Speech from Majority Leader Tom DeLay

[ajwps]

I'm not sure about conventions for playwrights stealing plots, but for writers, taking a single sentence from someone else without quoting it is plagiarism.

It appears that you have lost your cool as well as your argument about Congressman Delay. Now you say that writers who take a single sentence from somesone else without the conventional attributions is plagiarism. I am not a writer.

Sorry but this forum is not the usual format for writers, poets, or those who feel the need to place academic convention in a non-institutional or professional author arena. It is obvious that you are over reacting in order to compensate for your inability to validate your own statements. You plagiarise everytime you use other's ideas even when you don't take their exact words using standard attribution. You feel free to use their thoughts and ideas with not one iota of conscious that you too plagiarise.

Why don't you try enrolling in an American school, writing a short paper, and including a few paragraphs of your own writing along with a few un-quoted paragraphs from an encylopedia? See what happens.

Sorry but I already have a great profession and am not interested in becoming an author or journalist to write for profit or pleasure. I have no desire to attend any writing school, writing any papers or anything that would actually require quotation marks, references or attributions. You apparentlly are uncomfortable that someone else that may be able to use other's ideas or proofs that contradict your own.

Envy like fire always makes for the highest points.
ATTRIBUTION: Titus Livius (Livy) (59 B.C.–A.D. 17)

 

[jimnyc]

ajwps - I as well would have thought you wrote that article at first glance. I don't know if it fits the general definition of plagiarism or not (I think it does) nor do I care. It just makes sense to quote or give credit to the referencing articles we read. It usually lends a bit more credibility to your debate as well.

Lets not forget it helps avoid debates such as this which takes you away from your original debate!

 

[ajwps]

It just makes sense to quote or give credit to the referencing articles we read. It usually lends a bit more credibility to your debate as well.

Exactly correct jimnyc. If I had intentionally tried to deceive, I could have dispensed more credence to my points by using quotations or attributions around the few sentences taken from open public sites.

This use of a sidetrack was apparently used to evade the main thrust of the original debate about the United States show of force to protect its own citizens from a foreign terror state or as was suggested to retreat back home when the heat is raised.

It is always terrible to lose our brave men and women in a conflict so far from our shores. But when a US President uses his own integrity and political capital for America's benefit, this man deserves our respect and support.

I may not agree with everything that Pres Bush does but he was elected for this purpose and swore under oath to preserve and protect. President Bush did not lie before a federal grand jury about anything nor did he later have to admit lies to the nation because he left his DNA on a young girls dress.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by ajwps
It appears that you have lost your cool as well as your argument about Congressman Delay. Now you say that writers who take a single sentence from somesone else without the conventional attributions is plagiarism. I am not a writer.

Sorry but this forum is not the usual format for writers, poets, or those who feel the need to place academic convention in a non-institutional or professional author arena. It is obvious that you are over reacting in order to compensate for your inability to validate your own statements. You plagiarise everytime you use other's ideas even when you don't take their exact words using standard attribution. You feel free to use their thoughts and ideas with not one iota of conscious that you too plagiarise.



Sorry but I already have a great profession and am not interested in becoming an author or journalist to write for profit or pleasure. I have no desire to attend any writing school, writing any papers or anything that would actually require quotation marks, references or attributions. You apparentlly are uncomfortable that someone else that may be able to use other's ideas or proofs that contradict your own.

It's quite fine if you want to quote someone or some source that contradicts my views. I'm uncomfortable that someone may be able to present someone else's work as his or her own work. This, at least in this country, if done purposely, is a form of intellectual dishonesty, and it cheapens debate greatly. Whatever your great profession is I hope it doesn't involve writing to an educated audience. Oddly, most "professions" do involve writing that requires quotation marks and references, and some have rather severe consequences for those who fail to follow such guidelines; you must rather lucky.

As for Mr. DeLay, I hope he has a good memory, as to his "Chinook 15" he can now add the "Blackhawk 6" and "Blackhawks 17," and, if we carry on down the current path, perhaps the Apache 2, Chinook 20, Blackhawk 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, and perhaps even C-130 80 or C-17 150 who will have died in vain as well. Or we can get very serious about turning authority over to the UN and put our money where our mouth is about rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, through them.

 

[ajwps]

It's quite fine if you want to quote someone or some source that contradicts my views. I'm uncomfortable that someone may be able to present someone else's work as his or her own work.

Good for you that you can admit your apparent discomfort with the evidence you quoted. Actually except for a few sentences, most of the post you now use to deflect from topic were actually my own. My sentences were actually the corpus of that post.

This, at least in this country, if done purposely, is a form of intellectual dishonesty, and it cheapens debate greatly.

It is your opinion and your are entitled to it. At last appearance this is still a free country but you again get off point.

Whatever your great profession is I hope it doesn't involve writing to an educated audience.

My profession neither requires 'publishing or perishing' nor writing to educated audiences. My skills deal more with the health and betterment of men and women and no need of any journalistic requirements. As previously stated, I am not a writer.

Oddly, most "professions" do involve writing that requires quotation marks and references, and some have rather severe consequences for those who fail to follow such guidelines; you must (sic) rather lucky.

Oddly my work and degree doesn't require writing for publications and therefore no consequences follow for lack of professional writer acknowledgements.

As for Mr. DeLay, I hope he has a good memory, as to his "Chinook 15" he can now add the "Blackhawk 6" and "Blackhawks 17," and, if we carry on down the current path, perhaps the Apache 2, Chinook 20, Blackhawk 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, and perhaps even C-130 80 or C-17 150 who will have died in vain as well. Or we can get very serious about turning authority over to the UN and put our money where our mouth is about rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, through them.

So you find Congressman Delay responsible for the war in Iraq. Interesting that you place responsibility on a Congressman that neither started the war against America nor was responsible for its conduct. You might as well investigate President Abraham Lincoln for prosecuting the Civil War.

You say 'our' meaning your money being used for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure by trusting in the most inept (UN)international authority known to man.

You may be interested in knowing that the majority of monies spent by the US on the Iraq war including the 84-87 billion authorized by Congress this last week will be spent right here in the good ole USA. Money that will be used for American jobs using American military and domestic companies to rebuild the country we bombed and rid the world of the beast of Bagdad.

_________________
"To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, 'Our country, right or wrong,' and urge on the little war. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation."

When in the course of human events

our country uses its initiatives to urge on this little war in order to safeguard the lives and liberties of the American people, then I do not consider that an insult to this nation, its people or its soldiers that serve with distinction for you and me.

 

[SLClemens]

What a relief to find that accurate writing is not essential to your profession, though I hate to think of what educational institution would let someone aspire to any profession without learning standard conventions for referencing sources in one's writing.

As for Turkey, you'll see that I wrote above that it is by no means a perfect democracy. In fact, I have little disagreement, and can't say I feel any discomfort, with the source you used but failed to quote or reference. Yet, it did allow a very high degree of democratic process when debating whether to let US soldiers pass through its territory. Washington was not pleased with how democracy worked in this case. Washington was very pleased, however, when the governments of Italy and Spain ignored the wishes of the vast majority of their citizens to support the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what message this sends out to the world about what we really think of democracy?

Finally, Mr. Delay is not singularily responsible for the war. He has lots and lots of company in Washington providing essential political support for the assinine course we are on.

 

[ajwps]

What a relief to find that accurate writing is not essential to your profession, though I hate to think of what educational institution would let someone aspire to any profession without learning standard conventions for referencing sources in one's writing.

Yep it was a relief to know that the only writing essential to my profession was eight years of study and the practicle application of that reality which has not changed since the dawn of homosapiens. The only notes that I have had to write in the years of my career were meant for me based on subjective and objective findings. Not everyone is as lucky as yourself in being educated in the finer points of conventional institutional minutia or journalistic standards. Luckily you are not opinionated.

As for Turkey, you'll see that I wrote above that it is by no means a perfect democracy. In fact, I have little disagreement, and can't say I feel any discomfort, with the source you used but failed to quote or reference. Yet, it did allow a very high degree of democratic process when debating whether to let US soldiers pass through its territory. Washington was not pleased with how democracy worked in this case. Washington was very pleased, however, when the governments of Italy and Spain ignored the wishes of the vast majority of their citizens to support the invasion of Iraq. I wonder what message this sends out to the world about what we really think of democracy?

If Turkey is not a 'perfect democracy' you might enlighten everyone as to which country is perfectly anything? Since the early part of the Iraqi/USA 21 day Saddam takedown, the Turkish Islamic majority has altered relations with the USA. President Bush has had to keep the Turks from entering northern Iraq in order to avoid fighting between Turks and Kurds of Iraq.

Italy and Spain are thought to be democracies of a sort with free elections. It appears that you again choose to believe public media coverage of the so-called wishes of the vast majority of the citizens of Spain, Italy and Great Britain. Fortunately the reality is very different from the bias of the 'free' press and media.

It seems that under-reported public polls taken in these countries show a vast majority in favor of President Bush and Tony Blair's actions for the removal of Saddam and his despotic reign of terror against the free world. Evidence now points to Saddam partnership with the terrorist groups of Islam and Ossama Bin Laden.

Finally, Mr. Delay is not singularily responsible for the war. He has lots and lots of company in Washington providing essential political support for the assinine course we are on.

You seem to underestimate the world and those who understand the true meaning of Qur'an's Sura 9:5. The Islamic terrorists blow up buildings and kill people around the world of free nations. Attacks come daily to peoples that are considered unbelievers. You seem to confuse world opinion with world population fears and consternation.

Yes the majority of Congress, both democrats and republicans voted overwhelmingly to take down Saddam and support Mr. Bush's war. Mr. Delay was just one member of Congress that supported and still support Mr. Bush. Now of course with the November 2004 election process in full swing, some of those willing democrats reverse course. The new claim is that they only voted for threating attack against Iraq and not outright war. These new claims seem to be falling on deaf ears as Mr. Bush still maintains a lead over any of the nine wanabe democrats.

This is democracy in action. Don't think for a minute that the world isn't taking notice of how an imperfect democracy works in action.

As the democrat author Bernard Goldberg states in his best seller Arrogance, the intellectually honest media slants the truth to the left just a bit.

Attribution: Henri Frédéric Amiel (1821–1881)

If ignorance and passion are the foes of popular morality, it must be confessed that moral indifference is the malady of the cultivated classes. The modern separation of enlightenment and virtue, of thought and conscience, of the intellectual aristocracy from the honest and common crowd is the greatest danger that can threaten liberty.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by ajwps


Italy and Spain are thought to be democracies of a sort with free elections. It appears that you again choose to believe public media coverage of the so-called wishes of the vast majority of the citizens of Spain, Italy and Great Britain. Fortunately the reality is very different from the bias of the 'free' press and media.

The vast majority of Italians and Spanairds opposed the war and to suggest otherwise is pure nonsense. See for instance http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/30/1048962645495.html , http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749825256.html , and http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/30/1043804450362.html

Support in the UK has been ambivalent, but never before has a war evoked the sorts of protests we have seen there.

Face it, the majority of people in most democracies do not support this war, and Bush cannot stand that.


As for the meaning of plagiarism, which you still seem not to comprehend (it is not just a matter for highly trained journalists), please talk to some of your colleagues who have a B.A. from an American university (or any university in the English-speaking world) and ask them to help explain it to you.

 

[Bry]

regarding plagiarism: http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor222222

You may want to check this out, jim, as it may be illegal for you to maintain a site on which plagiarism is taking place.

I learned a few things here that I was not previously aware of. We are in the habbit of posting quotes and providing as reference only a link to the site where the information is found. That may also be an infringement of copyright, because the author, title, and index information are not provided. In any case, to use a quote without indicating that the text is actually a quote is clearly a violation of US law, which has implications not only for the poster but for the site.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Bry
regarding plagiarism: http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor222222

You may want to check this out, jim, as it may be illegal for you to maintain a site on which plagiarism is taking place.

I learned a few things here that I was not previously aware of. We are in the habbit of posting quotes and providing as reference only a link to the site where the information is found. That may also be an infringement of copyright, because the author, title, and index information are not provided. In any case, to use a quote without indicating that the text is actually a quote is clearly a violation of US law, which has implications not only for the poster but for the site.

Well, I don't think that US marshalls are going to pull a Neverland-style raid on Jim's house for the same sort of thing that happens on tens of thousands of other sites. Similarly, our habit of cutting and pasting entire news articles, rather than just short excerpts, is technically a violation of copyright law, but news agencies almost never object to people who do this on public messageboards when a link is provided because of the free advertising it gives them.

But we *are* intelligent enough here, for the most part, to quote and provide references when using others' work, and to realize the benefits of doing so and the problems of not doing so.

 

[Bry]

Of course I agree with you, SL. The risk is not great, though the argument would be that if we post an entire article here, we would not have to go to the news outlet to get the information there, thus denying them the trafic which is rightfully theirs. By the same token, I've noticed that jim doesn't allow private advertisement of other internet sites. In any case, of course, the decision is up to jim, because he is the one who would most likely bear any responsibility, he being the one with a licensed internet site. In anycase, regardless of the laws, it is particularly ugly to post sections of someone else's writing without making some reference and making clear that the writing presented is not the author's.

At the risk of violating copyright law:

17 U.S.C. §101.
Posting a document on the world wide web is a "public display" of the work, which is among the rights exclusively reserved to the owner of the copyrighted work. 17 USC §106(5).

I have seen many web sites with collections of images that contain a notice similar to the following:
If you find an image that belongs to you and you do not want it displayed here, send me an e-mail and I'll remove it immediately.
That may be a pleasant statement, but it shows a serious misunderstanding of copyright law. The law requires that the author of a web site, book, etc. ask permission of the copyright owner before displaying any copyrighted work. The burden is on the copier to ask permission. It is not the duty of the copyright owner to cruise the Internet and ask authors to stop infringing a copyright. In fact, the copyright owner can file copyright infringement litigation immediately on discovering the unauthorized use of copyrighted material.

from Some Observations on Copyright Law
Copyright 1997-2001 Ronald B. Standler
http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor222222

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
Of course I agree with you, SL. The risk is not great, though the argument would be that if we post an entire article here, we would not have to go to the news outlet to get the information there, thus denying them the trafic which is rightfully theirs. By the same token, I've noticed that jim doesn't allow private advertisement of other internet sites. In any case, of course, the decision is up to jim, because he is the one who would most likely bear any responsibility, he being the one with a licensed internet site.

Just out of curiousity, what does me not allowing someone advertising their personal sites have to do with someone supplying links to an article they have posted? I've never had a problem with someone linking to a site that verifies their post. In fact, I have asked several times for sources to be produced. It's quite doubtful I could be held responsible in any way unless someone could prove I knowingly left a plagiarized article on the site. I can't possibly verify every post made here and there is really no way of me knowing whether the poster wrote it or copied it.

I do have a problem with plagiarism and I expect everyone to abide by the written authors rights. I'm not concerned with articles being posted here with a link offered to the original site - this is done on every message board on the internet.

 

[Bry]

Just trying to be helpful, jim.

Just out of curiousity, what does me not allowing someone advertising their personal sites have to do with someone supplying links to an article they have posted?

I believe part of your argument was that those advertisements could lose you traffic by providing links to other message boards. By the same token, posting whole articles here looses traffic for licensed news services, which could concievably piss someone off. As for your responsibility for what appears on your site, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know. As I said, I was only trying to be helpful, and provided a link to a site that seemed helpful. What you choose to do with that information is for you: I couldn't care less.

I do have a problem with plagiarism and I expect everyone to abide by the written authors rights. I'm not concerned with articles being posted here with a link offered to the original site - this is done on every message board on the internet.

This, of course, is a contradiction, because the "author's rights" are considerably more substantial than "articles being posted here with a link offered to the original site". At the very least, a quote should be duely set off from the rest of the text, and copyright information provided, and at most, permission for reprinting should be obtained. I'll change my own behavior as I see fit, and what you choose to do is for you. If I was an author, and found my writing be incorrectly reproduced, my reaction would be other.

 

[jimnyc]

I believe part of your argument was that those advertisements could lose you traffic by providing links to other message boards. By the same token, posting whole articles here looses traffic for licensed news services, which could concievably piss someone off. As for your responsibility for what appears on your site, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know. As I said, I was only trying to be helpful, and provided a link to a site that seemed helpful. What you choose to do with that information is for you: I couldn't care less.

There is a HUGE difference between ADVERTISING for another site and linking to another site where your article originates from. The latter is for discussion purposes on our threads where the first is simply to steer away traffic for their own gain.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I belong to quite a few message boards that are law related. They are run by lawyers and law offices - and they as well continually post articles related to their discussions with links to the site they found their data. I'm not worried in the slightest bit.

This, of course, is a contradiction, because the "author's rights" are considerably more substantial than "articles being posted here with a link offered to the original site". At the very least, a quote should be duely set off from the rest of the text, and copyright information provided, and at most, permission for reprinting should be obtained.

Are you serious? Find me another board that does this! A simple link has always been sufficient. Although I can't say it's "never" happened, I never saw anyone make a post containing any type of copyright info. I wonder if anyone can dig up relevant law that shows a single person has ever been prosecuted for making a post, posting an article and leaving a link at the end? I'll ask my lawyer buddies and post their response here shortly.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by SLClemens

Italy and Spain are thought to be democracies of a sort with free elections. It appears that you again choose to believe public media coverage of the so-called wishes of the vast majority of the citizens of Spain, Italy and Great Britain. Fortunately the reality is very different from the bias of the 'free' press and media.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vast majority of Italians and Spanairds opposed the war and to suggest otherwise is pure nonsense. See for instance http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...8962645495.html , http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...7749825256.html , and http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...3804450362.html

Support in the UK has been ambivalent, but never before has a war evoked the sorts of protests we have seen there.

Face it, the majority of people in most democracies do not support this war, and Bush cannot stand that.

Very good SL.... You use as your source the unbiased Sydney Morning News (Internet Edition) for your proof. Alas the source of the Sydney Morning News information is based on their own polls taken of a majority of European and British citizens. (sampling within an error of +/- 99.9%) I just love polls and how the polls are worded to get the desired outcome.

Face it yourself, their is no exact way of polling the majority of any people or nation on earth but I do agree that the interest of MOST people on this planet are keenly aroused by the only remaining superpower taking an action to protect itself from foreign enemy attacks. Bush seems nonplused by any polls or opinions created by national or international media organizations.

As for the meaning of plagiarism, which you still seem not to comprehend (it is not just a matter for highly trained journalists), please talk to some of your colleagues who have a B.A. from an American university (or any university in the English-speaking world) and ask them to help explain it to you.

You seem to be very fixated on this subject of plagiarism. I thought you had said enough and were satisfied to move on with the subject at hand.

For your information, I attended four years of an American undergraduate university before my eight years of post-grad work. Luckily, the few prerequisite liberal arts courses that required writing papers did not require using significant amounts of quoted sources. But because the setting was a university, I used all proper quotations, citations and references when necessary.

This is a public forum, not an institution of higher learning and not used for profit on other's ideas or works. Shall we move on??

__________________
In life, only money and health are consequential.

ATTRIBUTION: Mason Cooley

 

[jimnyc]

This is the reply I got from a lawyer who has 27 years experience and is the senior partner at his firm:

What I posted:
"My question pertains to posting messages on message boards just like this one. Many boards I belong to have users posting news articles, which supports their position, and they leave a link with their post to the original article.

I have a board of my own (vBulletin as well). Users are always posting messages related to the war in Iraq. They forever copy n paste articles from news sites and political related sites - leaving a link to where they got their data from.

What is the law regarding this? Has anyone ever been prosecuted for doing this on message boards such as this? I have a current user who says we cannot post such articles, that we need permission from the site and need to post all the copyright information in our post as well.

Do I have anything to worry about with my users posting articles from Yahoo and CNN when they leave links to the original article?

Thanks!



His response:
"My response:

The first thought that comes to mind is your protection under the "Fair Use Doctrine". You have the right to use portions of anything written or copyrighted. While it's nice to give credit to the original author; e.g., a Bibliography, it's not illegal to omit the same.

We do it all the time here. There have never been any complaints."

 

[jimnyc]

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

 

[SLClemens]

For legal purposes the key word is "portions." What is a portion? A page? Two pages of a three-page document? A whole one-page doc? There's a lot of legal wrangling about this.

Technically reposting a whole Yahoo News article, for instance, could be considered illegal, unless you are going to post it piece by piece with corresponding criticism. If it's not, why did Yahoo pay Reuters or Associated Press for it in the first place? But Yahoo and whoever owns the story is not going to mind you reposting it so long as it's clear it's there work and especially if there's a link to their site, and especially if you're not making money off it.

If, on the other hand, contributers to this site took others' work and presented it as their own writing, and especially if you were making money from this site, you could have a potential problem on your hands. Even then, a group like Yahoo or an on-line encyclopedia probably has bigger fish to fry.

At the very least, though, I'm sure we can all see why there are many reasons why it's important to quote and link when we're using someone else's work from an on-line source.

 

[jimnyc]

I agree with the links. I've said from the beginning that links to reposted articles should always be supplied, for various and obvious reasons.

There is no legal issue with reposting news articles in their entirety. The concern in the doctrine would be reprinting an entire published book. The doctrine allows for reprint of portions for educational purposes, but not the entire book.

When it comes to news articles, there isn't going to be any problems or issues whatsoever. Major sites such as Yahoo only pay for the rights to receive continual updates from media outlets such as Reuters, AP, Washington Times, NY Times...

And the WHOLE point is null and void anyway since they are not being used for profit.

 

[Mustafa]

jimnyc wrote

I agree with the links. I've said from the beginning that links to reposted articles should always be supplied, for various and obvious reasons.

There is no legal issue with reposting news articles in their entirety. The concern in the doctrine would be reprinting an entire published book. The doctrine allows for reprint of portions for educational purposes, but not the entire book.

Acutally the FREE posting of thousands of unedited complete books without any apparent legal implications has been around for more than ten years at the following site. This location is actually very interesting and hosted by Penn Univeristy and supported by the Carnegie Melon Univeristy Libraries and The Newark Public Library.

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/

The site's Copyright explanation can be found at the following:.

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/

It is difficult to believe that the sponsors and libraries at this site have any intellectual integrity so cherished by SLClemons.

"October 16, 2003

Project Gutenberg announced yesterday that it had reached its long-standing goal of releasing 10,000 free titles to the Internet, and that it would soon also release a DVD of most of these titles.

Founded in 1971 by Michael Hart, and built and maintained by hundreds of volunteers, Project Gutenberg is the longest-running project producing and distributing online books. It's also one of the Net's largest and best-known such projects. Its mission, according to its stated history and philosophy, is to "make information, books and other materials available to the general public in forms a vast majority of the computers, programs and people can easily read, use, quote, and search."

Gutenberg's output has expanded greatly recently, with half of the 10,000 titles released in the last 18 months. Much of the surge has been due to the work of the Distributed Proofreaders project, the Gutenberg Radio project for computer-generated audio editions, and Gutenberg Australia, the first of what may be several non-US-based Gutenberg branches. (The surge has been strong enough that The Online Books Page has fallen a few months behind in listing Gutenberg titles, but we hope to close this gap before long.) Along with new releases, Gutenberg has also re-released a number of older titles with new formats and corrections from volunteers, which the project is always interested in receiving.

Michael Hart, still directing the project after 32 years, also announced that nearly all of these titles would be released on a single DVD shortly. (The only titles left off would be the human genome data and the audio books, for space reasons, and the Gutenberg Australia releases, for copyright reasons.)

With its original goal now met, Gutenberg has no intention of slowing down. Michael Hart ultimately hopes that all public domain books (and as many copyrighted books as possible) will eventually be available through Gutenberg, and is now contemplating what milestones to aim for next.

Congratulations to Project Gutenberg and all its volunteers! And I look forward to seeing title #1,000,000 someday."
June 30, 2003