Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Books

Libraries and Archivists Are Scanning and Uploading Books That Are Secretly in the Public Domain (vice.com) 49

A coalition of archivists, activists, and libraries are working overtime to make it easier to identify the many books that are secretly in the public domain, digitize them, and make them freely available online to everyone. The people behind the effort are now hoping to upload these books to the Internet Archive, one of the largest digital archives on the internet. From a report: As it currently stands, all books published in the U.S. before 1924 are in the public domain, meaning they're publicly owned and can be freely used and copied. Books published in 1964 and after are still in copyright, and by law will be for 95 years from their publication date. But a copyright loophole means that up to 75 percent of books published between 1923 to 1964 are secretly in the public domain, meaning they are free to read and copy.

The problem is determining which books these are, due to archaic copyright registration systems and convoluted and shifting copyright law. As such, a coalition of libraries, volunteers, and archivists have been working overtime to identify which titles are in the public domain, digitize them, then upload them to the internet. At the heart of the effort has been the New York Public Library, which recently documented why the entire process is important, but a bit of a pain.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Libraries and Archivists Are Scanning and Uploading Books That Are Secretly in the Public Domain

Comments Filter:
  • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @04:10PM (#59178714)

    The original intent of copyright was to allow all works into the public domain within a generation. 14 year copyright plus 14 years more IF the holder bothered to renew. So 28 years, that was the max.

    I think those in countries not signatories to the absurdly long copyright periods the entertainment cartel paid the U.S. government and allies to enact should just scan everything older than 28 years and make available online by P2P with VPN protection. That would help to remove the stranglehold of those power and money grubbing scum using the DOJ's armed thugs as stormtroopers and terrorists.

    That information belongs to the people, not self-appointed middlemen parasites.

    • by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @04:26PM (#59178750) Homepage Journal

      But... but... if copyright isn't extended, Elvis won't write any more songs!

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 )

      You can thank the MPAA and hollywood for that. They lobbied congress for copyright extensions. Now we have ridiculous extensions on books, songs, and video. Fake fears of mickey mouse becoming a public domain porn star. I know people on here love to blame the republicans for a bunch of shit on here; but when was the last time hollywood hosted $10,000 plate dinner fundraisers for any other party besides democrats? I can’t see republicans voting to cut them any sort of break given how much they have alw

      • by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @05:23PM (#59178900)
        The last two copyright extensions were completely bipartisan. The one in 76 unanimously so in the Senate and 317-7 in the house, and the really egregious one in 98 was introduced in the Senate by Orrin Hatch (R) and passed by unanimous consent, and passed in the house by voice vote (i.e. not even close).
        Maybe you should actually be sure where the parties stand before singling one out.
        • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

          I say we blast off and nuke the entire site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          They were stealing from the general public, stealing their right to access that content freely, they should have fucking asked. So why not sort out all the problems and have copyright 25 years from date of first publication and put that to a vote from the public, let's guess which way that vote would go. As an additional proviso, how about all content be checked, to ensure it is of worth to society, fail that tests and why should the public pay to protect it.

        • Youv'e recognized who the real enemy of freedom is.
      • The fears may have been real: I'm pretty sure the Internet has made Mickey Mouse into a porn star.
        Can we repeal the ridiculously long copyrights now that we know they don't stop mouse porn?
        • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

          As long as I dont have to watch duck porn. That damn duckjob.wav from the 99s way enough!!

        • The fears may have been real: I'm pretty sure the Internet has made Mickey Mouse into a porn star.

          Mickey (and the whole Disney animated crew) have been porn stars since at least 1967, when Krasner's The Realist published the Wally Wood "Disneyland Memorial Orgy" poster.

          (I won't link to it. Search and ye shall find.)

          Interestingly, Disney did NOT go after Krasner or The Realist for infringement - apparently recognizing that parody is protected speech and that a decision against them would likely lead down a

          • Wow, that was far more tame than I expected. The Internet has ruined me.

            • Wow, that was far more tame than I expected.

              That was 1967 - one year after Memoirs v. Massachusetts (which led to two years more confusion), two years before the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (the pro-free-press findings of which were utterly ignored by Congress and state legislatures) and 19 years before the Meese Report. The federal and state governments were still heavily censoring anything erotic.

              If it had been a little wilder, it would have been banned as obscene and the issue of

    • The original intent of copyright was to allow all works into the public domain within a generation.

      European countries perverted that intent to three generations in the nineteenth century [copyrightalliance.org]. Leo Lichtman explains:

      life plus fifty years and longer traces back to a principle adopted in Europe in the mid-19th century that copyright protection should last through the author’s life and the life of his or her direct descendants: the author’s children, and the author’s grandchildren. Because copyrights are based on something inherently personal—an author’s creativity—the three-generation principle was intended to ensure that those generations most likely to know the author personally could profit from the author’s work and be in the best position to oversee how the author’s work is used.

      • by ItsJustAPseudonym ( 1259172 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @06:53PM (#59179168)
        Thanks for the reference. Be advised that I am not shooting the messenger here. That being said...

        Because copyrights are based on something inherently personal—an author’s creativity...

        Cry me a fsking river. Patents are also based on creativity, but they don't afford protection for the same length of time as copyright. (Don't bring up patent trolls BTW. They are useless sucks on the world.) Q: Why not give patent owners three generations of protection?

        A: Because it's a stupidly bad idea to grant that level of protection to ANYONE for anything they create or invent.

        We should just go ahead and extend copyright protection to the heat death of the universe, because The Mouse will otherwise make it so, in little bits and pieces, as time moves on.

      • by dargaud ( 518470 )

        ... copyright protection should last through the author’s life and the life of his or her direct descendants: the author’s children, and the author’s grandchildren.

        Why ? WHY ?!? Can't they get a fucking job like most other people ? I wish I could benefit from my grand-parents salaries long after they are dead. Imagine, a plumber installed a sink 60 years ago at your home and every time you use it you have to pay his grand children. That's so fucking egregious.

    • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @06:37PM (#59179106)

      plus 14 years more IF the holder bothered to renew.

      Umm, no. Originally, it was IF the AUTHOR bothered to renew. Not the holder....

  • by magarity ( 164372 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @04:30PM (#59178760)

    Isn't this a duplicate from a couple weeks ago?

  • by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @04:42PM (#59178792) Homepage
    So we'll have a 95 year hole in human knowledge, representing the years 1964 to 2059, covering the rise of digital computing, the Internet, the sexual revolution, the fall of the iron curtain, the legalization of abortion, the rise of autonomous cars, and the approach of the Singularity. Happy birthday Mickey.
  • Top marks to these folks for all their work. Making these publications available online for no cost is a gift for future generations, especially artists who will find new uses for this material.
  • by smoot123 ( 1027084 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @05:13PM (#59178866)

    I mean, there's nothing secret about copyright law. It's all out there for anyone to read. Your average Joe (or average non-wonky-IP-lawyer) might not know the details but it's nothing you couldn't figure out if you cared.

  • Sadly (Score:4, Informative)

    by stabiesoft ( 733417 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2019 @06:40PM (#59179118) Homepage
    It looks like hathitrust.org is getting first copies and they put copyright on their plain text version. Hilarious. The only other option is their crap interface unless you have an institutional login. Hope project gutenberg gets a copy too as they provide freely downloadable pdf's.
  • Seriously, just scan everything and put it out there. It's gonna happen sooner or later anyway.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Working...