Unfortunately, public domain isn't everything. There are lots of works that we know of and that we should be able to share with one another, but it's hard to come by copies. To give one example:
The novel Red Harvest from 1929 is listed as entering the public domain next month. But the thing is that prior to being published as a novel, it was serialized in Black Mask magazine, and since all installments were published pre-1929, they're all already in the public domain.
The trouble, though, is that despite being public domain, actually getting your hands on these issues, whether in real life or figuratively as scans is something that poses a challenge—we simply don't have easy access to this material.
And that goes for lots of other stuff that we know about but don't have copies at hand.
Also all the sites that post scans of old books or magazines but claim various usage restrictions or/and copyrights on the scans.
That effectively keeps public domain works copyrighted, for most purposes, for most of us. Most libraries for instance have some EULA that says you can only use scans you order from them for non-commercial purposes, even if they scan from a public domain book. I do not know if that can be enforced in general, but it would not be fun to have to find out in court.
> I do not know if that can be enforced in general, but it would not be fun to have to find out in court.
does the above sentence refer to using EULA-restricted public domain works and asking volunteers to carry the risk of being sued? or does it refer to somehow challenging the enforceability in court?
can it be illegal to merely insinuate EULA's as described above? which laws prohibit intimidation regarding copyright that is not held?
can John Doe intimidate people with EULA's on public domain works?
If the serialized one is in the public domain and a book isn't, then your work might be seen as derivative of the book anyway.
For instance the recent Wicked movie (and book, and play, etc) can't use ruby red slippers, because that was a detail only in the relativley more recent movie, so even though the original wizard of oz book has been in the public domain a while, some details are siloed off. I think the Holmes stories had disputes like this for a while too, where if you mentioned certain side characters it might infringe a more recent adaptation or etc.
I can see how having the public domain source material might be necessary to defend yourself against claims of infringement of the non-public domain works. That makes sense to me.
What if you just want to read something without a credit card? In the far-off past, it was once normal to buy a book without your purchase registering in dozens of databases, being cross-referenced with your electricity bills and the people you went to high school with, then analyzed for your marketing or terrorist potential. You would go to a bookstore, hand them something called cash, they would give you a book, and your relationship would end.
Now you can only do this through piracy.
I'm honestly not worried about getting zoomer takes on Red Harvest. I'd like to be able to legally send it to somebody I recommend it to without involving hundreds, if not thousands, of other people.
The novel Red Harvest from 1929 is listed as entering the public domain next month. But the thing is that prior to being published as a novel, it was serialized in Black Mask magazine, and since all installments were published pre-1929, they're all already in the public domain.
The trouble, though, is that despite being public domain, actually getting your hands on these issues, whether in real life or figuratively as scans is something that poses a challenge—we simply don't have easy access to this material.
And that goes for lots of other stuff that we know about but don't have copies at hand.