Pirated productions

[Inkell]

I just wanted to say (because you strangely don't seem to have gotten a lot of support) that I agree with your issue Jondalar. I don't know if it's happened with anything I've done but I still think it's kind of immoral for people to be selling things other people made to be given away freely to make money for themselves instead and ripping off people who might not have known they could get it for free, it's not technically wrong because we are putting these in public domain and all but I still also have a negative feeling towards this practice

[sjmarky]

You could write a review on Audible saying that you're the narrator and you want everyone to know that this is available for free on Librivox and that you're sad that someone has taken the recording and is charging for someone you wanted top be distributed freely.

I understand that Audible doesn't allow this.

[ChristopherW]

I still think it's kind of immoral for people to be selling things other people made to be given away freely to make money for themselves instead and ripping off people who might not have known they could get it for free

Again, how is it "ripping off people" if the people buying it do so voluntarily? They get something of value for their money, after all.

Regarding the morality of it all, consider this: people sell copies of old public domain works of various types (e.g., Romeo and Juliet, Symphony No. 5, the Mona Lisa, Night of the Living Dead) all the time to people who could have gotten copies of them for free. Do you consider that immoral too? Is there some threshold to how old a public domain work has to be where it's no longer immoral to sell it? Or is there a scale that ranges from moral to extremely immoral depending on age or some other factor?

When someone puts their work into the public domain, they're effectively saying "I don't care what you do with it--use it, modify it, sell it, print it on toilet paper, etc., and you don't even have to give me credit". Selling something from the public domain not only is permitted but should be encouraged, so how can it be called "immoral"? Keep in mind that some (probably most) people are completely OK with their public domain works being sold; how can a seller know that you, specifically, are not OK with your public domain works being sold? Should a seller seek permission from the creator of a public domain work before they can sell it? That would redefine and defeat the purpose of "public domain" (it would effectively turn "public domain" into "copyright"--no thank you!).

Since you (or the OP) don't like that someone is selling your work without attribution, you probably shouldn't have put it into the public domain in the first place but instead licensed it with a license that requires attribution (e.g., CC BY). If you don't even want it to be sold, use something like the CC BY-NC license which also prohibits commercial use. Then it would be immoral (IMO) and illegal for anyone (besides you, the copyright owner) to sell it, but anyone else can give it away for free. Or you can find some other license online or write your own if one of those doesn't suit you. Even if you choose not to enforce a license (with C&D letters or in court), it still tells people what you are not OK with, which public domain doesn't and can't. Then you'd at least have something to complain about if someone violated it.

TL;DR

• Public domain means anyone can do practically anything with it.
• If you want attribution, use a license that requires it (e.g., CC BY).
• If you also don't want anyone to sell it, use a license that also prohibits commercial use (e.g., CC BY-NC).
• If you just want your wishes to be known, use a license that expresses your wishes, but don't enforce it.

[TriciaG]

people sell copies of old public domain works of various types (e.g., Romeo and Juliet, Symphony No. 5, the Mona Lisa, Night of the Living Dead) all the time to people who could have gotten copies of them for free. Do you consider that immoral too? Is there some threshold to how old a public domain work has to be where it's no longer immoral to sell it? Or is there a scale that ranges from moral to extremely immoral depending on age or some other factor?

One factor is the value.

If you buy a PD work for Kindle or a paperback copy, you're getting the physical copy or the book in Kindle format. There's more value there than getting MP3s from Audible vs. getting them from LibriVox.

We've had people sell CDs of the MP3s on eBay and so forth. Then, also, you're getting some value for the money: the physical CD. Once again, less scummy than those who sell MP3s when they can be easily gotten for free.

While it's perfectly legal, it still feels scummy. You can't argue with feelings.

[sjmarky]

Hi Chris

As a frequent target of “pirates” let me explain my position.

I understand what public domain means. In fact, that applies to the Project Gutenberg texts we use. Unpaid volunteers find the public domain texts, scan them, proof them, and make them available to anyone for any purpose, including re-releasing as a print or ebook and selling them for money. If I take one of those free texts and record a commercial audiobook for which I get paid and those volunteers don’t, I guess I am in the same way a pirate.

I have in this thread and others admitted honestly that my reaction to the reselling of my free LV recordings annoys me, but that my visceral response is just that. None of the PG volunteers who make the texts available for free have ever dissed me for making a commercial product from their efforts. Really, it’s no different. I admit that it bugs me, but also admit that I have no right to be bugged. It’s on the level of a “pet peeve,” an irritation that you know isn’t important and really doesn’t matter, but it it still grates.

So maybe, cut us some slack? It’s just a little venting.

[DACSoft]

I understand what public domain means. In fact, that applies to the Project Gutenberg texts we use. Unpaid volunteers find the public domain texts, scan them, proof them, and make them available to anyone for any purpose, including re-releasing as a print or ebook and selling them for money...

As one whose volunteer work encompasses all those activities to produce PD ebooks for PG, I agree with your comments. I, too, knew what public domain meant when I began volunteering, but it was more important to me to see a wider distribution of PD books (especially out-of-print books), than how they were being distributed or that someone may have been making money off my work. My payment is the simple enjoyment of the activity in retirement.

... None of the PG volunteers who make the texts available for free have ever dissed me for making a commercial product from their efforts.

Actually, I would welcome it, so please do use any of the roughly 250 titles I've done so far for PG. In fact, all but one of the solos I've done for LV are of ebooks I made for PG. So I guess it's possible that my work can be double "pirated."

As others mentioned, if I was bothered by some of the methods of secondary distribution, I wouldn't submit work as public domain.

FWIW,

[sjmarky]

Here’s a fun one. I was able to find and purchase an original book that was in the public domain. I scanned the pages and sent them to PG, which approved and published the book. I then recorded the book for LV and released a commercial version.

So…did I pirate myself twice?

[redrun]

Maybe we can take this to a new discussion thread?

This person explained that even though anyone has the right to republish his work, there are ways of doing it which are irksome to him. Ways which A) seem to be taking the credit for his own reading, B) charge people unnecessarily for what he put so much effort into providing for the lowest cost he could, and C) take the money on at best misleading terms.

Now, regardless of the legalities, technicalities and "where-to-fores", this feels like a snub to his philanthropic donation of his time and voice.
We can all look back and say "if you wanted to make sure nobody got charged for it, you should have used Creative Commons." Maybe that advice will help someone else avoid this situation in future, but it's not helping him feel any better about it.

[SowasVon]

Seeing the disclaimers on some of the projects here - that book so-and-so may not be in the public domain yet in countries outside the USA - made me think, are all of the taken-from-Librivox-without-so-much-as-a-credit-to-the-reader books sold on Audible safely in the public domain everywhere? Because if they aren't and e.g. I can get one of these books here in Germany from an author who's been dead for less than 70 years, then the seller would be doing something illegal, wouldn't they? That is of course under the assumption that they didn't contact whoever currently holds the rights to get their permission and negotiate their share in the sales.
If so, this could be worth making Audible aware of.

[annise]

I'm confident Audible is fully aware of copyright restrictions and knows where you live when you are on the site - and has legal opinions on the matter.

Anne

Addition
copyright is not part of the criminal code, it's usually in the civil courts. So the "rights holder" would need to go to a court seeking damages, the court may issue an injunction, it would probably be appealed ....... etc
I'm sorry - I have no idea of the German names for these proceedings but I know that there was a case in Germany brought by Thomas Mann's rights holders.

Anne

[CSCO]

Hi, all,


If it doesn't infringe on your right, the matter is not on the law but on your jealousy against someone's money on your voluntary efforts. And you even feel you are betrayed and abused. Yes, it's a natural feeling. The more you worked, the more you feel it.

But, please imagine that there are 6.5 billion people on the Earth. If 10 people would abuse you, you could quit the efforts? If 100 people would abuse you, you could stop to sing? God knows your hidden efforts. Look up at the sky!

[SowasVon]

Addition
copyright is not part of the criminal code, it's usually in the civil courts. So the "rights holder" would need to go to a court seeking damages, the court may issue an injunction, it would probably be appealed ....... etc
I'm sorry - I have no idea of the German names for these proceedings but I know that there was a case in Germany brought by Thomas Mann's rights holders.

In all honesty, I assume that for most still-in-copyright books, the rights holders wouldn't bother sueing, since the profits may be quite small, actually. If it's not a big name like Vonnegut, Rice Burroughs* etc., sueing might cost them more money than it gets them. My hope was rather that this is against Audible's rules or something of that kind, so such books would be kicked off the platform.

*While his books should be out of copyright, I read a while ago that his heirs had successfully filed for the prolonging of the copyright for "Tarzan". This was a few years ago, so it may no longer be true.

[msfry]

Christopher,

Perhaps "complaint" was too strong a word. But I still have a negative feeling about the whole operation. In my pre-retirement life I was a member of AFTRA and was paid well for my voice work. I chose to record for Librivox because
I believe in their ambitious goal of making all the Public Domain stuff possible available for free. Obviously, that does
not preclude anyone from downloading it and selling it to the unsuspecting public. But, if they were really honest people,
they would include a blurb crediting Librivox as the source. Otherwise, the buyer has the impression that the author and/or
the reader is getting a cut of the profit. That's the part that makes it stick in the craw of many of us and, if you can't
understand that, I feel sorry for you. And, with that, I will have no more to say on the subject.

I just saw this and agree with you completely, jondolar. My teacher friends report that young students today believe that if a thing is lying unattended, it's free for the taking. No more "Lost and Found" departments in schools, just "Finders Keepers", so watch your stuff! Kids never take their backpacks off, or put their phones down unless it goes in their pocket or locked locker. Pen, pencil, book, sweater, jacket, iPhone, jewelry, anything loose is free game. What a covetous world this creates. By contrast, I was taught there were only 4 ways to acquire things: via gift, allowance, earnings, or by creating something yourself. If it doesn't meet that criteria, it isn't yours. But what if it's just money lying in the street? It isn't yours. Well somebody is going to get it. Maybe so, but not you. Picking it up would stain your character. You might turn it in to the nearest store, and/or save it for some act of charity. A gift you might pay forward, but you certainly don't take credit for creating it unless you've made sufficient improvements upon it that it is something else! Besides, crediting your benefactors incentivizes generosity. Stripping their name off of another's creation, is a good way to dry that fountain up. Who wants that world?

Every child understands that killing the goose that lays the golden eggs is a sure way not to have any gold. Unfortunately, they don't teach these stories any more. So you keep up the good work, and don't apologize for complaining about greed and applauding respect for property.

[DrSpoke]

Regarding the morality of it all, consider this: people sell copies of old public domain works of various types (e.g., Romeo and Juliet, Symphony No. 5, the Mona Lisa, Night of the Living Dead) all the time to people who could have gotten copies of them for free.

Yeah, you can get Austen, Handel, Turner, Trollope (i.e. all those you mentioned) for free!

[jondalar1988]

Regarding the morality of it all, consider this: people sell copies of old public domain works of various types (e.g., Romeo and Juliet, Symphony No. 5, the Mona Lisa, Night of the Living Dead) all the time to people who could have gotten copies of them for free.

Yeah, you can get Austen, Handel, Turner, Trollope (i.e. all those you mentioned) for free!

And you could've added that P.T. Barnum was right.....there's one born every second!