It [was] LEGAL to download The Great Gatsby... (revised January 1, 2021!)

...in most of the world!

...in the US, too, after January 1, 2021. This post, originally written in May 2013, needed some updating.

If you are were in the US, then tough luck, the rights belong belonged to the CBS Corporation, and you'll have would have had to pay Amazon $7.80 $4.99 to get it legally on your Kindle.

If you are sober enough to know which country's laws you're you were subject to (not that sobriety is a guarantee of jurisdiction-awareness) then you probably still don't know whether it's was legal to download The Great Gatsby from Project Gutenberg Australia. It's too bad that SOPA didn't pass because then all the US-illegal links to The Great Gatsby would be censored by law, and you would automatically have infringing links removed or not as the case may require.

So this is a little auto-link-legalizer page for you. Just click on the appropriate link:

• I'm subject to US copyright law.
• I'm subject to the copyright law of Australia, Canada, or some other pirate jurisdiction.
• I have no clue what copyright law I'm subject to.
• I'm a time traveler from the year 2021 or later.

A wise decision.

You've just been spared jail time and statutory damages up to $150,000 per download of the infringing files from Project Gutenberg Australia or the Univesity of Adelaide. Because The Great Gatsby is not part of the public domain in the US. Consider yourself lucky. And what ever you do, don't click on this link, which probably would be a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. SO DON"T DO IT!

G'day, eh! Remember, if you're in the US, an maybe in other jurisdictions that I'm sure people will comment on but I'm too lazy to look up, you should NOT be reading this so please stop NOW.

The Great Gatsby is available in a number of formats for your reading pleasure.

The Project Gutenberg Australia has it here. High quality EPUB and Kindle formats are available from Standard Ebooks.

Yeah, me neither. but it's best to be safe and consult your lawyer before clicking this link. Kevin Smith's explanation of US Copyright Law might also help.

But you know, CBS won't notice one or two clicks. Even a hundred or so clicks and it's just some drunk displaced ex-pats. But if tens of millions of copyright-confused readers started clicking, the politicians and the plutocrats might notice a little something. The might even think it was a movement. The Aussie Gatsby Click on a Dodgy Link Movement. And all you got to do is click. If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta press that mouse button with feeling.

Right then. If anyone tries to tell you that The Great Gatsby has "fallen out of copyright protection", call them on that bullshit. Because that's disrespectful of a great work that has ascended into the Public Domain. Finally, on January 1, 2021, The Great Gatsby has escaped its copyright imprisonment.
Project Gutenberg Australia has it here. High quality EPUB and Kindle formats are available from Standard Ebooks.

Update (5/9/2013): Good discussion on Hacker News surfaced the answer via ernesth to my lazyweb query. The Great Gatsby is in the public domain in all countries but 7: the USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Samoa, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, and Ivory Coast. All countries except the USA apply a law that states that books enter the public domain a given number of years after the death of the author. In Europe, it is 70 years, in Canada 50, in Mexico 100. See List of countries copyright length. It's not known if copyright exists in other parts of the galaxy. 

Update (1/1/2021): Happy Public Domain Day!

Heisenberg's Uncertain Copyright

If you participate in LinkedIn, you've been recently deluged with requests to endorse the skills of people in your network. I decided to have some fun with that, and listed "Quantum Copyright" as one of my skills. To cement my claim to be the world's foremost expert in quantum copyright, I decided to examine the microscopic question of where copies occur. The closer you look, the more uncertain the location of the copying becomes!

It turns out that where a copy is made has consequences. Consider Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. A recent LibraryCity blog post by David Rothman suggested that Bill Gates should use a tiny bit of his fortune to buy out the remaining copyright of Gatsby, supposedly one of Gates' favorites. On Unglue.it, 70 ungluers share the sentiment that The Great Gatsby should join Huckleberry Finn as a great American novel that belongs to all of us in the public commons.

Funny thing is, The Great Gatsby already belongs to every Australian, in the sense that Australians have the right to read and copy it for free without anybody's permission. In the US, it belongs to the CBS Corporation, and if you want to read it on Kindle, it'll cost you $7.80.

If you copy Gatsby in Australia, no problem, it's cool, because Gatsby has entered the public domain. There's an excellent version available from Project Gutenberg Australia. If you do it in the US without permission from CBS, it constitutes copyright infringement and is punishable with jail time and statutory damages up to $150,000 per incidence of infringement. So it really matters where the copying occurs.

click to beam

But we live in an era where books can be transported from one location to another without one of those Star Trek machines which turn goofy aliens and crewmen into particle beams. It's no longer obvious where copying occurs.

Suppose you have a book sitting on a computer in Australia. The computer breaks the book into thousands of UDP packets and sends them into the Internet. Copying can't have occurred yet, because the packets aren't fixed in any form. For copyright purposes,

“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Now suppose the packets are reassembled on my hard drive in New Jersey. A copy of "The Great Gatsby" has materialized. Has a copyright been infringed? If I was in Australia and the source of the packets was in the US, would the answer be different?

click to beam

I don't know the answer; I am not a lawyer. But I'm an engineer and I can read and I understand the communication processes that have occurred in the book transporter. I'm pretty sure that copying has occurred, and that part of the copying process occurs in a location where no copyright attaches to The Great Gatsby.

Maybe it doesn't even matter where the copying occurs. Maybe it depends on who's in control of the copying. In the age of quantum copyright, action at a distance is not at all a problem. Here's what US Copyright law says:

The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize ... to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

You could read that as saying only that nobody other than the copyright owner and subject to the jurisdiction of the statute is allowed to reproduce the copyrighted work regardless of where reproduction occurs. So if the person doing the copying is in Australia, maybe it doesn't matter where the copying actually occurs.

So we have 8 different quantum copyright location scenarios; 6 have uncertainty as to the fact of infringement:

1. Person copying, copy source, and copy destination all in US. (US law controls!)
2. Person copying, copy source, and copy destination all in Australia. (Australia law controls!)
3. Person copying and copy source in US, copy destination in Australia.
4. Person copying and copy source in Australia, copy destination in US.
5. Person copying and copy destination in US, copy source in Australia.
6. Person copying and copy destination in Australia, copy source in US.
7. Person copying in US, copy source and copy destination in Australia.
8. Person copying in Australia, copy source and copy destination in US.

You could also be a cynic and say the only thing that matters is where the judge is sitting. But really, this whole situation with territorial copyright variation is ludicrous and prehistoric and we really should be spending our time and money curing malaria instead.

Next week: copyright and special relativity. In what frame of reference do copyright terms exist?

Notes:

• Kirtsaeng is another issue entirely. (But see comments.)
• In January I wrote about the intersection of SOPA and copyright territoriality. I hope that's a moot issue!
• Techdirt is covering Australia's review of its copyright laws.