Book People Archive

Re: Re: What's Not in Gutenberg (fwd)

Sorry this is so late. . .I got trapped by the reply option [again]
and the reply only went to:

Joseph Pietro Riolo <riolo@[redacted]>
             
***

Actually, I have been consult with two of the premiere copyright
lawyers in the US about this as we speak, and I now have permission
to accept printed scans. . . .  Someday, perhaps, we can also accept
the raw scan files themselves, though they still legally have to be
printed out for the records. . .so I understand.

So, we are one step closer to a paperless paperwork, and we do accept
faxes. . .so it could be paperless at your end.

By the way, at least one person has said they will send me paperwork
on perhaps a dozen Etexts that we will now be able to post as a result
of this conversation.

I would HATE for Etexts to be lost because Project Gutenberg could not
preserve them due to lack of proof that they are public domain.

Yes, I was taught by a very conservative copyright lawyer for over a
decade. . .and it has come in VERY handy. . .and I apparently learned
enough to write pretty decent reponses to threats to sue us for varied
copyright infringements, and none of them has been willing to take me
to court because I have done my homework before publishing the Etexts.

3 weeks to Project Gutenberg's 30th Anniversary!

Yay!

Michael

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Derek Pomery <dpomery@[redacted]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Michael S. Hart wrote:
> > 
> > >Sorry, the US legal system does not recognize scans for copyright research,> > >even though I am not sure they can always TELL a scan from a fax or xerox.
> > >            
> > >Michael      
> > 
> > I find that particularly amusing since our fax machine is also a printer.
> > Our fax machine can't even tell if the person at the other end is sending
> > the document from a fax machine, or from a scanner hooked up to a computer
> > with a modem.
> > The logic of law will always escape me, I fear...
> 
> Or, the logic of a lawyer <grin>.
> 
> I doubt that it is the law that requires a fax or xerox.  I think
> that it is one of these obscure rules of courts that requires fax
> or xerox.  If this is correct, then, it is the logic of a judge
> <grin>.
> 
> I doubt that any fax or xerox will be upheld in a U.S. court because
> if Project Gutenberg is ever sued for a copyright infringement,
> a plaintiff will argue that there is no difference between a
> scan and a fax or xerox and therefore all of them cannot be trusted.
> 
> But then, I am not a lawyer.
>              
> Joseph Pietro Riolo
> <riolo@[redacted]>