• Re: copyright arcana, Jacobite defeated?

    From Sam Wilson@ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk to uk.railway on Mon Feb 23 15:13:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
    According to JMB99 <mb@nospam.net>:
    On 22/02/2026 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:

    That's right. The philosophy is that taxpayers have already paid for the >>> production of the material, and therefore deserve to be able to get a
    copy free-of-any_extra-charge.

    But as I pointed out, the files are often printed out cheaply and sold.
    They are theoretically only free of copyright in the USA.

    They're selling the physical book. If the material's in the public
    domain, you can copy it.

    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    Only sort-of - some translations are public domain due to having been
    published long ago, others (or at least one other) is specifically
    copyright free. More recent translations are still in copyright, though
    many have quite liberal usage conditions attached.

    Sam
    --
    The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
    Spit the dummy to reply
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Certes@Certes@example.org to uk.railway on Mon Feb 23 16:02:37 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    On 23/02/2026 15:13, Sam Wilson wrote:
    John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
    According to JMB99 <mb@nospam.net>:
    On 22/02/2026 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:

    That's right. The philosophy is that taxpayers have already paid for the >>>> production of the material, and therefore deserve to be able to get a
    copy free-of-any_extra-charge.

    But as I pointed out, the files are often printed out cheaply and sold.
    They are theoretically only free of copyright in the USA.

    They're selling the physical book. If the material's in the public
    domain, you can copy it.

    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for
    centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    Only sort-of - some translations are public domain due to having been published long ago, others (or at least one other) is specifically
    copyright free. More recent translations are still in copyright, though
    many have quite liberal usage conditions attached.

    Bibles are special in that they are often produced by people keen to
    spread the word rather than make money. In a way they're more marketing
    than content, and few advertisers object to their copy being duplicated.

    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Recliner@recliner.usenet@gmail.com to uk.railway on Mon Feb 23 16:20:54 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 16:02:37 +0000, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:

    On 23/02/2026 15:13, Sam Wilson wrote:
    John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
    According to JMB99 <mb@nospam.net>:
    On 22/02/2026 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:

    That's right. The philosophy is that taxpayers have already paid for the >>>>> production of the material, and therefore deserve to be able to get a >>>>> copy free-of-any_extra-charge.

    But as I pointed out, the files are often printed out cheaply and sold. >>>> They are theoretically only free of copyright in the USA.

    They're selling the physical book. If the material's in the public
    domain, you can copy it.

    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for
    centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    Only sort-of - some translations are public domain due to having been
    published long ago, others (or at least one other) is specifically
    copyright free. More recent translations are still in copyright, though
    many have quite liberal usage conditions attached.

    Bibles are special in that they are often produced by people keen to
    spread the word rather than make money.

    Other than the Trump bible!

    https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/06/trump-bible-endorsement-profit/

    In a way they're more marketing
    than content, and few advertisers object to their copy being duplicated.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Arthur Figgis@afiggis@example.invalid to uk.railway on Mon Feb 23 18:21:01 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    On 23/02/2026 01:56, John Levine wrote:


    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    That's a bad example, as most people want a collated, edited and
    translated version, and the KJV has its own rules giving the rights to
    the King's printer and two university presses (and something in Scotland).
    --
    Arthur Figgis
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Graeme Wall@rail@greywall.demon.co.uk to uk.railway on Mon Feb 23 19:04:51 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    On 23/02/2026 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote:
    On 23/02/2026 01:56, John Levine wrote:


    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for
    centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    That's a bad example, as most people want a collated, edited and
    translated version, and the KJV has its own rules giving the rights to
    the King's printer and two university presses (and something in Scotland).


    Which begs the question, come the second coming, will the original
    authors reclaim their copyright?
    --
    Graeme Wall
    This account not read.


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Charles Ellson@charlesellson@btinternet.com to uk.railway on Mon Feb 23 21:17:22 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:04:51 +0000, Graeme Wall
    <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/2026 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote:
    On 23/02/2026 01:56, John Levine wrote:


    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for
    centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    That's a bad example, as most people want a collated, edited and
    translated version, and the KJV has its own rules giving the rights to
    the King's printer and two university presses (and something in Scotland). >>

    Which begs the question, come the second coming, will the original
    authors reclaim their copyright?

    "Authors" being several not the one deity wrongly claimed (and thus
    blamed for the errors) by many.

    <Herbert>
    Cue argument on effect of resurrection upon something decided by date
    of death ? How does it affect material still in copyright ?
    </Herbert>
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Certes@Certes@example.org to uk.railway on Mon Feb 23 21:17:30 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    On 23/02/2026 19:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
    On 23/02/2026 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote:
    On 23/02/2026 01:56, John Levine wrote:

    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for
    centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    That's a bad example, as most people want a collated, edited and
    translated version, and the KJV has its own rules giving the rights to
    the King's printer and two university presses (and something in
    Scotland).

    Which begs the question, come the second coming, will the original
    authors reclaim their copyright?

    The legislators failed to clarify whether they meant 70 years after the author's first or last death.
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Sam Wilson@ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk to uk.railway on Mon Feb 23 21:42:14 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
    On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 19:04:51 +0000, Graeme Wall
    <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/2026 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote:
    On 23/02/2026 01:56, John Levine wrote:


    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for >>>> centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    That's a bad example, as most people want a collated, edited and
    translated version, and the KJV has its own rules giving the rights to
    the King's printer and two university presses (and something in Scotland). >>>

    Which begs the question, come the second coming, will the original
    authors reclaim their copyright?

    "Authors" being several not the one deity wrongly claimed (and thus
    blamed for the errors) by many.

    <Herbert>
    Cue argument on effect of resurrection upon something decided by date
    of death ? How does it affect material still in copyright ?
    </Herbert>

    Both A.P. and George of that ilk might have had things to say on the topic!

    Sam
    --
    The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
    Spit the dummy to reply
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From JMB99@mb@nospam.net to uk.railway on Tue Feb 24 08:02:56 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    On 23/02/2026 01:56, John Levine wrote:
    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.


    Someone will have translated it or added annotations, illustrations etc
    and that will protected by copyright. I would expect only the original
    text is free of any copyright.


    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Sam Wilson@ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk to uk.railway on Tue Feb 24 09:24:58 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.railway

    Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
    On 23/02/2026 19:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
    On 23/02/2026 18:21, Arthur Figgis wrote:
    On 23/02/2026 01:56, John Levine wrote:

    There's this book called the Bible that's been in the public domain for >>>> centuries, but publishers still make good money printing and selling
    paper copies.

    That's a bad example, as most people want a collated, edited and
    translated version, and the KJV has its own rules giving the rights to
    the King's printer and two university presses (and something in
    Scotland).

    Which begs the question, come the second coming, will the original
    authors reclaim their copyright?

    The legislators failed to clarify whether they meant 70 years after the author's first or last death.

    Debatable whether time as we know it will still be operational at the
    later, erm, date.

    Sam
    --
    The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
    Spit the dummy to reply
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2