[PROBABLY NOT PD] Why hasnt the unibomber's manifesto been done?

Suggest and discuss books to read (all languages welcome!)
Locked
kaymac
Posts: 6
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 4:10 pm

Post by kaymac » January 9th, 2019, 9:28 pm

"Industrial Society and Its Future" should be public domain, just curious if there was another reason why it hadnt been done yet. Its pretty fascinating.

annise
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 30187
Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 3:55 am
Location: Melbourne,Australia

Post by annise » January 9th, 2019, 10:06 pm

Got a PD link for it?
Usual reasons are that there isn't one, or no one has wanted to yet. Or both.

Anne

kaymac
Posts: 6
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 4:10 pm

Post by kaymac » January 9th, 2019, 10:57 pm

https://archive.org/details/IndustrialSocietyAndItsFuture-TheUnabombersManifesto is that what you mean? I dont know what counts as a public domain link.

kaymac
Posts: 6
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 4:10 pm

Post by kaymac » January 9th, 2019, 11:04 pm

I don't know the technicalities of PD law, but this guy Kaczynski literally demanded that his manifesto be published or he'd set off more bombs. He originally mailed it with no copy write obviously, since he was hiding from the FBI at the time.

Availle
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 15658
Joined: August 1st, 2009, 11:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Availle » January 10th, 2019, 1:52 am

kaymac wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 11:04 pm
I don't know the technicalities of PD law, but this guy Kaczynski literally demanded that his manifesto be published or he'd set off more bombs. He originally mailed it with no copy write obviously, since he was hiding from the FBI at the time.
Sounds like a really charming guy whose ideas definitely should be spread wide and large.

:roll:
Cheers,
Ava.

--
AvailleAudio.com

schrm
Posts: 937
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 11:02 am
Location: Austria

Post by schrm » January 10th, 2019, 3:20 am

kaymac wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 11:04 pm
I don't know the technicalities of PD law, but this guy Kaczynski literally demanded that his manifesto be published or he'd set off more bombs. He originally mailed it with no copy write obviously, since he was hiding from the FBI at the time.
in german wikipedia, the story is told the other way round: he claimed to stop with bombing, in case the two newspapers publish this text (which they did).
any lawyer all around the world is working with mistakes in wording, with precisely or not precisely phrased texts, with interpretation and so on..
this is clearly not comparable to our disclaimer "this is in the public domain".

im not a lawyer and even not american, but.. lets have a look here:
posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=1534179
We would like to reiterate our text policy as 1923 approaches. This is the same policy we have for all texts which are automatically PD in the US (1922 and earlier through December 31).

Texts acceptable for LV:
* Scans of works which show the publication year as being 1923 or earlier
* Texts available on Gutenberg.org (see note below)
* Texts available as "full view" on HathiTrust.org
* Texts from other sites that state clearly which edition the text came from, and that do not restrict the use of their text with a CC or other license (gutenberg.au, bartleby.com, and plenty of others)


Sources that share transcribed works (works rendered into html) without a clear statement of what edition they came from aren't allowed, just like they're not allowed for 1922 works. Wikisource is not acceptable unless it has a scan that clearly shows a publication date of 1923 or earlier, because they restrict use of the texts with a CC license.

We know everyone wants to jump into 1923, and the excitement is building! But we still need to follow our regular text policies when we burst into the new year. :)

In other news...

We have learned that Distributed Proofreaders (which feeds into Project Gutenberg) aren't working on any 1923 texts yet. Like here, they won't be starting any 1923 projects until January 1.

Concern has been expressed about posting book suggestions for 1923 texts. It is fine to make a list of books entering the PD soon, but let's not link to texts themselves until January 1. (Personally, I have a huge list of 1923 works with links that is sitting patiently on my desktop.) It's better not to take any risks on this.

The good news? As of right now, it's only 2 weeks, 14 hours Eastern Time until 2019!
schrm
reader/12275


deutsch
wunderwelten viewtopic.php?f=60&t=70793
sammlung kurzer prosa viewtopic.php?f=60&t=71431

english
violet viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70567

TriciaG
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 40014
Joined: June 15th, 2008, 10:30 pm
Location: Toronto, ON (but Minnesotan to age 32)

Post by TriciaG » January 10th, 2019, 6:39 am

I'm not sure how newspaper copyrights work. Could the newspapers claim copyright on a submitted article? :hmm: I am pretty sure they do for their regular reporters' articles.

Because this text is so recent, it would have to go through reliable copyright-checkers to determine that it was public domain. That means that either gutenberg.org would need to clear it, or it would have to be available as Full View on HathiTrust.org. (Both of those sites do trustworthy copyright clearance checks.)

I checked, and neither site has the text.

(BTW, whoever uploaded that text to Archive did a bad job. Most of the pages are 2 per "page" and sideways!)

ColleenMc
Posts: 594
Joined: April 9th, 2017, 5:57 pm

Post by ColleenMc » January 11th, 2019, 7:50 pm

I would look for a copy of it on a us.gov website (maybe FBI or ATF has it in the historical sections of their sites) or perhaps if it was part of the evidence in his trial or indictment there may be a transcript online.

If someone wants to do it, that is.

Colleen

chocoholic
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 13735
Joined: January 16th, 2007, 9:23 am
Contact:

Post by chocoholic » January 11th, 2019, 8:03 pm

(Can't believe we're actually talking about this but) it wasn't written by a US government employee, so it would still be under copyright even if it turned up on a government website. Some material on US government websites is under copyright because it was created by contractors or came from non-governmental sources. You always have to double check.

This particular suggestion, I think, is safely not in Librivox purview right now, so we don't have to worry about anybody actually wanting to record it for a very long time.
Laurie Anne

schrm
Posts: 937
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 11:02 am
Location: Austria

Post by schrm » January 12th, 2019, 3:02 am

according to wikipedia, a second version of the manifesto was licensed by him and published. maybe, that was based on legal advise. so, it could be, that a pd version is published on gutenberg, after he publishes another version as pd.
schrm
reader/12275


deutsch
wunderwelten viewtopic.php?f=60&t=70793
sammlung kurzer prosa viewtopic.php?f=60&t=71431

english
violet viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70567

kaymac
Posts: 6
Joined: January 5th, 2018, 4:10 pm

Post by kaymac » January 14th, 2019, 12:43 am

schrm wrote:
January 10th, 2019, 3:20 am
kaymac wrote:
January 9th, 2019, 11:04 pm
I don't know the technicalities of PD law, but this guy Kaczynski literally demanded that his manifesto be published or he'd set off more bombs. He originally mailed it with no copy write obviously, since he was hiding from the FBI at the time.
in german wikipedia, the story is told the other way round: he claimed to stop with bombing, in case the two newspapers publish this text (which they did).
any lawyer all around the world is working with mistakes in wording, with precisely or not precisely phrased texts, with interpretation and so on..
this is clearly not comparable to our disclaimer "this is in the public domain".

im not a lawyer and even not american, but.. lets have a look here:
posting.php?mode=quote&f=1&p=1534179
We would like to reiterate our text policy as 1923 approaches. This is the same policy we have for all texts which are automatically PD in the US (1922 and earlier through December 31).

Texts acceptable for LV:
* Scans of works which show the publication year as being 1923 or earlier
* Texts available on Gutenberg.org (see note below)
* Texts available as "full view" on HathiTrust.org
* Texts from other sites that state clearly which edition the text came from, and that do not restrict the use of their text with a CC or other license (gutenberg.au, bartleby.com, and plenty of others)


Sources that share transcribed works (works rendered into html) without a clear statement of what edition they came from aren't allowed, just like they're not allowed for 1922 works. Wikisource is not acceptable unless it has a scan that clearly shows a publication date of 1923 or earlier, because they restrict use of the texts with a CC license.

We know everyone wants to jump into 1923, and the excitement is building! But we still need to follow our regular text policies when we burst into the new year. :)

In other news...

We have learned that Distributed Proofreaders (which feeds into Project Gutenberg) aren't working on any 1923 texts yet. Like here, they won't be starting any 1923 projects until January 1.

Concern has been expressed about posting book suggestions for 1923 texts. It is fine to make a list of books entering the PD soon, but let's not link to texts themselves until January 1. (Personally, I have a huge list of 1923 works with links that is sitting patiently on my desktop.) It's better not to take any risks on this.

The good news? As of right now, it's only 2 weeks, 14 hours Eastern Time until 2019!
You are in the EU evidently, and working from a proscribed cognitive/social/legal disadvantage to the US. No such legal/intellectual disadvantage is present in my country (officially). Please confine your comments to the relevant nations/regions/passages etal. that are objectionable.

Real talk only please.

Should this work be put forward? If not, why?

mightyfelix
Posts: 2872
Joined: August 7th, 2016, 6:39 pm

Post by mightyfelix » January 14th, 2019, 1:17 am

I'm not sure what you mean by the supposed "disadvantages" you mention, but I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with it. Real talk is, no, this is probably not in the public domain in the US. The text policy quoted above has nothing to do with EU or any other physical locality. That's what we go by for LibriVox. Unless someone is able to prove beyond any doubt that this is clearly public domain, we can't do it.

schrm
Posts: 937
Joined: February 10th, 2018, 11:02 am
Location: Austria

Post by schrm » January 14th, 2019, 1:21 am

hi kaymac,

to second mightyfelix: that is, what i was writing about - that are the librivox rules and is regarding american copyrights!
as a librivoxer, who told us that he isnt firm in his knowledge about our rules and the meaning of "got a pd-link for it", im sure, you are interested to learn: within eu and switzerland, we have the "year of death +70" ruling. (which isn't mentioned in my post above.)

as the other answers are answers of our admins, please be advised, that their ruling and opinions are relevant and not void.
that said, i think the whole story is interesting at least. and with an expression of my condolences to the family and friends of the victims, i would bc this as a group project - when you are (or anybody else is) able to deliver a pd-source of the text, preferably on gutenberg.org.

cheers,
schrm
reader/12275


deutsch
wunderwelten viewtopic.php?f=60&t=70793
sammlung kurzer prosa viewtopic.php?f=60&t=71431

english
violet viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70567

annise
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 30187
Joined: April 3rd, 2008, 3:55 am
Location: Melbourne,Australia

Post by annise » January 14th, 2019, 5:27 am

I think this conversation is getting "not nice" in spots so let's stick to the facts.
Librivox does not censor projects .
Librivox will not record anything published after 1923 unless it is available on site that we know is trustworthy in it's checking of PD status. This applies to all texts, whether you or I or anyone else approves of the sentiments therein expressed or not, or whether it's a sermon or a manifesto, or earth shattering or trash

So there is no reliable source at present
So we are not recording it.

And there is no point in any further discussion at the moment


Anne

Locked