> This topic has been covered previously on the list (exhaustively!!). I
> would suggest Jon look up the archives. Before this starts another mamoth
> thread (We know what happened last time!)
>
> with best intentions
>
> Anthony
MO's conspicuous absence causes compromised vigilance.
RT
______________
Roman M. Turovsky
http://turovsky.org
http://polyhymnion.org
>
>
>> Eugene,
>>
>> I think we actually agree, I may have mis-stated my comment. In this case
>> the oringinal publisher (1901) is long out of business, the publisher of
>> the
>> reprint (1971) has been bought out - and the new owner of the copyright
>> has
>> no interest in reprinting (I contacted them). The publisher of the
>> facsimile
>> (Lyon & Healy Harps) seems to have done the same thing I did - that is to
>> copy an existing book (although they didn't respond when I emailed them
>> for
>> info). This is not a "rare and ancient" book, the 1971 reprint is
>> available
>> in many libraries (my Monmouth County Library was able to get it from one
>> two counties away).
>>
>> The question of public domain, in this case, I think is moot. I'm sure the
>> original copyright still stands, and is in the hands of the publisher of
>> the
>> reprint. The Lyon & Healy facsimiles may be illegal, for all I know - or
>> they may be a direct agreement to not seek redress. The publisher of the
>> reprint had no direct knowledge of them, as they didn't suggest them as a
>> source - they only suggested the used book market.
>>
>> I believe that there is a difference under US law between a facsimile of
>> an
>> original (even if in public domain) and a copying of the "text". The first
>> would purport to be "original", and the second merely a new version. But
>> that is up to the legal scholars.
>>
>> In my case there was no source to gain the text, other than repeatedly
>> renewing it from the library, except by paying for similar copies made by
>> Lyon & Healy (who don't run a publishing business, they make harps). And
>> to
>> the best of my knowledge they do the music book publishing on the side as
>> a
>> service to their main business. At least I think so, and I did write them.
>>
>> So I was speaking of a very specific circumstance, and agree with you as
>> to
>> the small publisher with "copyrightable material. I would have been quite
>> happy to pay a reasonable price for someone else's work in copying that
>> book, or even an exhorbitant price if the book were available only by
>> going
>> to Ulan Bator to copy the original. But in this case the alternate vendor
>> didn't have the copyright either.
>>
>> Best, Jon
>>
>>> I don't entirely agree with this last statement. What happens if you
>>> are
>> a
>>> small publisher of copyrightable material and have no intent to
>>> "monopolize," but just want to make a living while providing something
>>> interesting to as wide an audience as possible? If your copyrighted
>>> material is wantonly, widely copied and your investment in production
>> fails
>>> miserably, will you undertake such a venture again? I wouldn't. One to
>>> a
>>> few of the selfish win in such a case while many lose. In any event,
>>> this
>>> isn't entirely relevant, because as I understand things, facsimiles of
>>> public domain material are not protected by copyright in the US.
>>> Copying
>>> new introductory text, new cover art, lists for interpretation of
>>> errata,
>>> etc. (which would be protected) would constitute theft and be
>>> understandably illegal.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Eugene
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> maltaNET broadBAND Internet starting from Lm 10.39. Check out
> http://www.maltanet.net
>
>
