tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post1061313990785855861..comments2024-03-22T12:20:48.920+00:00Comments on open...: Analogue or Digital? - Both, PleaseGlyn Moodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-25284135337183172912009-09-21T12:37:05.094+00:002009-09-21T12:37:05.094+00:00@Egon: IANAL, but my understanding is that if a bo...@Egon: IANAL, but my understanding is that if a book is public domain, then no amount of republishing can put it back into copyright. Attempts to do so are known as copyfraud.<br /><br />There's a good intro to this kind of copyfraud here:<br /><br />http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/26/copyfraud/<br /><br />more rigorous stuff here:<br /><br />http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787244#PaperDownloadGlyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-19799389032100379522009-09-19T13:00:34.375+00:002009-09-19T13:00:34.375+00:00Hi Glyn, over at FriendFeed [0] we were discussing...Hi Glyn, over at FriendFeed [0] we were discussing copyright on the pre-1923 data set, particularly in relation to the science books...<br /><br />Do you know if Google claims copyright over their scanned material, either PDF or OCR-ed version, or even both? Do you think they can claim such copyright, and in which jurisdictions would that copyright hold, if they do have copyright?<br /><br />Your thoughts are much appreciated!<br /><br />0.http://friendfeed.com/egonw/b996cdaa/really-free-chemistry-books<br /><br />PS. I replied in my blog too [1].<br /><br />1.http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/2009/09/really-free-chemistry-books.htmlEgon Willighagenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07470952136305035540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-44988813633660971152009-09-18T07:21:32.812+00:002009-09-18T07:21:32.812+00:00@Dale: no apologies necessary - I like to be kept ...@Dale: no apologies necessary - I like to be kept on my toes, it stops me getting *too* flabby in my thinking...Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-26683507819529671422009-09-17T22:13:24.117+00:002009-09-17T22:13:24.117+00:00Apologies. After I posted, I suspected I was being...Apologies. After I posted, I suspected I was being too literal.Dale Strickland-Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997005617674315470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-63625566054277634662009-09-17T20:19:15.166+00:002009-09-17T20:19:15.166+00:00Well, my Brahmsian intro was meant more metaphoric...Well, my Brahmsian intro was meant more metaphorically than literally: you're right, of course, but what interests me more is the Google book, where the distinction is really analogue vs digital.<br /><br />(And a pedant might point out that CDs are also lossy since they are digitised with a finite number of bits....)Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-70287414579075023592009-09-17T20:06:53.217+00:002009-09-17T20:06:53.217+00:00Very nice but you have no analogue copy. CDs and M...Very nice but you have no analogue copy. CDs and MP3s are both digital. The distinction you should have made is that you have a lossless (CD) and lossy (MP3) copy.Dale Strickland-Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997005617674315470noreply@blogger.com