Liberate and disseminate

More Power To You! - though if everyone follows up on your invitation to download everything, there's going to be one very crowded data-site. I hope the indexing is good. best of luck, Ted

My advice: automate the procedure with some kind of script or app. Make the script/app open source and release it so others can help you out.

Thank you for helping build the Internet Archive. Where I do not report to understand copyright law (boy is it confusing), it is certainly true that we at the Internet Archive are trying to get public domain materials out to a very broad public is our aim. We are now scanning lots of PD books from great libraries-- please think about what would be useful to you and your teaching collegues as it pretty easy to scan physical materials at this point. onward. -brewster

"How else can corruption be stopped and falsehoods exposed? How else can people in power be held accountable? " <p>This argument is better suited to FOI than to the free release of digital versions of historical printed sources. <p>"I assemble the pages into one single pdf file and upload it to the Internet Archive" <p>By doing so you are breaching their Terms and Conditions since you do not hold the rights to the material in its digital form.

But did you actually try to use this database, sir? <p>It's not so easy, I'm afraid.....

As a relatively young American it can be easy for me to assume that the world of the Internet is as free as one might imagine it should be, however this is not always the case. I'm glad that one such as yourself is expanding that ideal to include our distant past and heritage. <p>This endeavor is truly worth the risk in my estimation! Good Luck, and happy de-copyrighting! <p>~Ian

Erik, I'm also a professor, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and I'm totally in favor of open source publication of materials if the author wants them to be generally available. My lecture notes are available to anyone who wants them. <p>Most of my income, though, comes from writing fiction, and that income is derived from a percentage of the cover price when a person thinks my book is worth buying. You may be "prepared to live with the legal consequences of your actions," but that gives me no comfort when someone reads my work for free. <p>The simple-minded notion that you can white-out the copyright of a stolen document and therefore make it legally available to anyone is indefensible. You really should restrict your activism to documents that ought to be public property. <p>You are breaking my rice bowl and pretending to benefit me. I hope you have read modern history closely enough to appreciate the company you are keeping. <p>Joe Haldeman

Don't rely on the Internet Archive to keep these things available. They willingly remove items from access at the request of anyone who claims to have the rights. <p>And it's a bit naive to broadcast the fact that you're using your institutional access to do this, when it is quite possible (with Taiwan being a bureaucracy-friendly type of a place) that so-called "rights holders" could pressure your institution to restrict your access, leading you to have to find a new job and visa sponsor.

ProQuest undertook the expense of scanning the 19th and 20th century House of Commons Parliamentary Papers to make them available through its online publications. Most (but not all) of these Parliamentary Papers are indeed in the public domain and are therefore open to anyone who so wishes to undertake the same project. By omitting the word “online” when quoting ProQuest’s copyright notice on the products, Professor Ringmar misapprehends it as a claim to the underlying work. While the historical content is in the public domain, ProQuest’s electronic representation of it is not. Just as a modern publisher of any older work, e.g. Shakespeare’s plays, includes a notice that the product the reader is viewing is proprietary, so does ProQuest. <p>I appreciate the opportunity to clear up any confusion that may have existed on this point. ProQuest was able to invest in bringing these papers online only with a business model of providing access for a fee. Until public funds are available to digitize and host all important records, commercial publishers continue to play a vital role in putting them into the hands of researchers. Because of our efforts, materials that had previously been available at only one location, or languished in hard-to-share formats, are now accessible to scholars and researchers in every corner of the globe twenty-four hours a day. Widespread hacking and intellectual property nullification would end private investment in digitizing our history, and companies hosting already-digitized resources would lose the ability to continue. The readers of THE would not mount an assault to “liberate” the books locked away in libraries because they know that those collections are vital to education. Digitization by commercial publishers also supports the dissemination of knowledge, so calls to steal their resources should similarly be disregarded. <p>ProQuest will continue to collaborate with libraries and researchers to ensure that the most important resources are being selected and that they are being preserved and presented in ways that will benefit the community the most. <p>Dan Burnstone <br>Cambridge, England <br>Publishing Director for Chadwyck-Healey, ProQuest

Dan Burnstone's response does not, in my view, clarify the issue, but adds further confusion. It seems to me that Chadwick-Healey could validly claim rights in the database that they have created of the Parliamentary Papers. However, I am not clear on what basis they can claim a right to `the electronic representation' of individual documents.

I agree with Prof.Haldman. The fact is,Prof.Erik Ringmar is in Hsinchu,Taiwan. A country other than England or America. By showing your arrogance and disrespect for the constitutions. In England as well as America.Ammended throughout time.A process that has been govern through congress,for "the people"& by"the people". For century's protecting "the people".You Sir are showing great neglegence! Historians for this world will one day look back at what you have done. At no time will they look at you as a Successor,who wanted more for"the people" to have at their fingertips.Stolen information that is what you have.It has been copyrighted for reasons you care less to know.The way you are going about this is wrong.The blatent disregard for the Bill of Rights.We the people give "full faith& credit" to the public acts, records,&court proceedings.Congress in the US is permitted to regulate the manner in which proof of such acts,records,or proceedings may be admitted.These men and women have accomplished so much throughout time.Who are you to try and change past and future history without asking"the people"1st? Their voice is all that matters.The"privileges & immunities"clause has you fearing no extradition.More and more,this provision is used selfishly & taken for granted! More arduous & costly process' are used today.Bringing you back to the US would be worth every $.Explain to"the people"how sec.6 of the US constitution, should give immunity to Professors on other continents who want to change the"bill of rights",and disseminate information for monetary gain. Justice will prevail,"the people"will have spoken. Prof. Erik Ringmar will not go unpunished. He may write about this 1day.The copyrights,well they will remain in an English based/America Constitution & Bill of Rights