ONLINE LIBRARY OWNER BROUGHT TO BOOK


Mosnews reports that the owner of Russia’s biggest online library has been found guilty of copyright infringement. Maxim Moshkov has been ordered to pay damages to the author Eduard Gevorkyan. However, the damages were significantly reduced once it was discovered that … made no profit from his library. He states that all his material has been sourced either from the internet or from readers and that he removes texts from this library if authors object to their inclusion.

The IPKat says that Moshkov’s approach reminds him of Google’s policy towards sources which it includes in its news service that is currently the subject of litigation brought by API. So far as he’s concerned, copyright law calls on those who wish to use works to seek permission from their authors before they start using them, rather than treating the author’s lack of objection as acquiescence. From the point of view of the author, it would be impossible to monitor every use of his or her works and object to each unauthorised use. If authors are to be able to control their works, permission must be sought beforehand. Where there are good reasons why permission should not be sought, this should be taken into account in a defence to copyright law.

Lots of libraries here, here and here
ONLINE LIBRARY OWNER BROUGHT TO BOOK ONLINE LIBRARY OWNER BROUGHT TO BOOK Reviewed by Anonymous on Friday, April 01, 2005 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.