Heh. Here's a story. The book is long out of print but sought after - the non-microfilm version from Rutgers University Press retails for several hundred dollars in the second-hand trade.
You call up Rutgers, and RUP tells you that they have no idea who owns the publishing rights. Copyright protection lasts far too long, and something really needs to be done about orphan works.
Yes, yes we should. When HN even has a feature made to bypass paywalls, it's absurd to then subscribe to a strict legalistic position which provides no benefit to anyone.
HN has a feature for bypassing paywalls? Well, it could at least be argued (I don't know how persuasively) that that isn't copyright infringement. This pretty clearly is.
Isn't this more or less what the DMCA safe harbor was actually intended for?
If a website that is not primarily engaged in massive copyright violation posts a link to a questionably copywritten work, then the onus is on the rights holder to notify.
It would seem like cases where the rights holder is unknown or has lost interest in the work (aka ophaned works) should be tailor made for this. HN has safe harbor, the rights holder has the possibility of protecting their work if they choose, and the public has access to a work that would otherwise be buried in a strictly pre-legally cleared system.
Where does our responsibility lie in determining whether something is legitimate or not? There are cases where it's obvious, and cases where it's not. What's the limit of due diligence for a casual reader?
It's available and it hasn't been taken down, that's some indication it might be legitimate.
I agree that it's unlikely. But it's possible, and certainly much more ambiguous than grabbing a torrent off some ad-laden site for a TV show you can buy on iTunes.
You call up Rutgers, and RUP tells you that they have no idea who owns the publishing rights. Copyright protection lasts far too long, and something really needs to be done about orphan works.