Are you sure?

Things are all very murky around this and there are all sorts of potential gotchas.

For example, there's the question of making supplementary materials. Ceanntuigheoireacht6's notes fall into a bit of a grey area, because generally you're allowed to make derivate things that can be used with a copyrighted work if the person has to buy the original work to use them. If something is for a work that's currently in print... great! If your work needs the original, and it can be easily acquired legally, you can't be held to blame for anyone getting a hooky copy of the book. However, that argument is probably weakened if the same page where the supplementary materials are published there's a link to an unlicensed version of the work.

In this thread we've got someone acting on the misunderstanding that the work in question is legitimately free, and me pointing out that it's not, and then someone else4 deliberately adding a link to an unlicensed reproduction of the work after I added that information.

What that means is that Ceanntuigheoireacht6's lack of intent is now clear and well documented, and although not a strict defence, it may well be a mitigating factor. djwebb2021 only gave a link, and that's probably OK because of how EU countries' copyright laws work, but I'm not sure whether that has ever become established by precedent.

Really, I think Ceanntuigheoireacht6 is probably better sticking to works that are on print and on sale, and then putting out free notes for them, cos that will encourage people to actually go out and buy a copy of the book anyway.

_________________
A language belongs to its native speakers, and when you speak it, you are a guest in their homes.
If you are not a good guest, you have no right to complain about receiving poor hospitality.

Look. I think you are well-intentioned, but misinformed as to the law. If you put a file on the Internet and someone shares the link, that's not plagiarism or copyright theft. I don't know where this idea came from, but this does not reflect a knowledge of the law. This is NOT a murky area of law at all, but completely clear. [The EU, at https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/w ... ory/faq-et, says "You are allowed to link or embed copyright protected content which has been made available lawfully. Linking and embedding from legal source is not copyright infringement."]

I have to say that the way Irish people have gleefully seized on things like copyright law dismays me. Political correctness and similar ideologies are flourishing like topsy in Ireland in a way that outstrips adherence to such things in England. Yes, I've been told by someone in Muskerry to keep secret the ownership of his anonymous website in case he is sued for copyright theft - for things published decades ago. Let's not forget that EU copyright lasts until 70 years after the death of the author, so PUL's works were in copyright until 1990!!! Is that not extreme? Of course, Britain has no intention of leaving such conventions or international laws -- but we should. I think 10 years after the death is ample. Maybe it shouldn't even be 10 minutes.

This is indeed the very reason why my versions of PUL's Niamh and Mo Scéal Féin come with the explicit note that whole chapters may be copied for research and education purposes. I wrote that in there to shut down as brutally as possible people working in libraries who feel empowered by bureaucratic legislation trying to stop people taking harmless photocopies. I will let you into a secret: I would not ever sue anyone for copyright even if they copied the whole book or even stole the book and published it as theirs. I'm not what the Irish called "a tool", that's why.

This is a nonsense thread.

I have opposed copyright on a long-standing basis, and in fact there is an article on this on my former CorkIrish website at https://corkirish.wordpress.com/2011/09 ... copyright/

iIf you are well informed about law, then you should be putting things out more explicitly and clearly, and should be taking the opportunity to make things clearer, rather than shouting people down by calling this a "nonsense thread".

You've instead taken a very weaselly approach by citing an effectively meaningless EU test:

Like, yeah... you are allowed to link to content which has been made available lawfully... obviously.

But what if it's being made available unlawfully...?
The same website says:

[https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/faq-ie#12]
Note that the italicised portion specifically says likely to be lawful, not that it is lawful -- this is the reason I said in my previous post that I don't believe there's any case law making the call one way or the other.

Now, I'll note also that you made a significant soapbox moment before going near the specific point that is most relevant to this specific thread: whether the author's death was long enough ago that the book's out of copyright. I mean, I did make the point that the source didn't give any information to justify why they were linking to it, and I wasn't able to quickly find out his date of death. My point stands, and I'll state it clearer:
anyone sharing out-of-copyright works should take the time (approximately 1 minute) to make an explicit note of the reason the work is out of copyright
That usually involves mentioning the year of the author's death, which is also a fairly standard mark of respect.
Now while writing this response, I did a little bit more searching and found the book was published in the 50s and the author died in 1968, so this particular book won't be copyright free until 2039.

In fact the PDF doesn't even include the author's name, so aside from copyright issues, they're basically not giving credit where credit's due.


Ah, so you're not bothered about me then, only other participants...?

Define "political correctness".

You've been told by someone in Muskerry to keep secret the ownership of his website... because they're breaking the law. How revolutionary.

Do I agree that life+70 years is pretty excessive for copyright? Yes.
But that is what the law says now. Back at the turn of the century there was a tendency for people to deliberately lie about the law, attempting to convince the masses that the internet was somehow outside of copyright law. The purpose of this was to make copyright breaches so commonplace that one of two things would happen: (1) the law would be changed or (2) there would be so many lawbreakers that the people pushing the idea would have odds of about one in a million of getting taken to court.

So yeah... if you're well-informed about the law, it does suggest that you are trying to lead others to break a law that you deem unfair.

And talking of misdirection:

I see you've done a bit of caighdeanisation to the writing, which is definitely a very good thing and does generally start a new copyright, so kudos to you for that, but granting rights to copy freely your respellt version of a book the original of which is decades out of copyright... well, it doesn't say anything about creative works.

OFFS. It's not that librarians are little Hitlers who want to stop you photocopying, they're just trying to apply the law and avoid anyone suing the library -- they can't afford that. You're hardly making a stand against the law by giving explicit permission to people to copy, because the law lets you do that anyway!

I'll also let you into a secret: everyone is different, and not everyone is the same as you.


If it is, you have made it that. The better approach is to discuss facts and opinions with people andcome to a better mutual understanding. You don't do that by insulting people and talking down to them while preaching from a soapbox.


Yes, and here you're effectively advocating for ignoring laws you personally think are wrong. I think life-plus-seventy is far too long, but I don't think that justifies ignoring the law.

_________________
A language belongs to its native speakers, and when you speak it, you are a guest in their homes.
If you are not a good guest, you have no right to complain about receiving poor hospitality.

This wasn't the intention of this thread. The point is I won't continue anymore with the notes, whether it was piracy or not, just in case. does anyone have any recommendations for other things (only if you actually think that it is useful)? Preferably older texts , not copyrighted, available on wikisource or something? i do not have my own copy of anything, nor the money.

I think if you just post the notes with the title of the text and/or dialect that would be OK in any case. If someone wants to search it through an "odd phrase" like NiallBeag did with "cá'il" above, and find the text themselves, that is their prerogative and the onus to copyright is on them and anyone else who accesses the link, and, of course, also the person(s) that posted it. It's not your problem.

As Niall himself shows, linking to a page on the Internet is "likely" not be unlawful. The very link he offers shows this whole discussion to be ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with saying that a certain page on the Internet has a PDF. As we say in England, "the law is an ass (=donkey)" - asal is ea an dlí. I think it would be a great shame if Ceanntuigheóireacht stopped provided his word lists, which are not in any sense unlawful (Lord, give me strength!!!).

As djwebb2021 himself shows, linking to a page on the internet is not guaranteed to not be unlawful. So it's therefore quite misleading to say the lists "are not in any sense unlawful". This sort of discussion is not "ridiculous", it is just plain useful, because it allows people to make informed decisions. I do not think it likely that any rights holders or their representatives would sue, but I still think it's worth making an informed decision. That means having a discussion; a discussion in which people are allowed to say things that are wrong. You have said misrepresented low risk as zero risk, and you've accused me of being misinformed. You are the one attempting to shut down the discussion. As such, you've chosen your own value of "correct", which is every bit as much a political decision as things you may decry as "political correctness".

I think C's efforts are a marvellous thing, and I would see it as a bonus for such things to continue. I just think (as an informed point of view) that focusing those efforts on out of copyright works[1] and things that are widely available in print[2] is a good step for acting safely, and removing the (admittedly tiny) threat of legal action.
[1] because there's no copyright, so no action
[2] because it's not necessarily promoting copyright infringement -- you still need to have a copy of the text to use it. That said, publishers might send cease-and-desist letters anyway, and I doubt C would take the issue to court.

_________________
A language belongs to its native speakers, and when you speak it, you are a guest in their homes.
If you are not a good guest, you have no right to complain about receiving poor hospitality.

I checked myself in 2013, it's legally fine to make notes of that PDF of An Gleann is a Raibh Ann.

The PDF comes from a small group interested in Tipperary Irish and who have the original manuscript available for viewing in a small museum. This original dialectal version is not under copyright by Cló Iar-Chonnacht.

_________________
The dialect I use is Cork Irish.
Ar sgáth a chéile a mhairid na daoine, lag agus láidir, uasal is íseal

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the second paragraph doesn't adequately explain *why* it's legally fine.

You state: This original dialectal version is not under copyright by Cló Iar-Chonnacht.
The original was published in the 50s, and I believe Cló Iar-Chonnacht wasn't founded until 1985, so there's no reason to believe it would be under their copyright, and so I can't really see the relevance of this to the discussion (which isn't to say it's not relevant, literally that I can't see it!)

_________________
A language belongs to its native speakers, and when you speak it, you are a guest in their homes.
If you are not a good guest, you have no right to complain about receiving poor hospitality.

An Clóchomhar don't exist any more and Cló Iar-Chonnacht inherited their catalogue.
If you buy a copy of "An Gleann is a Raibh Ann" today it's published by Cló Iar-Chonnacht.

_________________
The dialect I use is Cork Irish.
Ar sgáth a chéile a mhairid na daoine, lag agus láidir, uasal is íseal