  is systematically declaring copyrights void in many literary works published in the 1940s, 1950s, and later, with a special focus on stories published in science fiction pulp magazines. Project Gutenberg then makes these works freely available on the internet though their website, where the scanned texts are further disseminated by manybooks.net and other online text outlets.

After conducting legal research on the LEXIS database of legal cases, decisions, and precedents, we have demonstrated conclusively that PG was making incorrect determinations regarding public domain status in many, many works that originally appeared in magazine form. The Poul Anderson estate has been able to get one work, “The Escape”, that PG had firmly declared to be public domain, removed from their site. PG’s original reasoning was that since the magazine it appeared in had never actually filed for copyright, the work was unprotected. “The Escape”, printed in 1953, was the first half of Anderson’s well-known novel BRAINWAVE, which was published and properly copyrighted the following year.

However, even if ‘The Escape” had not been published as a novel, it would have remained under copyright protection until 1981 (28 years) and been eligible for copyright renewal. Authors of that era, and Anderson in particular, were very aware of the need to renew copyrights, and typically meticulously kept their copyright protections up to date. Copyright law for works created more recently is much easier: life plus 70 years. (Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 1998).

Why is a work that appeared in a magazine that did not file proper copyright paperwork protected by copyright law? The opinion in a major case in the US 2nd Circuit Court, Goodis v. United Artists Television, explains: ”. . . “We unanimously conclude that where a magazine has purchased the right of first publication under circumstances which show that the author has no intention to donate his work to the public, copyright notice in the magazine’s name is sufficient to obtain a valid copyright on behalf of the beneficial owner, the author or proprietor.” The opinion goes on at length regarding the creation of copyright at the time of publication. The full text of Goodis is available here.

A second major case in copyright law, Abend v. MCA, Inc., Universal Film Exchange, James Stewart, estate of Alfred Hitchcock, et al, in the 9th Circuit, upholds this ruling and references Goodis lavishly. The full text of Abend is available here.

According to an email from Project Gutenberg’s CEO, Dr. Greg Newby, PG has changed their procedures for research of copyright non-renewal following the takedown of the Anderson work, although as of this writing (11/21/10) they have not posted these changes on their website. Dr. Newby says PG has also put a hold on public domain determinations for non-renewals. They do not seem to be reviewing the status of works already posted.

Authors and estates with works that are listed as public domain on PG’s site need to check out the true copyright status of those works, If they are posted on PG in error, PG needs to be notified via a DMCA notice. This is a powerful tool, created by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. A DMCA notice is a legal document that states the rights of the copyright holder and demands that illegally posted material be taken down. For a summary of the DMCA in general, go here. There are many online forms for the DMCA notices, such as this one.

DMCA notices also need to be filed with other sites such as manybooks.net, demanding removal of the texts from the sites. The DMCAs may not be honored until PG has pulled a title, as PG is considered the “gold standard” of copyright determination – all titles available there are thought (wrongly) to be free and clear for exploitation by anyone. Small, independent publishers are taking advantage of these treasures and making physical copies, usually with print-on-demand technology, and selling them through Amazon and other sites. Estates and authors should search out these publishers and make their rights known. Estates and authors can demand that publication stop immediately, and that all proceeds be turned over to them as the rightful copyright holder. It should be noted that these publishers don’t feel they are pirates, they feel they are merely taking advantage of opportunities that are perfectly legal. They are wrong, and need to be put in the right of it.

In general, Project Gutenberg is doing a tremendous service by making available texts that have truly long since fallen out of copyright, but they are clearly overstepping their original mandate. They are not merely exploiting orphan works, but practicing a wholesale kidnapping of works that are under copyright protection. Authors and estates need to aggressively take back what belongs to them.

— Astrid Anderson Bear
Greg Bear

***************************

For a complete E-Reads archive on piracy, visit Pirate Central.

Share

40 Responses to Project Gutenberg Improperly PD’d Copyrighted Works, Authors Claim

  1. michael says:

    Orphan books have always been the saddest victim in the copyright law. For example, Craig Rice. At one time such a popular author Time magazine featured her on its cover. Today her books are out of print and nearly forgotten. With the exception of a few assumed PD titles on ebooks, the only place to find her work is in an used bookstore. The writer is forgotten (is there a worse fate for any writer?) and her estate makes no money.

    I agree with Astrid Anderson and Greg Bear, but I also support Project Gutenberg’s actions. A writer’s legacy is more than just profit for his heirs, it is also his stories and ideas he gave all of us. To let an author’s work disappear, especially work no one seems interested in publishing, to me is the bigger crime.

    I wish Astrid Anderson and Greg Bear much success in protecting what is theirs. I just hope Project Gutenberg will continue to error on publishing rather than pass and let the work of a forgotten orphan author be forgotten.

  2. Tim says:

    “I wish Astrid Anderson and Greg Bear much success in protecting what is theirs.”

    The works of Poul Anderson are not “theirs”. It’s only because Big Media has inflated and puffed up the duration of copyright that they can claim works by their father and father in law that were written over half a century ago as “theirs”.

    Their so called problems are a direct result of stretching copyright terms from the original 14 years to what is now easily 10 times that.

  3. michael says:

    Tim, while I agree the copyright law extends too long and to too many people that have little connection to the original writer.

    But I do think Poul Anderson would want his daughter to inherit his work and the profits from his work.

  4. Karen Anderson says:

    I am Poul Anderson’s widow, and I can assure you that he did not “give” his stories to anyone. He licensed their sale. I continue to license the sale of “Brain Wave,” among others, and that was the retirement income he left me. Whoever sells copies of such a work — as has been done with other titles that are my property — without payment of a royalty, defrauds me just as much as if they had taken my car and used it to sell taxi rides. Fortunately, my family are capable enough to protect me from this unlawful taking.

  5. M-K says:

    An “orphan work” is one presumably still under copyright for which the copyright owner is unknown or not locatable. It is not a work that’s out of print.

    The letter does little to explain the actual legal situation. If the magazine copyright was not renewed, then the story (in its magazine form) should be public domain.

    More details would be appreciated.

  6. ebookerz says:

    I would agree with Michael on this. Authors are creators of something unique… some say “they give birth to their texts”. Although there is great public interest in many texts, their work has to be protected.

  7. Bill says:

    Whether Tim (or Michael) feel the term of copyright is too long is absolutely besides the point. The fact is the law is the law and copyright law is on the books as it stands. Because I feel the speed limit should be 90 mph doesn’t mean I’m not breaking the law when I drive 90 in a 55 mph zone. When I’m caught, I’m obliged to pay the ticket.

    Project Gutenberg was caught here. While I agree they’re providing a service by providing quality digital editions of out of copyright works, I also feel they are somtimes sloppy and cavalier in their research methods of determining copyright.

    An author’s work is his or her legacy and, as Karen Anderson stresses, all he or she has to leave his/her heirs. So long as copyright law stands as it is, there’s no room for subjectivity in its determination. Project Guteneberg should be more respectful of that and seek permission from the rightful heirs in such cases.

  8. Greg Weeks says:

    Greg Newby’s official PG response:

    http://cand.pglaf.org/bear-response.txt

  9. Kevin Rhoads says:

    Part of the problems are the many changes to copyright laws over the decades make it harder to determine what is appropriate, but, more so, unlike with land deeds there is no centralized registry of copyrights to which one can refer for a definitive answer to questions such as “was copyright renewed for work xxxxx”.

    Thanks for a thoughtful, and insightful, report upon this matter.

  10. Andras Nagy says:

    I publish public domain books, (which I editorize, sometimes rearrange and try to make it more readable by publishing my edition) and I have to say this; mistakes happen. There are many, more obscure books, in print which are officially still under copyright law but no living heir exists(!) or copyright has never been filed originally. If somehow mistakes are made, AND they are promptly corrected (by withdrawing the book in question), this is all anyone can ask for.

  11. CHightshoe says:

    “The letter does little to explain the actual legal situation. If the magazine copyright was not renewed, then the story (in its magazine form) should be public domain.”

    By law – a copyright is not required to be registered. A work is copyrighted as soon as it is written. It as nothing to do with whether the magazine registered the copyright or not. The author was paid for the right to use the story/article in the magazine, but unless it was a work for hire in which the publisher takes ALL rights to the story – he did not give up his copyright.

    Even if a magazine has it’s copyright registered and renewed – the copyrights on the individual stories still remain with the individual authors. (Again, unless the publication bought ALL rights to the story – essentially transferring them from the author to the publisher.

  12. Greg Bear says:

    Legal beagles can debate the merits until the cows come home—”Goodis” is in fact the relevant case law on copyrights, was referenced in many later cases, including the famous “Abend” decision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, and had a substantial influence on the current copyright law. It has not been at issue for over four decades, has never been replaced or overturned, and in fact is now only rendered moot for modern copyrights by the current law, which totally rejects the kind of casuistic “gotcha” theories we see being tossed around here and there.

    The basic message of Goodis is that a work under the copyright law of the day (1909 et seq.) falls out of copyright only if the clear intent of the author was not to copyright, or if the existing copyright is not renewed in a timely manner by the estate or author. Goodis establishes the principle that formal registration is not necessary to establish copyright–only posting of the copyright notice. Nothing is said about losing copyright for failure to accurately check-mark “reasons” or “details” attached to the renewal, and any renewal protects all past versions of the story, or else, logically, an author could find a current revised edition being competed against by a “public domain” prior version, which is clearly against the intent of the law. Carried to absurd lengths, proponents of flawed copyrights and public domain status could declare a “Gotcha!” if a printed version differed by a few typos…

    Imagine if you will going into a current courtroom with these kind of Machiavellian arguments and facing a sober-minded judge looking over the language of Goodis and Abend and the entire landscape of modern copyright since. Not a pretty picture.

    What is astonishing to me is that Gutenberg’s legal experts were not aware of these decisions until we pointed them out.

  13. David Starner says:

    If their copyrights is all an author has to leave his heirs, then what do the rest of us have to leave our heirs? For that matter, what do most authors have to leave their heirs, given how few books see reprints? Like everyone else, children of authors should get the college and wedding paid for, and anything else as bonuses.

    Few other organizations are as careful about copyright as Project Gutenberg. The fact that they’ve made a few mistakes over the years does not negate that. US copyright law is not cut and dried like speed limits, and is quite subtle and complex at points.

    And, no, Chightshoe, in 1953, in the US, there was no federal protection for unpublished works; they were protected by common-law copyright. That common-law copyright ceased the moment the work was published, and if the publisher, the magazine company, failed to follow the requirements for notice and registration, then the work fell into the public domain.

  14. Erik Johansson says:

    Your expressions “exploiting orphan works”, “practicing a wholesale kidnapping” are the one that infuriate me the most. Weighting the man-hours of the 1500+ volunteers active each month, publishing 200+ books, against your rights it’s pretty easy for me to judge is the bad guys.

    I wonder how much you guys have “lost” because of this, not counting moral rights.

    It would be nice with some additional praising of PG and http://pgdp.net.
    Exploiting indeed.. :-(

  15. Adam Jorgensen says:

    Nice to see some of the names involved commenting…

    @Karen Anderson: Project Gutenberg does not resell stuff, so they’re not defrauding you.

    In general, copyright is broken and has been for a long time.

    Sure, authors deserve to make some money from their hard work in the same way that anyone doing some form of “work” deserves to be paid for that “work”, if it is of actual value (In other words, people who do good “work” should get paid for it. People who do poor “work” deserve little or anything because their poor “work” does damage).

    However, the copyright terms we’re seeing at the moment are simply ludicrous. I don’t think anyone can logically argue that the copyright on anything should extend beyond a 50 year period for various reasons:

    1: On a human scale, 50 years is a long time. Long enough for the copyright holder to benefit from his/her work.
    2: Copyright is mostly unenforceable when applied on an unreasonable scale. In other words, enforcing 50+ year old copyrights is a waste of time and money for everyone involved.
    3: Over-extended copyright terms are hammering the home the very real possibility of significant information loss. One of the problems with information transmission in an oral culture is that it’s very fragile and information is easy to lose. One would think that a digital culture is immune to the same problem but this is not so if information is “protected” past a reasonable point.

    Ultimately, I think it would be a tremendous loss if the only copies of most of todays’ authors’ works were in the hands of private collectors in 300 years time, which is an actual possibility of copyright continues to get applied in it’s current fashion.

    Not a strong possibility though, because as I said above ludicrous copyright law is unenforceable on a large scale.

  16. Khushil Dep says:

    Has anyone heard of any response from PG? I haven’t been able to find any response to this and would be interested to see what PG as said and done about this. If mistakes are made then they should be rectified but we should remember that what people download for free is not the same as what they would purchase.

  17. David Starner says:

    Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc. is a little more limited then you claim; most importantly, it’s irrelevant to the theory PG was working under, which is that there was no renewal on the work.

    The theory of pre-1978 US copyright law was that a copyright holder had a fixed first term (28 years), and upon renewal a fixed second term (which was increased by various laws, but never exceeded 47 years), for a total of never more than 75 years. While in this case, the renewal of the novel probably covers the original text, renewals of revised versions don’t generally cover the original for two good reasons. For one, under the law, reusers of renewed work had the right to expect that a renewal would come after specified range around the 28th year; too late, and it doesn’t count. For another, it would let copyright holders extend the copyright beyond the given term; the 23th revised edition of Moby Dick shouldn’t mean that Moby Dick is still under copyright. When you complain about “a current revised edition being competed against by a “public domain” prior version, which is clearly against the intent of the law”, that’s exactly the situation publishers of the original Webster’s Dictionary found themselves in, and publishers of non-fiction material frequently updated often found themselves in that position. If that was the intent of the law, then Congress let it be interpreted otherwise by the courts for 150 years.

  18. Jonnan says:

    A) The court case she quotes would indeed be damning, but according the the circumstances cited in the article (that no copyright had ever been posted by the magazine) it does not intuitively seem applicable to a case where it specifically mentioned that a copyright claim on the basis of the magazine where the author did not choose to give up copyright would benefit the author.

    Not the case here (according to the facts as described)

    B) I’m sure Poul Anderson would have wanted his daughter to benefit from his work, as my father will want me to benefit from his. My father was, as Poul was, paid for his work at the time. I will inherit from his estate as Astrid did her fathers.

    At some point . . . the difference between the work my father did managing a store and getting paid and Poul Anderson’s creating a story and getting paid is insufficient to justify the difference in the way they were paid. When my Dad quit working Retail – he quit getting paid for the work he did managing a Retail store.
    When my mother made pottery, she sold pottery . . . and got paid for it.

    When Poul sold a story, he got paid for the story, for the rest of his life, and now feasibly the rest of Astrid’s life, and indeed feasibly his grandchildren’s lives.

    Unless Astrid intends to continue to pay for every material object she inherited from her father for 70 years past the death of the salesperson he bought it from, I find something really really wrong with this.

  19. Greg Weeks says:

    People might want to take a look at the documents from the U.S. governments copyright office concerning copyright expiration and renewals.

    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/

    Circulars 15, 15a along with 22 are the most relevant for these circumstances.

  20. Spizmar says:

    Jonnan, This is the difference between ownership of property and ‘work for hire’. Property is property, even if it is intellectual. If your father had built an apartment building that he was renting to tenants, and you inherited it, you would expect to be able to rent it out, as part of his legacy to you. I expect you might even take affront at someone suggesting that you had no claim to it, since your father built it, not you.

  21. Nolly says:

    I do think that the Anderson family has the moral right in the case of Poul’s works, and I’m sure there are similar cases. However, especially in the case of those who are reprinting works from Gutenberg, I think it’s more useful to approach them non-combatively, rather than assuming they’re maliciously attempting to defraud. While the essay above notes that they don’t consider themselves pirates, the tone seems very aggressive to me, with an implied “but they should”.

    • @ Nolly

      I think the Anderson family’s tone has been respectful but also expresses frustration as their patience was tried. More important is the probability that they lost money.

      In every business – profit or non-profit – companies are liable for actions that damage someone. Gutenberg should not be regarded differently from any other company simply because we admire their mission.
      RC

  22. I’m mildly stunned by the idea that Project Gutenberg thought Poul Anderson’s early short stories could be out of copyright. I’m willing to accept that it was an honest error on their part; I just can’t imagine how they arrived at that understanding.

  23. michael says:

    I just visited Amazon and looked up Brainwave by Poul Anderson. It appears to be out of print. A publisher called IBooks is selling an e-book version for $3.99. Has this been approved by the Anderson family? I also noticed there are booksellers selling used “good” paperback copies at $163.92 and up. Does any of this money get back to the Anderson family?

    Is there any interest from publishers in bring Poul Anderson’s out of print work back into print?

  24. Greg Weeks says:

    Baen has been reprinting a bunch of Poul Anderson’s work. I’ve not heard of anyone else that is.

    http://www.baen.com/author_catalog.asp?author=panderson

    Baen is doing a bunch of the Flandry books right now.

  25. Andrew Sly says:

    It is perhaps worth noting that only one work was removed from the Project Gutenberg collection. PG continues to distribute a number of short stories by Poul Anderson, for which no one has been able to demonstrate that copyright still exists.

  26. David Starner says:

    Project Gutenberg arrived at that understanding by understanding US copyright law. Prior to the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, works only had 28 years of copyright, at which point they either had to be renewed for another extended period of copyright, or they fell into the public domain. Many of Poul Anderson’s works were not renewed, and this law did nothing to restore copyright to works that had lost it. In the case of this work under question, it was renewed under a different name than the one originally published, which is why Project Gutenberg missed the renewal.

    michael, copyright doesn’t regulate the selling of used books, and a seller of used books neither has to pay royalties to or get permission from the author.

  27. Astrid Anderson Bear says:

    NESFA Press is also publishing Anderson collections: http://www.nesfa.org/press/NewReleases.html

    Andrew, we are dotting our I’s and crossing our T’s regarding copyright status on the other Anderson works on Gutenberg, but at least two of them are not public domain.

    David, the amount of his work that was not renewed is tiny, perhaps even non-existent. Even Project Gutenberg has only winkled out 6 other works as possible public domain items.

  28. Greg Weeks says:

    You do know that PG hasn’t made an effort to look at every Poul Anderson story?

    A quick count shows 11 renewals found for 7 without renewals for the short list that’s been checked. Not a terribly high percentage there for the short stories. The novels I think are mostly renewed, though I don’t think all of them were checked either.

    Details of what you think is still under copyright and why would be useful.

  29. Greg Bear says:

    Please cite actual court cases supporting Gutenberg’s interpretation of loss of copyright due to “nonrenewal” despite the clear intent of an author to maintain copyright by reprinting in copyrighted anthologies. Can you show any instance in which a court has declared an existing copyright invalid under these circumstances? Case law is where the rubber hits the road.

  30. Greg Bear says:

    (Cross posting from Futuramen to save time)
    And while we’re at it, let’s expand our investigation to other postings by Mr. Weeks, who is listed as “producer” on nearly all these works. Can Mr. Weeks explain why he posted THE BIG TIME by Fritz Leiber, when it is clearly copyrighted as a novel and renewed in a timely fashion? TRIPLANETARY by E.E. Smith, copyrighted by Smith and renewed by the Smith estate after media adaptations of the Lensman series? CODE THREE by Rick Raphael, copyrighted as a novel and renewed? And we’re just getting started here. Mr. Weeks’ theory of public domain status hinges solely on the nonfiling or nonrenewal of the MAGAZINE ISSUE COPYRIGHTS for these serialized works. The Goodis ruling invalidates all of these postings. So Mr. Weeks is now hunting for new theories? Please. Are we going to assume Gutenberg will be posting works by J.R.R. Tolkien soon (not copyrighted in the U.S during the 1950s)? Frank Herbert (magazine serialization of DUNE novels and other works)? And if not, why not? (Let’s add in L. Ron Hubbard!) We are not idiots. Mr. Weeks cannot be relied upon to understand copyright law. And Gutenberg is not the Library of Congress or a court. To assume superior judgment and deny the jurisdiction of LOC and courts of law is arrogance, to say the least.

    CITE CASES. Making new law or applying dubious legal judgments to existing property ex cathedra is a dangerous game.

  31. Greg Weeks says:

    Here’s the link if you are interested.

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/?p=3025

    You have a profound mis-understanding of how copyright works in the U.S. Since you will not believe what anyone else tells you about it, you really NEED TO GO TALK TO YOUR OWN COPYRIGHT LAWYER. You obviously didn’t bother to read any of the material at the Library of Congress that I gave you links to.

    Now I understand why Greg Newby’s standard response is to tell people to go talk to a lawyer.

  32. Greg Weeks says:

    I don’t know why I bother. You aren’t going to pay any attention anyway.

    Alice T. Yardley vs Houghton Mifflin Co., Inc.

    International Film Exchange, Ltd., et al. [including Brandon Films and Films Incorporated] vs Corinth Films, Inc., et al. [including Richard Feiner and Company, Inc.]

    Aubrey Mayhew, dba Mayhew Music Co., et al vs Gusto Records, Inc.
    Aubrey Mayhew, dba Mayhew Music Co., et al vs Stephen A. Hawkins, et al

    George Barris vs Richard Hamilton, Madison Avenue Bookshop, Monacelli Press Inc., Anthony D’Offay Gallery Inc. and Tate Gallery Productions, Inc., Hacker Art Books, Inc. and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles

    Classic Film Museum, Inc. vs Warner Bros. Inc.

    Shoptalk vs Concorde-New Horizons

    They aren’t hard to find.

  33. Greg Weeks says:

    Because of the very clear definition of derivative works, the publication in the anthology does not affect the copyright in the original work. I know you don’t want to believe that, but it is so.

    GO TALK TO YOUR OWN COPYRIGHT LAWYER.

  34. Andrew Sly says:

    Greg Bear wrote:

    “Gutenberg is not the Library of Congress or a court. To assume superior judgment and deny the jurisdiction of LOC and courts of law is arrogance, to say the least.”

    A little better idea of how Project Gutenberg works might help you here.
    First of all, Project Gutenberg itself does not select or favor certain texts to add to the collection. That is entirely up to the volunteers to decide. Or to put it another way, volunteers can request to prepare anything they want to add to the PG collection. Some people focus on texts in French or German; some like old books about needlework, religion, or history; and yes, some like science fiction.

    However, they must get a copyright clearance first. As someone who has been involved with PG for many years, I can say that the project has a history of being very careful about determining US public domain status. When PG made the decision to begin clearing some texts published after 1922 which did not have their copyrights renewed, they moved into the potential to run into more uncertain legal gray areas, but I believe they have continued to be on the cautious side. To say that PG is denying “jurisdiction of LOC and courts of law” is uninformed. PG copyright clearance procedures have been carefully reviewed by lawyers. (Note that I am not claiming they are absolutely infallible–but they have been reviewed by professionals with a very good understanding of American copyright law.)

    So, it is the PG clearance team which makes the determination that a particular item is ok to use. Greg Weeks is not who you need to convince.
    Any number of people may argue court cases and precedents on blog comments until they are exhausted, but that will have no effect on the matter.
    None of that can be taken to be official communication from PG regarding legal matters.

    As I understand it, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is responsible for the legal needs of the Project. In previous cases where there has been disagreements over copyright matters, the official communication from PG has been cordial, always ready to remove works if a valid copyright claim can be demonstrated, and even sometimes offering to help do extra research to determine a work’s status.

    Hope this helps,
    Andrew

  35. Greg Weeks says:

    Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes vs George D. Hurst

  36. Jacques St. Pierre says:

    The article discusses the situation in which Gutenberg wrongly concluded works were public domain, and the following situation in which third party websites are making money directly or indirectly by displaying or selling those books. The article suggested a DMCA notice to the 3rd party websites. However, the works at issue are in copyright, a DMCA notice isn’t necessary, the DMCA doesn’t apply, and evidently some of the 3rd party websites arrogantly ignore such notices.

    Whether a victim wants to be a nice guy and issue a notice is up to the victim. An attorney friend of mine pointed out that the 3rd party sites are infringers, and if they ignore a DMCA notification WILLFUL infringers. He pointed out that Gutenberg’s error just means Gutenberg’s is both an infringer and a “fence,” and there is no protection for 3rd party infringers.

    I am constantly surprised by the tolerance for thievery, and the stubborn notion that thieves require every courtesy and accommodation. By both law and logic, it is up to the user of intellectual property to make sure he is not trading in stolen goods.

    A friend of mine has what I think is a reasonable policy. If he thinks a 3rd party site is unethical, he sues. If he is unsure he gives them a warning, and their “attitude” determines whether the warning is enough or they have a wad of Summons and Complaint to answer.

  37. mallen says:

    It matters little whether your robbed by Robinhood or John Dillinger if you are the victim. You still were robbed. I think copyrights are excessive,but until and unless that is changed,that’s the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+ 14 = 15