View Full Version : Funny I don't feel like a criminal


darylbrayman
02-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

omk3
02-26-2010, 11:12 AM
I do it ALL the time :) I have shared books with my mother and one friend (those are the only two people close to me that are ardent readers and share my tastes) since I can remember. I did it with paper books and I now do it with ebooks. If it is illegal, so be it. I'm not gonna stop sharing things I love with the people I love.

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 11:17 AM
Yeah, even being an ardent supporter of copyright law etc., I'd hardly bash people for doing that.

I'm no supporter of DRM. People who buy an e-book need to be able to do the same things they're legally allowed to do with a paperbook. Loan it to a friend/family member, give it away or sell it (can't keep a copy for yourself though) etc.

My issue is with people who put stuff on the darknets, or those who download from the darknets rather than buying a copy etc. Not people who strip DRM to put their book on other devices, or to loan it to a couple of friends like they used to do with a paper book they loved and wanted other's to read etc.

DRM stinks as it does nothing to stop pirates and just creates hassles for those who do buy the content legally.

DixieGal
02-26-2010, 11:18 AM
Hush up, y'all.

Maybe this is one of those threads that needs to die a quick death. Remember where you are and who may be watching.

Hellmark
02-26-2010, 12:03 PM
Really the only ones that people would need to be worried about is upsetting the site staff.

HarryT
02-26-2010, 12:32 PM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

So you deleted all copies from your PC? You've removed the copy you downloaded from your internet cache? You've deleted the copy of the e-mail from the "send items" folder of your mail program? If the answer to any of these is "no", then how can you say that "there is only one copy floating around"?

tompe
02-26-2010, 12:36 PM
So you deleted all copies from your PC? You've removed the copy you downloaded from your internet cache? You've deleted the copy of the e-mail from the "send items" folder of your mail program? If the answer to any of these is "no", then how can you say that "there is only one copy floating around"?

Easy, the other copies are not floating around since they are unused and unlooked at at a static location.

GeoffC
02-26-2010, 12:41 PM
and an excellent thread example of News and Commentary !

thename
02-26-2010, 12:43 PM
Yeah, even being an ardent supporter of copyright law etc., I'd hardly bash people for doing that.

...

DRM stinks as it does nothing to stop pirates and just creates hassles for those who do buy the content legally.

You imply it doesn't just about automatically turn people who do buy content legally into pirates!

I bought a Kindle book on Amazon, downloaded the PRC, stripped the DRM, converted to EPUB, and dumped it onto my Sony. Pirate!

Pablo
02-26-2010, 12:48 PM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

I would not post things like that. You never know who's reading, Big Brother may be watching you. And I don't think we are as anonymous as we tend to think here on the net.
I'm not saying that what you do is wrong (who am I to judge you?).

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 12:54 PM
So you deleted all copies from your PC? You've removed the copy you downloaded from your internet cache? You've deleted the copy of the e-mail from the "send items" folder of your mail program? If the answer to any of these is "no", then how can you say that "there is only one copy floating around"?

All of which are silly technicalities, trivial to overcome, and completely irrelevant to the point. Reminds me of when software companies tried to claim that loading a copy into memory was copyright infringement.

joblack
02-26-2010, 12:56 PM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

As long as you and your mother doesn't use it at the same time it shouldn't be a problem (except the 'illegal removed DRM' (depends on your country)).

thename
02-26-2010, 01:04 PM
All of which are silly technicalities, trivial to overcome, and completely irrelevant to the point. Reminds me of when software companies tried to claim that loading a copy into memory was copyright infringement.
A la the "server copy" and "buffer copy" (http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat071205.html#N_20_) definitions that long ago cropped up as licensors sought money from folks offering streaming/downloading media.

=X=
02-26-2010, 01:05 PM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

Be aware that most eBook sellers claim they did not "sell" you a book but licensed it to you. Where this is criminal activity or not I don't know I'm no lawyer, but clearly you have broken the EULA agreement.

I do agree with you however that it is silly that with a physical book it's perfectly okay to lend somebody a book but an electronic book it is treated as copyright infringement.

=X=

HarryT
02-26-2010, 01:07 PM
All of which are silly technicalities, trivial to overcome, and completely irrelevant to the point.

No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.

Perhaps the original poster would prefer to amend his statement to say "only one other person has copies". I'd be fine with that.

JSWolf
02-26-2010, 01:07 PM
I do share my eBooks with family. And I don't find it a problem. I'd do the same thing if it was a paper book. Technically this may be wrong, by morally, I feel fine about it.

JSWolf
02-26-2010, 01:08 PM
No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.

Perhaps the original poster would prefer to amend his statement to say "only one other person has copies". I'd be fine with that.

One copy floating around means there is one copy not in his possession. The copy his mother has is that one.

HarryT
02-26-2010, 01:09 PM
I do agree with you however that it is silly that with a physical book it's perfectly okay to lend somebody a book but an electronic book it is treated as copyright infringement.

=X=

That's because lending someone a physical book does not involve making a copy of it, hence (self-evidently) copyright does not enter into it. When you give someone a copy of an e-Book, the operative word is "copy", hence copyright law does apply.

Hamlet53
02-26-2010, 01:11 PM
So you deleted all copies from your PC? You've removed the copy you downloaded from your internet cache? You've deleted the copy of the e-mail from the "send items" folder of your mail program? If the answer to any of these is "no", then how can you say that "there is only one copy floating around"?

Actually I agree you have a point. If only to totally remove the temptation to recover a copy for one's own use latter on.

I am also on the iffy side of even passing on the ebook file, even it all traces are then deleted. The analogy to what can be done with a paper book is nice, but it still remains the fact that a digital file is not the same as a paper book. Even if you are so scrupulously honest (about erasing all copies of the file from your computer and other devices) the person you passed the file onto is free to make copies and send them anywhere.

It's a real contradiction While I maintain the right to do whatever manipulation I choose to an ebook file I have legally purchased in order to make it useful to me I know the action opens up the possibility for me to share it in ways that deprive the seller of his legitimate rights and interests.

But a least from a moral standpoint that is what it will always come down to. Each individual's moral integrity. DRM can't substitute for that.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 01:17 PM
No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.


Which is a silly technicality.

HarryT
02-26-2010, 01:20 PM
Which is a silly technicality.

OK, let's continue to look at it, shall we?

Mother receives a copy in an e-mail - that's one additional copy.
Mother saves the e-mail attachment to hard disk - that's two copies.
Mother copies the book to an e-book reader - that's three copies.

Really, however you choose to look at it, there are multiple copies involved. You may regard it as a "silly technicality"; I must beg to differ.

edbro
02-26-2010, 01:24 PM
OK, let's continue to look at it, shall we?

Mother receives a copy in an e-mail - that's one additional copy.
Mother saves the e-mail attachment to hard disk - that's two copies.
Mother copies the book to an e-book reader - that's three copies.

Really, however you choose to look at it, there are multiple copies involved. You may regard it as a "silly technicality"; I must beg to differ.

Why so quick to assume that he is wrong when he says there is only one copy? Innocent until proven guilty (on that charge, anyways)

So, when you purchase a book and copy it to your reader, do you then delete it out of your library software?

omk3
02-26-2010, 01:25 PM
Ok I understand what you are saying Harry, but really, what does it matter, from a practical point of view, how many copies there are in one person's possession? In this sense, even when I legally download a book and do not remove DRM, I still have at least one copy on my computer and one copy on my reader, so two copies, though I have only bought the rights to one. Do I infringe any copyright just because I don't delete from my computer when I transfer to the reader?
And does all this discussion even matter?

HarryT
02-26-2010, 01:29 PM
Ok I understand what you are saying Harry, but really, what does it matter, from a practical point of view, how many copies there are in one person's possession? In this sense, even when I legally download a book and do not remove DRM, I still have at least one copy on my computer and one copy on my reader, so two copies, though I have only bought the rights to one. Do I infringe any copyright just because I don't delete from my computer when I transfer to the reader?
And does all this discussion even matter?

Nope. Doesn't matter in the slightest. And I certainly have no "moral problem" with it.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 01:29 PM
OK, let's continue to look at it, shall we?

Mother receives a copy in an e-mail - that's one additional copy.
Mother saves the e-mail attachment to hard disk - that's two copies.
Mother copies the book to an e-book reader - that's three copies.

Really, however you choose to look at it, there are multiple copies involved. You may regard it as a "silly technicality"; I must beg to differ.

All of which are incidental copies that are created in the act of using or transferring the content. None of which is what copyright was really meant to cover.

If they are loaning to multiple people at the same thing, that would be bad. If they want to read the eBook at the same time their mother is, that would be bad. The stuff you're talking about is just the nature of how digital files work. It's a technicality and has nothing to do with the spirit of copyright. What you're talking about is the same thing as opening an application to read the eBook, which then loads another copy into RAM (oh no!).

=X=
02-26-2010, 01:30 PM
No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.

Perhaps the original poster would prefer to amend his statement to say "only one other person has copies". I'd be fine with that.

Okay Harry let's go along with your silly argument, because it is.

Let's analyze the implicates of what you are trying to say. Since what you imply that that act of just deleting is not enough where do we stop?

First off book loaded in memory resides there for some time, is person required to reboot.
What about the physical disc drive. Just deleting it is not enough, as a SW recovery program can recover the eBook.

What about companies who sell eBooks, if they relocate the file stating from one directory to another, or backup their servers. Are they required to pay out twice?

Most DRM allow one to register multiple devices to one account. What if each eBook reader loads that book according to you their in CopyRight violation and so is the Company that allows this since CopyRight is own by the author/publisher not the DRM licensee. Does the company payout for every copy made?

Question here is what is the moral difference between having two devices registered to one account and sharing a book that way and sending one out to your mother?

=X=

HarryT
02-26-2010, 01:42 PM
Let's analyze the implicates of what you are trying to say. Since what you imply that that act of just deleting is not enough where do we stop?


No, I didn't say that at all. Perhaps I misread the original post, but I believe that the original poster has given his mum a copy while retaining the book himself, and has made no attempt to delete it from his own machine. My apologies if I've misunderstood the intent.

Sydney's Mom
02-26-2010, 01:44 PM
My inlaws have separate Amazon accounts, and didn't want to create another, so they are trading their respective kindles back and forth. This is what we are reduced to.

JSWolf
02-26-2010, 01:46 PM
OK, let's continue to look at it, shall we?

Mother receives a copy in an e-mail - that's one additional copy.
Mother saves the e-mail attachment to hard disk - that's two copies.
Mother copies the book to an e-book reader - that's three copies.

Really, however you choose to look at it, there are multiple copies involved. You may regard it as a "silly technicality"; I must beg to differ.

Actually, it works like this...

Mother receives a copy in e-mail - that's one additional copy
email program decodes that attachment and saves it to hard disk - still one copy
Mother copies the book to an eBook reader - that's two copies.

So you've overstated things by one copy

tompe
02-26-2010, 01:47 PM
No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.

No, he did not claim that. He claimed that there were only only one copy floating around which is true definitely in a legal/broad sense but also according to me in a technical sense since old files not used on a hard disk are not floating around.

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 01:48 PM
That's because lending someone a physical book does not involve making a copy of it, hence (self-evidently) copyright does not enter into it. When you give someone a copy of an e-Book, the operative word is "copy", hence copyright law does apply.

Yeah, that's the central problem and what makes digital content so troublesome and worrisome for publishers and authors.

With a physical book that's bought legally, there's only one copy to float around (people could photo copy it, scan it etc. of course, but that's less of a problem as it's a hassle). You loan out your copy, you don't have yours anymore and only one person at a time can have your copy.

But with digital content you can give the file to a friend, then you both have copies. It's not really loaning since both copies work at the same time and can be kept permanently. And nothings stopping you from giving it to only one friend or family member while keeping your copy, or from people you give it to to make copies and pass on to their friends while keeping a copy for their self etc.

I don't think this super restrictive DRM is the way to go though, it goes too far in limiting how we can use e-books we buy ourselves. I say just scrap DRM and find more effective ways to enforce piracy than silly (and rare) huge lawsuits etc.

Or if we have to have DRM, build in lending capabilities so we can lend e-books to one other person for a set amount of time (and our copy isn't usable while they have it, just like you can't read a paper book while it's loaned out). Also build in the ability to permanently transfer a book to another person so you can sell or give away e-books you've read while not having the copy work on your account.

The problem their is that type of scheme isn't feasible until we have one e-book format so the scheme can be uniform across all devices etc. But when that's possible I think that's a viable option. It won't stop the out right pirates, but it will probably get the average legit user to not strip DRM and solve problems of a loaned e-book ending up in multiple people's hands as people pass it on while keeping their copy (rather than passing around a paper book).

Barcey
02-26-2010, 01:57 PM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

What Canadian criminal law do you think you've violated? There are large lobby groups that intent to make it a crime but to my knowledge it isn't yet.

=X=
02-26-2010, 01:59 PM
No, I didn't say that at all. Perhaps I misread the original post, but I believe that the original poster has given his mum a copy while retaining the book himself, and has made no attempt to delete it from his own machine. My apologies if I've misunderstood the intent.

Okay I re-read the OP and s/he does not explicitly say s/he deleted it. I did infer it by the statement "one copy", but I agree that is not clear.

I read your original response as saying even if you did delete it you still have copies in the catch. I see, from your post above, that is not what you were saying, my apologies.


=X=

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 02:07 PM
Okay I re-read the OP and s/he does not explicitly say s/he deleted it. I did infer it by the statement "one copy", but I agree that is not clear.

Does that really matter either? If they're done reading the book, and then loan it to their mother, who cares if there is technically still a copy of the file on their PC. It makes no real difference.

HarryT
02-26-2010, 02:14 PM
Does that really matter either? If they're done reading the book, and then loan it to their mother, who cares if there is technically still a copy of the file on their PC. It makes no real difference.

That's the whole debate here, isn't it? If "common usage" says "I can read a book, and then give it to my mum", but copyright law says "oh no you can't, matey, because if you do so you've copied the book, and hence broken copyright law", then does copyright law "trump" the accepted practice of what you can do with a book?

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 02:20 PM
That's the whole debate here, isn't it? If "common usage" says "I can read a book, and then give it to my mum", but copyright law says "oh no you can't, matey, because if you do so you've copied the book, and hence broken copyright law", then does copyright law "trump" the accepted practice of what you can do with a book?

Does copyright say you can't? US copyright law already says that incidental copies that are created during normal use don't matter. If loaning IP is legal, then incidental copies while loaning an eBook should fall under "normal use", right?

The DMCA would come into play if you have to strip the DRM in order to loan it to your mother, but copyright law shouldn't really treat a physical book any different from a digital book.

Bremen Cole
02-26-2010, 02:25 PM
To the OP, remember we now have a US Government Czar looking over your shoulder http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/white-house-ip-czar-demands-good-data-from-righstholders.ars .

As someone else posted, I have bought an ebook from Amazon, stripped the DRM so I could read it on my Sony. I am at least one person (I bet there are a few more) that if I could not liberate their books, they would not get any business from me.....

Oh and I share these books that I liberate with my wife.... and sometimes they occupy two readers at the same time..... It should be noted that with the DRM it would be acceptable for them to be on two authorized readers.... I just do it without the DRM.....

Come and get me Czar and her minions......

HarryT
02-26-2010, 02:28 PM
Does copyright say you can't? US copyright law already says that incidental copies that are created during normal use don't matter. If loaning IP is legal, then incidental copies while loaning an eBook should fall under "normal use", right?

I think we have to consider two separate issues here:

1. As you say, incidental copies created during normal use are clearly permitted by copyright law since, practically speaking, you can't really do anything with a digital file that doesn't involve copies being made - not even reading it.

2. The issue of what, if anything, you are obliged to do with your own copy when you give the book to someone else. Is merely refraining from reading your own copy sufficient? I'd guess it probably isn't - copyright is about "possession, not "usage". Is making a reasonable endeavor to delete copies from your reading device and PC sufficient? I would hope that it is, but until this is tested in court, we really don't know the answer, do we?

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 02:38 PM
I think we have to consider two separate issues here:

1. As you say, incidental copies created during normal use are clearly permitted by copyright law since, practically speaking, you can't really do anything with a digital file that doesn't involve copies being made - not even reading it.

2. The issue of what, if anything, you are obliged to do with your own copy when you give the book to someone else. Is merely refraining from reading your own copy sufficient? I'd guess it probably isn't - copyright is about "possession, not "usage". Is making a reasonable endeavor to delete copies from your reading device and PC sufficient? I would hope that it is, but until this is tested in court, we really don't know the answer, do we?

Yep. Number 2 is the rub, and copyright law with have to be changed/clarified to deal with these types of issues that pop up with digital content that weren't possible with print content. Fair Use laws need a great deal of specification as they're too vague even with print, and woefully inadequate for defining what one can or can't do with digital content they bought.

MrBlueSky
02-26-2010, 02:59 PM
Welcome to the Darkside everyone!

Experience how nice it feels when you throw of the yolk of your monopolist oppressors :)

THIS is exactly why the copyright maximiists are so afraid. You have your justification for copying files, I have mine, he has has and others have theirs. Everybody is different — yet everybody is the same in their eyes.

Of course, your loved ones would NEVER lend ‘their’ copy to another of their loved ones, and their other loved ones would never ‘lend’ a copy to their significant others/friends, and five or more iterations down the line, 'your' first copy would never find is way on to a file-sharing sites.

it always starts with the first little step…

Seriously folks, one a copy is out of your physical control you no longer have any say in over where it ends up — no matter how much you ’trust’ the recipient — just like secrets, the only way to keep one secure is to never ever let another living person have access.

The copyright maximilists KNOW their position is untenable and the more the so-called ‘upstanding citizen’ ignores the ‘letter of the law’ the more irrelevant it becomes.

And no, before anyone say it —there is no such thing as being ‘a little bit pregnant’.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 03:03 PM
2. The issue of what, if anything, you are obliged to do with your own copy when you give the book to someone else.

It's not really that big of an issue. Say that the courts do come out and say you need to delete your own copy... OK... delete it then. It's not difficult.

I also seriously doubt you're ever going to see someone taken to court because they loaned a copy to their mother but neglected to delete the file from their own PC. The copyright holders would never know it was happening, and likely wouldn't care either.

delphidb96
02-26-2010, 05:44 PM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

Okay. First thing, GET YOUR MOTHER A Kindle registered to YOUR Amazon account!!! Two Kindles on the account means they can share the books purchased for either device. I have two K2s on my Amazon account and Mom uses one; I use the other.

Second thing, go out and kill twenty enemies. After having done so, you'll feel MUCH LESS guilt over sharing the book with your mother. :D :D :D

Derek

CyGuy
02-26-2010, 05:55 PM
You certainly don't seem to have a Pirate (L)attitude. :D

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 06:02 PM
It's not really that big of an issue. Say that the courts do come out and say you need to delete your own copy... OK... delete it then. It's not difficult.

I also seriously doubt you're ever going to see someone taken to court because they loaned a copy to their mother but neglected to delete the file from their own PC. The copyright holders would never know it was happening, and likely wouldn't care either.

Yeah, I don't see that becoming a huge copyright issue.

They're going to focus, and rightly so, on those putting files on the darknets for anyone to grab, and maybe some on people downloading files from the darknets.

Publishers have always lost sales as people borrow books, check them out from the library etc. I don't see them losing a lot of sleep over loaning of e-books. They don't like it--just like they don't like loaning and used books sales for paper books etc., but not much they can do about it since it's near impossible to detect with e-books, and people have full rights to loan, sell, donate etc. their physical content whether they like it or not.

At most they work on getting some lending system in place like the Nooks to try to prevent lent copies from moving on down the chain of people the person borrowing it knows etc. But even that may be more trouble than it's worth.

But they can work to fight online piracy, and that will be their focus. Worry about the people who get your content without every paying for it and try to pass it on to tons of others etc. Not someone who bought it sharing it with a few people like they have your paper books for years.

Alisa
02-26-2010, 06:06 PM
Okay. First thing, GET YOUR MOTHER A Kindle registered to YOUR Amazon account!!! Two Kindles on the account means they can share the books purchased for either device. I have two K2s on my Amazon account and Mom uses one; I use the other.

Second thing, go out and kill twenty enemies. After having done so, you'll feel MUCH LESS guilt over sharing the book with your mother. :D :D :D

Derek

When I bought my sister a Kindle, the plan was to have it on my account. She's disabled and not working. Money's tight but she couldn't agree to accept me paying for her books. His mom may not want to be on his account, either. Maybe it's the money. Maybe she just wants her reading habits private.

Besides, there's also the hassle. Shopping from the Kindle is a bit of a pain but if she wants to shop from her computer, she'd need the login for his account. Not that he couldn't trust her with it but maybe he wants privacy, too. My husband doesn't have my login. Mostly it's just because I wouldn't want him to see when I've bought him a surprise. So that means he's stuck shopping on the Kindle unless I'm around. We at least live in the same house so it's pretty simple. It would be nice if you could link Kindle users into a family group the way you do with Prime rather than having it all tied to one account.

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 06:08 PM
It would be nice if you could link Kindle users into a family group the way you do with Prime rather than having it all tied to one account.

Definitely. My girlfriend uses my Kindle account for the Kindle for PC program, but she has to order from my Kindle or I'll log in for her etc.

It would be much better if you could link accounts like with prime, but publishers want books tied to one account for the time being unfortunately.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 07:06 PM
Publishers have always lost sales as people borrow books, check them out from the library etc. I don't see them losing a lot of sleep over loaning of e-books. They don't like it--just like they don't like loaning and used books sales for paper books etc., but not much they can do about it since it's near impossible to detect with e-books, and people have full rights to loan, sell, donate etc. their physical content whether they like it or not.


Many would argue that DRM is a direct attempt by Publishers to kill fair use and first sale (loaning and used book sales). IMO, they lose a lot more sleep over it than you think.

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 07:18 PM
Many would argue that DRM is a direct attempt by Publishers to kill fair use and first sale (loaning and used book sales). IMO, they lose a lot more sleep over it than you think.

True. But as things go forward I think we'll see that ease up like it did for music, and they'll realize it's better to focus on the outright pirates.

Especially if legal codes change and governments get serious about detecting and punishing illegal file sharers on the darknets etc.

But for now they see moving to downloads and DRM as a way to attack the used market they hate, but I don't think that will work either.

If you want people to buy new instead of used, find ways to give them incentives--though admittedly that can be hard to do. An example from the video game world is Mass Effect 2. New copies come with a code to activate the "Cerberus Network" and they've been giving out free content for the game through there--an extra playable character, a couple missions, some armor and weapons, a bigger expansion pack of missions next month etc.

If you buy used, you have to pay $15 to get access the network. I think that's a clever and fair way to encourage people to buy your product new, and I had no problem buying the game new, even though I get most of my games used off of trading sites like Goozex. It's a great game, and they made it worth my while to buy it new rather than waiting for a cheaper used copy.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 07:20 PM
True. But as things go forward I think we'll see that ease up like it did for music, and they'll realize it's better to focus on the outright pirates.

Yeah, that's working out so well for the RIAA. :smack:

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 07:27 PM
Yeah, that's working out so well for the RIAA. :smack:

It's not going to work out until the laws change to deal with it as minor crimes that get appropriate penalties, and there's an agency to police the net for illegal downloads etc.

It will remain a disaster if the publishing industries have to police it themselves and their only recourse is silly lawsuits with fines that are absurdly disproportionate to the crime.

Make it a misdemeanor, make the penalty something like the value +25% as a fine, and be done with it. Make it something like traffic tickets, pay the fine, you have no criminal record etc. With the publishers having nothing to do with policing the net, pressing charges etc., just like they don't go after shoplifters for physical content theft.

kennyc
02-26-2010, 07:28 PM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

If you deleted it from your reader/computer/possession. I don't feel you are a criminal at all.

:D

kennyc
02-26-2010, 07:31 PM
Hush up, y'all.

Maybe this is one of those threads that needs to die a quick death. Remember where you are and who may be watching.


What??? The Giraffes?


http://poegeyed.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/animal-picture-giraffe-ucumari.jpg

JerseyBiker
02-26-2010, 07:45 PM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

I'm sure something similar has been said but I'm too lazy to read all of the messages in this thread. I purchased a Kindle2 for my wife for Christmas and a Nook for myself early this month. I have learned the process to remove DRM from both formats so that my wife and I can share ebooks. No one outside of my household will have access to the ebooks. Therefore I feel no guilt at all.

~eddie

clockworkzombie
02-26-2010, 07:51 PM
What??? The Giraffes?

What an excellent photo. Did you take it?

It reminds me of Yoda. mmmmmmm. Pirate you are. Yessssss.

:)

kennyc
02-26-2010, 07:55 PM
What an excellent photo. Did you take it?

It reminds me of Yoda. mmmmmmm. Pirate you are. Yessssss.

:)

AH, but I didn't "take it" from the owner, I just "linked" to it. :rofl:

guyanonymous
02-26-2010, 07:56 PM
But without credit? Shameful! :P

And a theft of bandwidth by linking directly. :P

kennyc
02-26-2010, 08:02 PM
But without credit? Shameful! :P

And a theft of bandwidth by linking directly. :P

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:F5aikz-oCMWDaM:http://www.wallpaperstop.com/wallpapers/animal-wallpapers/dog-wallpapers/ugly-dog-tongue-out-wallpaper-1280x800-0925.jpg

kennyc
02-26-2010, 08:02 PM
But without credit? Shameful! :P

And a theft of bandwidth by linking directly. :P

http://www.wallpaperstop.com/wallpapers/animal-wallpapers/dog-wallpapers/ugly-dog-tongue-out-wallpaper-1280x800-0925.jpg

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 08:07 PM
It's not going to work out until the laws change to deal with it as minor crimes that get appropriate penalties, and there's an agency to police the net for illegal downloads etc.

In order for that to work (somebody else police it), you'd have to criminalize all copyright infringement. That's probably a really bad idea.

Make it a misdemeanor, make the penalty something like the value +25% as a fine, and be done with it.

The value of what? You're talking about uploading, or downloading? It's debatable whether downloading (receiving content from somebody else who is infringing on the right to distribute) is even illegal, let alone the technical hurdles that make it fairly impossible to even monitor.

If you are proposing to explicitly criminalize downloading, that is going to have a MUCH bigger impact than I think you realize. It would effectively kill off the internet.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 08:13 PM
I'm sure something similar has been said but I'm too lazy to read all of the messages in this thread. I purchased a Kindle2 for my wife for Christmas and a Nook for myself early this month. I have learned the process to remove DRM from both formats so that my wife and I can share ebooks. No one outside of my household will have access to the ebooks. Therefore I feel no guilt at all.


Nor should you feel any guilt. You're not doing anything that hasn't existed since physical books were invented.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 08:15 PM
And a theft of bandwidth by linking directly. :P

I know you're joking, but people have actually tried to claim that in the past. Most famously Rupert Murdoch.

clockworkzombie
02-26-2010, 08:21 PM
AH, but I didn't "take it" from the owner, I just "linked" to it. :rofl:

Actually I was referring to the OP with my comment. It just happened to have multiple targets, apparently. :)

darylbrayman
02-26-2010, 08:22 PM
To Harry T. Yes I deleted the book from my reader and computer but that is just to save space. I bought the book at the Sony store so anytime in the future I could re-download it. But what would be the point, I've already read it. I do reread books but I usually go a few years between readings. At this point and time the only copy, within reason, is on my mothers ebook reader, and of course her computer.

My mother actually asked me the other day if she could join my Sony account. I had to say no, bad son! I already share my account with my wife. 2 X ereaders, 2X computers. I work offshore so I authorize and de-authorize my work computer. That's five of my six devices. Sorry mom.

Regards, Daryl

guyanonymous
02-26-2010, 08:24 PM
I know.

Having a past involvement with professional photography, I'm very aware of image 'theft' (copyright infringement in itself, despite being ubiquitous), bandwidth 'theft' and misuse of image-rights.

Obviously Kenny doesn't see those types of theft as significant or "wrong" or morally repugnant.

I didn't let it bother me, perhaps because it affected me only minimally and I based my business on charging for service, not for anticipated future prints/sales etc. I also recognized that that was reality and there wasn't much that I could do about it. I adjusted my business model accordingly to deal with reality, not how I wished reality was based on my own immeasurable and uncomparable morality. :D

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 08:31 PM
In order for that to work (somebody else police it), you'd have to criminalize all copyright infringement. That's probably a really bad idea.



The value of what? You're talking about uploading, or downloading? It's debatable whether downloading (receiving content from somebody else who is infringing on the right to distribute) is even illegal, let alone the technical hurdles that make it fairly impossible to even monitor.

If you are proposing to explicitly criminalize downloading, that is going to have a MUCH bigger impact than I think you realize. It would effectively kill off the internet.

I don't think so. And maybe the angle to prevent it is to criminalize the uploading of copyrighted material and not focus on the downloaders.

But either way I don't think downloading/uploading copyrighted material being criminalized would kill the internet. I use it perfectly fine with no downloading of copyrighted books, music, movies, images etc. I use forums, read news sites and blogs, watch streaming video on official sites like the network sites hulu etc.

As for whether downloading/uploading copyrighted material should be illegal, we've had that argument a million times on here, so no real point in it again. I think it should be as its the closet way you can get to theft and losing sales with digital content. You and other's don't and neither is going to change our minds so no need to bore the forum with another fruitless debate over that.


Oh and by value I meant what the retail value of that digital content is. If it's a $1 song, the penalty would be $1.25. (Value +25%). $10 e-book? $12.50 penalty.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 08:46 PM
But either way I don't think downloading/uploading copyrighted material being criminalized would kill the internet.

Uploading, no. Downloading, absolutely.


Oh and by value I meant what the retail value of that digital content is. If it's a $1 song, the penalty would be $1.25. (Value +25%). $10 e-book? $12.50 penalty.

My point was, there's a big difference in the "value" when uploading vs downloading. Do you only fine someone the value of a single copy when they are distributing without permission?

Krystian Galaj
02-26-2010, 08:47 PM
On the subject of copies being made, in memory and on hard drives, let's not forget about content of the printed book transformed into light waves so they can reach your eyes and let you read it - a transformation often caused by the reader by turning on the light. That's a copy as well.

Edit: Or might It call it format-shifting?

guyanonymous
02-26-2010, 08:52 PM
Thank you for carrying things to the extreme...and I agree 100%. What's worse - what if multiples sets of eyes are involved. Reading over the shoulder of another is criminal!

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 08:52 PM
Uploading, no. Downloading, absolutely.


Still don't see why. I'm on the internet all the time and I don't download anything illegally. I hardly download anything period. Beyond reading text on web pages, most content I consume is streaming (and all legal).


My point was, there's a big difference in the "value" when uploading vs downloading. Do you only fine someone the value of a single copy when they are distributing without permission?


Uploaders pay that fine for each copy they've had downloaded from their site, torrent etc. Downloaders would pay it for each copy they've downloaded.

But I'd be ok with the law just focusing on uploaders as if you kill the supply the demand is moot. It will never be killed, but you can at least reduce it if we get better systems to monitor illegal uploads, and clear (and reasonable) penalties that fit the crime.


I think eventually it will all be moot. We'll get to a digital future were we don't own anything and just pay for unlimited access to materials on networks. No more paid discs or downloads of movies, stream them etc.

That will kill piracy and the used market, and it's what the big publishers, studies and labels will do eventually when the technology and infrastructure is there. Thankfully, that's a long ways off. But I think that's pretty inevitable to happen by the end of this century.

guyanonymous
02-26-2010, 08:54 PM
The uploaders are all the law, in the US and Canada, at least, focuses on currently.

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 08:56 PM
The uploaders are all the law, in the US and Canada, at least, focuses on currently.

True. Though it kind of gets both when we're talking about limewire (if that's even still around) torrents etc. since the people they are getting are big uploaders and downloaders.

But yeah, I don't think they're going after the people who just download from torrents, p2p file sharing programs etc. while not contributing their files to others.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 09:13 PM
Still don't see why. I'm on the internet all the time and I don't download anything illegally.

How do you know? Do you personally research with every link you click on that the host has been granted permission from the copyright holder? If not, you better start as soon as they criminalize downloading. Any link you click on is potentially copyright infringed material. You've probably just been assuming that anything you download up to this point is legal, and you'd probably be right. However, if it becomes a criminal offense to be wrong, you'd better start doing your research. Of course, it's going to be nearly impossible to find that information out.

I hardly download anything period. Beyond reading text on web pages, most content I consume is streaming (and all legal).

Reading text on a web page is also downloading copyrighted material.

What you probably meant to say was downloading with the specific intent of receiving copyright infringed material should be criminal, but intent is a very tricky thing in court. That's not going to be nearly as clear cut and easy to distinguish as you might think.

Somebody could make a post on here and cut/paste copyrighted material into it. If you read that post... guess what... you just downloaded copyrighted material without permission of the rights holder. Would you say that you are now a criminal, or have even done anything illegal?

That's exactly why copyright law talks about distribution of content, not receiving it. Putting the responsibility on the person receiving the content is unworkable.

Shaggy
02-26-2010, 09:14 PM
True. Though it kind of gets both when we're talking about limewire (if that's even still around) torrents etc. since the people they are getting are big uploaders and downloaders.

They're getting them for uploading, the downloading is irrelevant.


But yeah, I don't think they're going after the people who just download from torrents, p2p file sharing programs etc. while not contributing their files to others.

They can't really go after them.

clockworkzombie
02-26-2010, 09:27 PM
Speaking of format shifting. I have a multitude of paperbacks and I was thinking of purchasing a book scanner to scan in my treasured books to keep reading them in what ever digital device I use. What are the legalities there?

Whilst I was downloading the free versions of the EE Doc Smith stuff i found text files of the entire lensman series and downloaded these too. Some of these are not available for free.

I cannot purchase these books new. Could I treat it like my CDs? I copy my Cds into iTunes then pack the discs away, I feel a little uneasy about downloading these files and packing my books. I am happy to keep the paperbacks if I can pack them into boxes and not have them invaded by insects etc.

It is interesting I would have no qualms if I scanned them in myself. I understand I should keep my paperbacks that I format shift.

A pity there is not a pay for use publishing industry service to accept my books and giving me a digital copy instead. The first copy of any older book would have to be scanned in but the rest would have greater profit and the paper books could be destroyed or sold in a giant second hand book store where they would make even more money from luddites sneering at our new fangled readers.

kennyc
02-26-2010, 09:28 PM
Actually I was referring to the OP with my comment. It just happened to have multiple targets, apparently. :)


Hee-Hee!

:D

dmaul1114
02-26-2010, 09:37 PM
How do you know? Do you personally research with every link you click on that the host has been granted permission from the copyright holder? If not, you better start as soon as they criminalize downloading. Any link you click on is potentially copyright infringed material. You've probably just been assuming that anything you download up to this point is legal, and you'd probably be right. However, if it becomes a criminal offense to be wrong, you'd better start doing your research. Of course, it's going to be nearly impossible to find that information out.


Fair points. If it goes criminal it would have to be limited to files downloaded and saved on your computer for future use. It couldn't be things people could just stumble across.

They'd have to find ways to catch and prove that people had downloaded and saved copyrighted material to their hard drive. Not just stumbled upon it and had it in their temp cache etc.

As far as people streaming copyrighted material etc.--yeah they can't go after downloaders their. Only the people uploading and hosting the files to stream, or read online etc.



What you probably meant to say was downloading with the specific intent of receiving copyright infringed material should be criminal, but intent is a very tricky thing in court. That's not going to be nearly as clear cut and easy to distinguish as you might think.


Yep, that's what I meant. It is tricky, but if you limit it to having copyrighted files stored on your hard drive (and not just in your temp files etc.) I think it gets a bit more cut and dry.

Harder to accidentally download something, save it in a specific folder, can even have it proven that they've opened the file multiple times (last accessed date on the file, vs. the download date from the info that got them caught etc. Now some people may download something, save it and use it etc. and not know it was copyrighted. But that's just too bad, so sad as ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. And it's not huge deal if it's just a tiny fine that's barely more than what the MSRP is for the file they downloaded illegally.


That's exactly why copyright law talks about distribution of content, not receiving it. Putting the responsibility on the person receiving the content is unworkable.

You're probably right. The stuff I outlined above is workable I think, but probably way more hassle than it's worth, and too little bang for the buck so to speak vs. going after the uploaders.

sabredog
02-26-2010, 10:23 PM
Speaking of format shifting. I have a multitude of paperbacks and I was thinking of purchasing a book scanner to scan in my treasured books to keep reading them in what ever digital device I use. What are the legalities there?

Whilst I was downloading the free versions of the EE Doc Smith stuff i found text files of the entire lensman series and downloaded these too. Some of these are not available for free.

I cannot purchase these books new. Could I treat it like my CDs? I copy my Cds into iTunes then pack the discs away, I feel a little uneasy about downloading these files and packing my books. I am happy to keep the paperbacks if I can pack them into boxes and not have them invaded by insects etc.

It is interesting I would have no qualms if I scanned them in myself. I understand I should keep my paperbacks that I format shift.

A pity there is not a pay for use publishing industry service to accept my books and giving me a digital copy instead. The first copy of any older book would have to be scanned in but the rest would have greater profit and the paper books could be destroyed or sold in a giant second hand book store where they would make even more money from luddites sneering at our new fangled readers.

I have purchased EE Doc Smith's books twice as my first set, a mint condition late 70's early 80's collection was a victim of the failure of my first marriage. I re-purchased them second hand sometime afterwards though at the insistence of my then new partner (now wife of ten years)

I also found them online as PDF and decided to grab them. I have purchased the books twice, no? At least I can read his works on my PDA or smartphone whilst out and about. That said I would love to see Baen re-release his entire anthology! I would instantly purchase them as I have done with Poul Anderson's Technic saga (Flandry et al)

Alisa
02-26-2010, 10:52 PM
Speaking of format shifting. I have a multitude of paperbacks and I was thinking of purchasing a book scanner to scan in my treasured books to keep reading them in what ever digital device I use. What are the legalities there?

Well, that depends on where you are. Perfectly legal here in the US. I seem to recall reading posts on this forum to the effect that it is not, however, legal in the UK. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other places it's not legal as well. I have no idea what the penalty is in the unlikely event someone is caught.

nikkie
02-26-2010, 10:53 PM
@ Anyone who has an issue with the "multiple copies" part of this scenario...

Do you write over your disk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence) somewhere between 7 and 32 times any time you move a DRM'd file on your drive? No?

PIRATE!!!

Sorry. For the lols? :2thumbsup

guyanonymous
02-26-2010, 11:01 PM
Wasn't there an issue several years ago regarding a company that would convert your cds (you mailed them to them) to MP3s that they returned to you along with the cds? That type of service was compared to hiring a college student to do it for you in your house vs. you doing it for yourself on your own equipment. I'm pretty sure that the last of those was found completely legal, but can't remember how the other two panned out.

clockworkzombie
02-26-2010, 11:33 PM
I also found them online as PDF and decided to grab them. I have purchased the books twice, no? At least I can read his works on my PDA or smartphone whilst out and about. That said I would love to see Baen re-release his entire anthology! I would instantly purchase them as I have done with Poul Anderson's Technic saga (Flandry et al)

I too would purchase them, because of the cost vs time factor for scanning. I have purchased from Baen and am going to do some more today. The Poul Anderson also has me twitching. I have purchased multiple copies over the years. I have recently started tracking down the Pyramid printing as the Panther editions have been edited more and some of the smaller details removed.

captcrouton
02-27-2010, 03:15 AM
Ok, the argument I'd like to make is that the copy isn't actually floating around. Unless your mum is on a boat, I can't see how the file is floating. The kindle isn't buoyant. Not that I've tested it, but I'm guessing.

Yeah, I didn't actually have anything intelligent to say...

lene1949
02-27-2010, 04:16 AM
If I can't live without a book - I don't read pbooks anymore - I'll get it any which way I can... It won't hurt anyone, since it's not available to me anyway..

HarryT
02-27-2010, 04:21 AM
I know you're joking, but people have actually tried to claim that in the past. Most famously Rupert Murdoch.

This is covered in our posting guidelines:

When you post images, please use the attachment feature rather than directly linking to offsite locations. This way we can ensure that the images won't suddenly disappear. (This is also good netiquette as it is not using someone else's bandwidth.)

Thanks.

AlexBell
02-27-2010, 05:06 AM
I've read through all the 84 messages in this thread and am now going to
1. Outline my procedures with copying files, which some of you may consider far worse than that of the original poster, and
2. Mention a very important point which I think will protect me from being sued or charged (or feeling the slightest scrap guilty), and which has not been mentioned so far.

Firstly, my procedures: About once a week I make at least three copies of any ebooks I have bought in the preceding week.
1. When I buy a DRM'd ePub or mobi file I invariably remove the DRM.
2. I then put the original DRM'd file and a copy of the cleaned file on to a 4Gb flash drive for backup.
3. I then put a copy of the cleaned file on to the SD card of my reader, and read the book from there.
4. I have an external hard drive backup system which copies my computer's hard drive at 3 am every morning, and no doubt copies all the ebook files on my computer's hard drive on to the external backup system.
5. If I think I will read the book again I leave the copy on the SD card; otherwise I delete it from the SD card - though it remains on the backup flash drive and (as far as I know) the external hard drive.
6. At no time does anyone else have access to my ebook reader's SD card or my backup flash drive or external flash drive, nor have I ever given or sold copyright ebooks to anyone.

Secondly, the very important point:
1. Neither the original author or his or her estate, nor the publisher, nor the vendor is in any way harmed by these procedures. I pay money for the original copy of the ebook file and each of them receives their fraction of the price. If I made a hundred copies and keep them to myself they still do not lose a cent.
2. This being so any action anyone might take against me, in my opinion at least, would be laughed out of court and I might even be awarded damages.

Can anyone point out any faults in my logic or procedures?

Regards, Alex

HarryT
02-27-2010, 05:37 AM
What makes you think you're doing anything wrong, Alex? I certainly see nothing wrong in your very sensible backup procedures. This thread is actually about the rights or wrongs of giving copies of eBooks to other people. You aren't doing that.

Barcey
02-27-2010, 08:24 AM
I've read through all the 84 messages in this thread and am now going to
1. Outline my procedures with copying files, which some of you may consider far worse than that of the original poster, and
2. Mention a very important point which I think will protect me from being sued or charged (or feeling the slightest scrap guilty), and which has not been mentioned so far.

Firstly, my procedures: About once a week I make at least three copies of any ebooks I have bought in the preceding week.
1. When I buy a DRM'd ePub or mobi file I invariably remove the DRM.
2. I then put the original DRM'd file and a copy of the cleaned file on to a 4Gb flash drive for backup.
3. I then put a copy of the cleaned file on to the SD card of my reader, and read the book from there.
4. I have an external hard drive backup system which copies my computer's hard drive at 3 am every morning, and no doubt copies all the ebook files on my computer's hard drive on to the external backup system.
5. If I think I will read the book again I leave the copy on the SD card; otherwise I delete it from the SD card - though it remains on the backup flash drive and (as far as I know) the external hard drive.
6. At no time does anyone else have access to my ebook reader's SD card or my backup flash drive or external flash drive, nor have I ever given or sold copyright ebooks to anyone.

Secondly, the very important point:
1. Neither the original author or his or her estate, nor the publisher, nor the vendor is in any way harmed by these procedures. I pay money for the original copy of the ebook file and each of them receives their fraction of the price. If I made a hundred copies and keep them to myself they still do not lose a cent.
2. This being so any action anyone might take against me, in my opinion at least, would be laughed out of court and I might even be awarded damages.

Can anyone point out any faults in my logic or procedures?

Regards, Alex

It depends on where you live. In some countries simply downloading or possessing the tools to circumvent the DRM or TPM is illegal. Where it's not illegal today there are strong lobby groups trying to make it illegal.

In Canada the latest copyright bill had wording that the consumer could format shift for personal use but circumventing the TPM was illegal.

In Denmark there was a similar law and Henrik Anderson performed the equivalent of what you're describing (only with DVD's) and then he reported himself and challenged them to charge him. I believe the result was a statement that they decided not to pursue it at this time but they didn't acknowledge it was legal.

ardeegee
02-27-2010, 12:12 PM
To Harry T. Yes I deleted the book from my reader and computer but that is just to save space.

How long has it been since 2 MB or so of HD space mattered to anyone? That's 1/500,000th the capacity of a $75 hard drive, or $0.00009 worth of space on a DVD.

kennyc
02-27-2010, 12:19 PM
How long has it been since 2 MB or so of HD space mattered to anyone? That's 1/500,000th the capacity of a $75 hard drive, or $0.00009 worth of space on a DVD.

It's the concept okay. Kinda like saving energy, resources, planning for the future, leaving something for our grandchildren...

magicmonster
02-27-2010, 12:49 PM
Ok. If I converted any paper book to digital format and wanted to reduce the clutter and chance of burning the house down with all the flammable paper laying around what do you do? Do you keep the cover of the book to prove you had a legitimate copy of the book and the recycle the book? What happens if the house still burns down and all your covers are gone but you back up your digital data off site? Do you could scan a copy of the cover but then they would say that your a pirate because you just copied the thing when "someone" scanned the book. Do you take a digital picture of the decapitated book cover with the remains of the book in the picture?

Also there's a chance that someone may pickup the original book that has no cover and will read that. What is a person to do?

Blackguard
02-27-2010, 01:19 PM
Of course, this entire thread is a bit pointless. The exact same copy (amazon --> DRM stripped --> multiple formats) was available on IRC on the day it was released, like most popular books. It's a shitty book, no surprise since they found it buried in his harddrive.

Tattncat
02-27-2010, 01:24 PM
Dmaul, you mean like nook does?

dmaul1114
02-27-2010, 02:14 PM
What makes you think you're doing anything wrong, Alex? I certainly see nothing wrong in your very sensible backup procedures. This thread is actually about the rights or wrongs of giving copies of eBooks to other people. You aren't doing that.

Yep, it's only wrong because of stupid DRM and related laws.

You won't find many--even staunch copyright supporters--who think what he's doing is wrong. If one buys a file they should be able to put it on all their devices, have a back up they'll be able to restore with no issues etc.

Issues start to arise when you give away copies while keeping your own--and even then some of that is really ok as people were lending paper books before etc. And since most people only read most books once, it doesn't really matter if the OPs mom has a copy and he still has a copy as for most books with most people neither will read it again anyway so there's no lost sell.

So really it's only an issue when a person is uploading the files to the darknets, or giving it to a ton of people they know vs. letting a few close friends have it (like they let a few people borrow a paper book in turn in the past) etc.

guyanonymous
02-27-2010, 03:15 PM
So dmaul - where is the point drawn? Giving it to one person? 2? 3? 10?

dmaul1114
02-27-2010, 03:32 PM
So dmaul - where is the point drawn? Giving it to one person? 2? 3? 10?

I think it will largely have to be drawn to putting it on torrents and other file sharing sites for anyone to grab.

I mean think of a paper book. Nothing it stopping you from loaning it to everyone you know over a year or two as you loan it out and get it back and loan it to someone else etc.

And that's perfectly legal, so it's hard to not think people should be able to do the same with an e-book they bought.

Maybe we'll see a unified e-book format down the road, with a unified DRM scheme that allows lending to one person at a time (like the Nook), giving e-books away permanently etc.

But unless that happens, there won't be much they can do to stop people from giving/loaning copies to friends and family. Best that can be done is focus on the darknets where one copy can get to hundreds or thousands of people, who then put their illegal copy up on their own torrents etc.

angelad
02-27-2010, 03:38 PM
The real criminals are the Drm makers. What a stupid little annoyance for the consumer.

guyanonymous
02-27-2010, 03:40 PM
I agree with you about the need to be able to lend/share your books with friends and families. And give away your ebooks. And sell your ebooks. (When you're done with them).

From what you're saying though, it would be ok to setup a private torrent site for family and friends to share your books (and other material)...or am I wrong here? :D

Stuff like this isn't clearly defined and inhabits the huge 'grey-zone' that copyright laws have left us with. At what point does your sharing with one or two friends/family become an issue? I think that's what I'm more curious about. We all define that differently. Some with morals. Some with laws. Alas, neither are consistently interpreted, applied, supported or accepted.

I take it you are supportive of DRM?

p.s., I'm not trying to pick on you, your comments just raised some thoughts in my mind that I'm interested in teasing out and thinking through. Several on mobileread have argued black/white positions, while I see the whole area as murky, frustrating grey.

dmaul1114
02-27-2010, 03:51 PM
From what you're saying though, it would be ok to setup a private torrent site for family and friends to share your books (and other material)...or am I wrong here? :D


No, I'd say any of that type of file sharing is wrong when it's put up on the net etc. as that's very different than loaning paper books etc.

But it's a tricky thing to deal with, and really a DRM scheme that allows loaning etc. may be the way to go.

But I'm not huge on that either. MP3s get by without DRM. You're never going to stop someone from giving files to friends, just like they can never stop loaning of books, burning of CDs etc.

Best they can do is work to criminalize uploading (maybe downloading but I'm starting to waver on that from discussions here) copyrighted files from the internet. There's a lot more lost sales there than people giving stuff to their friends etc. I'd think, and it's easier to track and enforce.


I take it you are supportive of DRM?


Not really, and definitely not in it's current form. I could live with DRM if it allowed the owner to put it on all their machines, there were ways to sell e-books, loan them etc.

But even then that really does nothing to solve the problem. Pirates will just strip DRM, and thus your back where we are now of having DRM that only annoys legit users and does nothing to stop piracy.

guyanonymous
02-27-2010, 03:54 PM
Fair enough - and, like you, my views on uploading/downloading/copyright etc. have been modified, tweaked, and clarified through discussions on here. I appreciate the different views - even when I disagree with them completely - when they are explained and supported (and not just I'm right and you're wrong).

Harmon
02-28-2010, 01:01 AM
Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

See, what you should do is buy several ereaders, and download the file only to one of them. Then when you want to lend the book to your mother, you give her the ereader it's on.

Then you won't be a criminal. :thumbsup:

You will, however, be a fool. :rofl:

Harmon
02-28-2010, 01:24 AM
Best they can do is work to criminalize uploading (maybe downloading but I'm starting to waver on that from discussions here) copyrighted files from the internet. There's a lot more lost sales there than people giving stuff to their friends etc. I'd think, and it's easier to track and enforce.


It seems clear to me that people who are unwilling to pay for a book when they can get a pirate version are most likely unwilling to pay for that book when they cannot get a pirate version. It also seems to me that the key to selling books is to make it easy for the customer to buy the book, and that customers will pay extra for convenience. And finally, it seems to me that when businesses treat their customers fairly, their customers treat them back the same way.

So when I put all this together, I think that The Lost Pirate Sale is an illusion.

But that's just an opinion. All I ever see on this is opinion. Has anyone ever seen a serious study of the matter?

AlexBell
02-28-2010, 03:59 AM
What makes you think you're doing anything wrong, Alex? I certainly see nothing wrong in your very sensible backup procedures. This thread is actually about the rights or wrongs of giving copies of eBooks to other people. You aren't doing that.

I thought you were agin removing DRM and agin making copies.

Suppose I did erase every copy of an ebook but one that I haven't read, gave that copy to a friend, and erased the copy on my computer. The publisher, vendor, and author still have not had any harm done to them. Would you object? Suppose I had glanced at it before completely removing it from my computer after deciding I didn't like it; would you object?

I guess I'm trying to find where the limits are.

Regards, Alex

HarryT
02-28-2010, 04:13 AM
I thought you were agin removing DRM and agin making copies.

Heavens no. I see absolutely nothing wrong with removing DRM for personal use. I'm afraid I do think it's wrong to give an eBook to someone else, but that's purely my personal opinion - everyone has to make up their own mind about the rights or wrongs of it.

GhostHawk
02-28-2010, 09:04 AM
Ding Ding Ding The WINNER!



It seems clear to me that people who are unwilling to pay for a book when they can get a pirate version are most likely unwilling to pay for that book when they cannot get a pirate version. It also seems to me that the key to selling books is to make it easy for the customer to buy the book, and that customers will pay extra for convenience. And finally, it seems to me that when businesses treat their customers fairly, their customers treat them back the same way.

So when I put all this together, I think that The Lost Pirate Sale is an illusion.

But that's just an opinion. All I ever see on this is opinion. Has anyone ever seen a serious study of the matter?



There will be no real numbers for this issue as that is data that is pretty much impossible to come up with.

kennyc
02-28-2010, 09:19 AM
.... And finally, it seems to me that when businesses treat their customers fairly, their customers treat them back the same way.
....

And therein lies the problem. Businesses (corporations) increasingly don't give a rat's ass about customers, they only care about the ROI to investors. If they can f**K the customer and increase the ROI they will. It is only when the "treating the customer right" happens to coincide explicitly and measurably with ROI that they will "implement it."

HarryT
02-28-2010, 09:51 AM
And therein lies the problem. Businesses (corporations) increasingly don't give a rat's ass about customers, they only care about the ROI to investors. If they can f**K the customer and increase the ROI they will. It is only when the "treating the customer right" happens to coincide explicitly and measurably with ROI that they will "implement it."

Increasingly? I'm afraid you're being a little naive if you think that's a new phenomenon. A business has a legal duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders - that's how it's always been. There's nothing new in that.

kennyc
02-28-2010, 09:56 AM
Increasingly? I'm afraid you're being a little naive if you think that's a new phenomenon. A business has a legal duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders - that's how it's always been. There's nothing new in that.

Not at all Harry. This is the direction since the inception of the corporation.

Private business is somewhat different than corporations and as I say, therein lies the problem.

I say increasingly because at least to me, the focus and intensity of the ROI above anything else has grown. There was a time when the Board of Directors etc were interested in providing for the customer while making a reasonable profit. Now they seem to be raping and pillaging customers, taxpayers, copyright holders etc. more than every in the eternal quest for ROI.

frank.w
02-28-2010, 11:14 AM
My guess is that the success of industry efforts to limit e-copies of digital material will be determined by how legal cases are dealt with.

Most of us, I suspect, would make the odd copy of a song and give it to a friend, knowing that we might be breaking some law, but not caring too much about it because everyone is doing it, and up to recently, no one was getting busted for it.

The few high profile cases of individuals getting hit with outrageous fines - if they are allowed to stand, and if the practice continues - would most likely place a chill on public acceptance of "personal copies for friends" .

Alternately, if public pressure continues to grow against DRM, and if there is not a highly visible crack-down against alledged offenders in your area, then you would probably carry on with the odd duplicate now and again.

- Frank

eserafina42
02-28-2010, 12:30 PM
I see what Daryl did as analogous to taping a TV show at home for personal use. Remember when that was claimed as copyright infringement? (As I remember, there was a hilarious sketch on the Tonight Show at the time, showing people watching their home-recorded tape and the SWAT teams bursting in with guns blaring as if it were a raid on a massive illegal operation.) Hopefully we will have something like the "Betamax case" that will allow people to do that kind of thing without being considered "criminals."

theducks
02-28-2010, 12:46 PM
So you deleted all copies from your PC? You've removed the copy you downloaded from your internet cache? You've deleted the copy of the e-mail from the "send items" folder of your mail program? If the answer to any of these is "no", then how can you say that "there is only one copy floating around"?
You forgot : defrag your drive, then wipe free space.
Otherwise Data can be recovered using forensic tools :)

Oh! And you MUST forget you read the book (borrowing/lending any book clearly violates Copyright. You must be Shot as soon as you finish reading :^) a book and don't instantly destroy your Other Copy as soon as th last word has been read.)

Most people could not locate the copy in cache (which will get cleared over time).


Borland had the clear concept: "No Simultaneous use"

kennyc
02-28-2010, 12:50 PM
You forgot : defrag your drive, then wipe free space.
Otherwise Data can be recovered using forensic tools :)

Oh! And you MUST forget you read the book (borrowing/lending any book clearly violates Copyright. You must be Shot as soon as you finish reading :^) a book and don't instantly destroy your Other Copy as soon as th last word has been read.)

Most people could not locate the copy in cache (which will get cleared over time).


Borland had the clear concept: "No Simultaneous use"

So are memory-wipes next?

:rofl:

Harmon
02-28-2010, 02:57 PM
Increasingly? I'm afraid you're being a little naive if you think that's a new phenomenon. A business has a legal duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders - that's how it's always been. There's nothing new in that.

Yeah, but it's not at all clear that the best way to do that is to treat the customer unfairly.

dmaul1114
02-28-2010, 02:58 PM
It seems clear to me that people who are unwilling to pay for a book when they can get a pirate version are most likely unwilling to pay for that book when they cannot get a pirate version. It also seems to me that the key to selling books is to make it easy for the customer to buy the book, and that customers will pay extra for convenience. And finally, it seems to me that when businesses treat their customers fairly, their customers treat them back the same way.

So when I put all this together, I think that The Lost Pirate Sale is an illusion.

But that's just an opinion. All I ever see on this is opinion. Has anyone ever seen a serious study of the matter?



Even if their is no lost sale, as the person would have never bought the book, album movie etc., it's still wrong.

They still have copyrighted material that is for sale and were able to enjoy it without paying for it. That is still wrong, should be a misdemeanor and punished with a small fine proportionate to the retail price of the item (not the absurd law suits the RIAA wins)--something like MSRP + 25%.

So I think that's a non-issues. All that matters is a potential sale is lost, and the person got a copy of the material illegally. I couldn't care less if they would have bought it if piracy wasn't an option.


But yes, things should be easy for consumers to get, not full of DRM that only hassles legitimate users, and priced fairly etc. That doesn't mean they shouldn't still go after pirates.

Alisa
02-28-2010, 04:23 PM
The few high profile cases of individuals getting hit with outrageous fines - if they are allowed to stand, and if the practice continues - would most likely place a chill on public acceptance of "personal copies for friends" .

Of course the few high profile cases we've seen from the music industry had nothing to do with "personal copies for friends" unless "friends" means "anyone with a torrent tracker". They're very unlikely to sue me for giving a copy of a book to my sister even if they somehow found out about it. It's not worth the price of their lawyer even writing me a letter. The case would just bring them bad publicity and the minuscule judgment they might get would hardly serve as a deterrent. Now if I put my library up on torrents and a few thousand people download it, then we're talking.

fugazied
02-28-2010, 05:29 PM
Well imo you aren't a criminal, but in the eyes of the law you are. For this crime they would want to fine you $50'000 and give you up to 5 years in jail.

I think we need to have identical rights on e-books compared to print books. So imo you should be allowed to lend it to your mother, but you can't open the book while it is 'lent' to her, eg. replicating paperbook functionality.

smerrall
02-28-2010, 08:22 PM
Increasingly? I'm afraid you're being a little naive if you think that's a new phenomenon. A business has a legal duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders - that's how it's always been. There's nothing new in that.

What has changed is the timeframe that is being used. In the past companies looked at the long term profitability of their business and ensuring customer satisfaction and repeat business was a good thing. Increasingly the current quarter is all they care about and if this quarter's profits are improved by damaging customer relations then so be it. Next quarter or next year can be dealt with by the next CEO.

Harmon
02-28-2010, 10:49 PM
So are memory-wipes next?

:rofl:

Heck, I'm over 60. They'll never find my memory. I certainly can't. (Where did I put it, anyway? Had it here a minute ago...)

Like a friend of mine used to say, I have a good memory, but it's short. At least, I think he said that. Maybe it was something else...

Harmon
02-28-2010, 10:50 PM
So are memory-wipes next?

:rofl:

Of course, it's not true at all that I have a bad memory. My memory is so good I can remember things that never happened.

kennyc
02-28-2010, 10:57 PM
Heck, I'm over 60. They'll never find my memory. I certainly can't. ....
.....

Hey I resemble that!

:(

AlexBell
03-01-2010, 05:46 AM
It depends on where you live. In some countries simply downloading or possessing the tools to circumvent the DRM or TPM is illegal. Where it's not illegal today there are strong lobby groups trying to make it illegal.

In Canada the latest copyright bill had wording that the consumer could format shift for personal use but circumventing the TPM was illegal.

In Denmark there was a similar law and Henrik Anderson performed the equivalent of what you're describing (only with DVD's) and then he reported himself and challenged them to charge him. I believe the result was a statement that they decided not to pursue it at this time but they didn't acknowledge it was legal.

I'm sorry, I think you've completely missed the most important second point I made. No one can possibly show that they have suffered any harm by what I do. That being so they would have virtually no chance of successfully taking me to court.

Regards, Alex

AlexBell
03-01-2010, 06:00 AM
Heavens no. I see absolutely nothing wrong with removing DRM for personal use. I'm afraid I do think it's wrong to give an eBook to someone else, but that's purely my personal opinion - everyone has to make up their own mind about the rights or wrongs of it.

Thanks, Harry; I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

The main thing I'm trying to say is that in my opinion the criterion should be whether anyone is harmed by copying. If I pay for a book, remove the DRM, don't read it myself and give it to some one else, and remove it from my computer - as I seem to remember the original poster did - then no one is harmed, and it isn't wrong to do. One ebook is bought, one ebook is read - even if not by the original purchaser. It's a long way back now, but I seem to remember that the original poster's mother does not have the skills to do the work herself. I can't see how it is wrong for her son to do it for her.

Regards, Alex

Sweetpea
03-01-2010, 06:52 AM
Heavens no. I see absolutely nothing wrong with removing DRM for personal use. I'm afraid I do think it's wrong to give an eBook to someone else, but that's purely my personal opinion - everyone has to make up their own mind about the rights or wrongs of it.

I'm married, in what we call "community of goods". So, I buy a book and read it. And then I give that book to my husband. At that point, I technically gave the book away (while keeping a copy myself, or rather multiple copies, as I like to keep backups).

Is that wrong?

darylbrayman
03-01-2010, 08:19 AM
Thanks, Harry; I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

The main thing I'm trying to say is that in my opinion the criterion should be whether anyone is harmed by copying. If I pay for a book, remove the DRM, don't read it myself and give it to some one else, and remove it from my computer - as I seem to remember the original poster did - then no one is harmed, and it isn't wrong to do. One ebook is bought, one ebook is read - even if not by the original purchaser. It's a long way back now, but I seem to remember that the original poster's mother does not have the skills to do the work herself. I can't see how it is wrong for her son to do it for her.

Regards, Alex

I read the book, removed the DRM, emailed it to my mother and then deleted it from my reader and hard drive. As somebody said earlier hard drive space is cheap. Ok, I deleted it out of habit and to keep a cleaner looking computer/reader. My mother would claim that she does have the skills to remove the DRM, but just doesn't want to bother:)

darylbrayman
03-01-2010, 08:22 AM
I'm married, in what we call "community of goods". So, I buy a book and read it. And then I give that book to my husband. At that point, I technically gave the book away (while keeping a copy myself, or rather multiple copies, as I like to keep backups).

Is that wrong?

My wife and I share Sony accounts. When either of us purchase a book the other is legally able to download a copy. As long as we don't go over six devices were copacetic. At least that's how I see it.

Regards, Daryl

EliNoah
03-01-2010, 09:26 AM
Maybe there needs to be sometype of drm restriction that allows you to give away a certain number of copies. What is the average lifespan of a well read book?

i.e. I have 9 people in my family 7 kids, 2 adults. We buy ONE set of HP books. Every one reads them...Each book as now been read 9 times...sometimes two of us are reading the same book at once. My 10 year old reading book one during the day, me reading after she goes to bed.

We are all done reading and I loan to my sister, who has 5 people in the family, 3 kids-2 adults. The books are all read again.

By this time maybe a cover is missing, pages torn etc. How many times were each of those books read? Is that the life span of the book? What if an ebook allowed you to loan or give it away a certain number of reasonable times (not like the nook with just once) but say 50 times. Would that stop piracy?

I mean after it has been downloaded 50 times it would be no good to anyone else...especially if there was some code that it contained that outlined the specifics.

Probably far fetched, but may be poss. some day.

Sweetpea
03-01-2010, 10:22 AM
My wife and I share Sony accounts. When either of us purchase a book the other is legally able to download a copy. As long as we don't go over six devices were copacetic. At least that's how I see it.

Regards, Daryl

I don't have a Sony account, I don't even have an ADE account. I strip the DRM of my mobipocket books (or transform LIT and ereader to mobipocket) and put it on my husband's SD card. I recently gave him a new PDA (he loves it to bits, Harry! He even watched a lot of Olympic games on it :rolleyes:) and I've no idea what the mobipocket code is. And I couldn't register it to my name anyway, as I already own 4 mobipocket devices.... (PDA, JE100, PC and Laptop).

So, I buy the book, it's registered with my 4 devices, but not his.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 12:44 PM
Harder to accidentally download something, save it in a specific folder, can even have it proven that they've opened the file multiple times (last accessed date on the file, vs. the download date from the info that got them caught etc. Now some people may download something, save it and use it etc. and not know it was copyrighted. But that's just too bad, so sad as ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. And it's not huge deal if it's just a tiny fine that's barely more than what the MSRP is for the file they downloaded illegally.


So all of the customers who (as far as they knew) innocently bought and downloaded the Orwell eBook from Amazon would be criminals. Amazon was distributing infringed material, are their customers criminals or just the distributor?

HarryT
03-01-2010, 12:46 PM
I'm married, in what we call "community of goods". So, I buy a book and read it. And then I give that book to my husband. At that point, I technically gave the book away (while keeping a copy myself, or rather multiple copies, as I like to keep backups).

Is that wrong?

Not in my mind, no.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 12:50 PM
I'm afraid I do think it's wrong to give an eBook to someone else, but that's purely my personal opinion - everyone has to make up their own mind about the rights or wrongs of it.

Do you think it's wrong to give a pBook to someone else?

HarryT
03-01-2010, 12:59 PM
Do you think it's wrong to give a pBook to someone else?

Certainly not, because there's no copyright infringement involved in doing that. That is of course the fundamental difference between giving someone a pbook and giving someone (actually making a copy) of an ebook.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 01:10 PM
Certainly not, because there's no copyright infringement involved in doing that. That is of course the fundamental difference between giving someone a pbook and giving someone (actually making a copy) of an ebook.

Even if there is only one copy of an eBook at a time?

HarryT
03-01-2010, 01:18 PM
Even if there is only one copy of an eBook at a time?

I'm in two minds about it, Shaggy.

On the one hand, I think "yes" - you can do it with a pbook, so you ought to be able to do it with an ebook.

On the other hand, if you've agreed to the terms of sale of an ebook store which say "you can't give it away", then I think you should be bound by those terms which you've knowingly agreed to when you bought the book.

Of course there are lots of ebooks that you can give away, but I guess you're specifically talking about bookstore-bought ones?

It's too complex a question to be able to give a simple yes/no answer to. "It depends on the circumstances" is a "weasel" answer, I know, but I'm afraid it's the best I can do.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 01:28 PM
On the other hand, if you've agreed to the terms of sale of an ebook store which say "you can't give it away", then I think you should be bound by those terms which you've knowingly agreed to when you bought the book.


Even though such terms have no basis in law and are not enforceable?

HarryT
03-01-2010, 01:29 PM
Even though such terms have no basis in law and are not enforceable?

Yes; it's a matter of ethics, not law. If you cannot agree with the terms of a purchase than the "correct" thing to do - for me personally - is not to make the purchase. Other people are, of course, free to make up their own minds about such matters. This whole thread has been about "right" and "wrong", rather than "legal" and "illegal".

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 01:34 PM
Yes; it's a matter of ethics, not law. If you cannot agree with the terms of a purchase than the "correct" thing to do - for me personally - is not to make the purchase. Other people are, of course, free to make up their own minds about such matters. This whole thread has been about "right" and "wrong", rather than "legal" and "illegal".

So you feel it's "right" that retailers try to make claims in the fine print that they are legally not allowed to make? Or is it only the customer that should be held to an ethical standard?

HarryT
03-01-2010, 01:38 PM
Given that every bookstore does it - including the big name ones like Amazon, who employ armies of lawyers - I really would be surprised if it were illegal, Shaggy. Why doesn't someone challenge them in court, if it is?

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 01:38 PM
So all of the customers who (as far as they knew) innocently bought and downloaded the Orwell eBook from Amazon would be criminals. Amazon was distributing infringed material, are their customers criminals or just the distributor?

Shaggy, there's always going to be a gazillion exceptions to any rule. When it's on a legit site, the penalties are going to go to the site not the people who downloaded it from Amazon.

I mean if some company prints copies of a book they think is public domain or whatever and sells them in stores, etc. they are the one's that are going to get hit with penalties, not the customers who had no way to know they were buying bootlegged books etc.

Finding some exceptions doesn't preclude having laws. The same is true for every criminal law and that's why their is TON of discretion in the criminal justice system--no law is going to be perfect. Police only make arrests in about 50% of cases where the evidence would support an arrest, they often give warnings instead of tickets, prosecutors often drop cases etc.

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 01:40 PM
Given that every bookstore does it - including the big name ones like Amazon, who employ armies of lawyers - I really would be surprised if it were illegal, Shaggy. Why doesn't someone challenge them in court, if it is?

Agreed, such contracts in the fine print are legal in the US at least.

At least until they get challenged in court and overturned. These big companies with huge teams of lawyers aren't going to put that stuff in the fine print without knowing they have a legal backing to do so.

It's a different issue on whether they should legally be able to do that etc., but they clearly are now.

And I'd think courts--at least in the US--would uphold it given the way software is licensed, that they've held up copy protection on DVDs/Blu Rays (which makes it illegal to crack the copy protection so you can't even legally make a back up) etc.

pdurrant
03-01-2010, 01:44 PM
Yes; it's a matter of ethics, not law. If you cannot agree with the terms of a purchase than the "correct" thing to do - for me personally - is not to make the purchase. Other people are, of course, free to make up their own minds about such matters. This whole thread has been about "right" and "wrong", rather than "legal" and "illegal".

Most EULAs are unfair, and possibly illegal. I have no qualms about ignoring provisions that seem to me to be grossly unfair and one-sided.

So I modify the ebooks I download from Fictionwise for my own use, and do not feel that I'm doing anything wrong by doing so, even though Fictionwise has in its terms of use (under section 9, Ebooks):

Users may not modify, transmit, publish, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the content of these product(s), in whole or in part. By downloading Fictionwise eBooks, the User hereby acknowledges and agrees to these terms.

(emphases added)

HarryT
03-01-2010, 01:46 PM
Interesting terms of use, those, don't you think? If you're not allowed to "display" the contents of an eBook, how can you read it?

pdurrant
03-01-2010, 01:51 PM
Interesting terms of use, those, don't you think? If you're not allowed to "display" the contents of an eBook, how can you read it?

I suspect that this is some legal jargon, and really means "publicly display".

But for more amusement, notice that we're not permitted to transmit the ebooks. So no emailing them to your Kindle for wireless delivery. And no use of a Bluetooth connection to download them to your phone. :)

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 01:52 PM
Shaggy, there's always going to be a gazillion exceptions to any rule. When it's on a legit site, the penalties are going to go to the site not the people who downloaded it from Amazon.


So what would be the legal definition of a legit site vs a non-legit site?

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 01:53 PM
Given that every bookstore does it - including the big name ones like Amazon, who employ armies of lawyers - I really would be surprised if it were illegal, Shaggy. Why doesn't someone challenge them in court, if it is?

It's not illegal to put terms in a contract that you know you can't enforce. It just means those terms are null and void, while the rest of the contract remains good.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 01:59 PM
And I'd think courts--at least in the US--would uphold it given the way software is licensed

Actually, courts have ruled on this for software, in favor of the consumer.

Doesn't matter what a contract or license says, it can't take away consumer's rights. It's not against the law to try and do so, but such terms have no teeth.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 02:06 PM
I mean if some company prints copies of a book they think is public domain or whatever and sells them in stores, etc. they are the one's that are going to get hit with penalties, not the customers who had no way to know they were buying bootlegged books etc.


How is a downloader supposed to know whether the host they are getting content from is authorized? Isn't this the exact same situation?

Pick a link at random from google and download the data to your hard drive. Did you just commit a criminal act? How would you even know?

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 02:45 PM
I suspect that this is some legal jargon, and really means "publicly display".


I suspect it was just badly worded.

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 03:21 PM
So what would be the legal definition of a legit site vs a non-legit site?


How is a downloader supposed to know whether the host they are getting content from is authorized? Isn't this the exact same situation?

Pick a link at random from google and download the data to your hard drive. Did you just commit a criminal act? How would you even know?

Ok, fair enough. I agree that's very tricky and I'm willing to concede that it's going to be hard to go after the downloaders.

But I throw all my support behind making uploading copyrighted material a crime, and having a large, federal agency (or requiring each state to have their own agency) to enforce the laws. Again, with penalties not being absurd. Just MSRP +25% or something for each time the file they uploaded was downloaded etc.



Actually, courts have ruled on this for software, in favor of the consumer.

Doesn't matter what a contract or license says, it can't take away consumer's rights. It's not against the law to try and do so, but such terms have no teeth.

Yet there's still plenty of software I use that can be licensed to only 1 or 2 machines, or only my one account etc.

So I don't see e-books being licensed to one account being any different legally.

As long as it's clear and up front consumers aren't losing any rights. I don't like it, but that's just the way it is until the courts rule otherwise and say nothing can be sold as a license etc.

dmikov
03-01-2010, 03:30 PM
<snip
But I throw all my support behind making uploading copyrighted material a crime, and having a large, federal agency (or requiring each state to have their own agency) to enforce the laws. </snip>

Throw your support wherever the hell you like, but please don't spend my tax money so freely on large federal agency. I would like for them to go somewhere useful ok? You can send RIAA and their lawyers your check if you so inclined. :rofl: They must be starved..

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 03:41 PM
Hopefully the fines would make the agency largely self sufficient.

TGS
03-01-2010, 03:50 PM
Hopefully the fines would make the agency largely self sufficient.

I thought "the problem" with illegally downloaded material was that it deprives someone - the author, the publisher, the copyright holder - of income. Wouldn't it be better to use any income generated from fines to compensate these "victims", rather than supporting government agencies?

Elfwreck
03-01-2010, 03:54 PM
So dmaul - where is the point drawn? Giving it to one person? 2? 3? 10?

Legally, criminal copyright infringement starts when 10 or more copies are distributed. (In the US.) (Possibly or $2500 value.) But most of the prosecutions are civil; criminal is mostly restricted to going after rival publishers and bootleggers-for-profit, rather than the psychotic definition of "avoiding payment" as being the same as "for profit."

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 04:16 PM
As long as it's clear and up front consumers aren't losing any rights.

That's the catch, isn't it. Retailers (either software or eBooks) like to present it to the customer as being a sale because that increases the value a customer sees and the price they can charge. They want you to believe you are buying the product when you hand over your money. Then, they also want to be able to bind you to terms via a licensing agreement.

The courts have essentially said "you can't have it both ways". You need to make it clear at the time of sale that this is a limited license and the customer does not own the product, or else your "license" terms will not hold. None of the eBook retailers I've seen do this. Terms in the fine print of an agreement claiming this is a license do not count, as far as the courts are concerned. If the shop makes the customer think they are buying the product, that is what counts. It's not illegal for them to put such terms in there, but they won't hold up.

Retailers can not make you think you own the product when you hand over your money, and then try to claim that you don't really own it afterwards because of the fine print of something you clicked on when you signed up for an account. This is what they are trying to do though.

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 05:36 PM
I thought "the problem" with illegally downloaded material was that it deprives someone - the author, the publisher, the copyright holder - of income. Wouldn't it be better to use any income generated from fines to compensate these "victims", rather than supporting government agencies?

If someone steals something for you and gets caught and convicted in criminal court, you don't get your money back etc. right? Just if the cops recover your property etc.

You have to take them to civil court and sue to try to get your money back.

This would be the same way. Having a criminal penalty for illegally uploading doesn't take away the copyright holder's right to sue for damages.

It's just an extra step to put a more serious penalty/label in effect to deter people from uploading copyrighted material.

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 05:38 PM
The courts have essentially said "you can't have it both ways". You need to make it clear at the time of sale that this is a limited license and the customer does not own the product, or else your "license" terms will not hold. None of the eBook retailers I've seen do this. Terms in the fine print of an agreement claiming this is a license do not count, as far as the courts are concerned. If the shop makes the customer think they are buying the product, that is what counts. It's not illegal for them to put such terms in there, but they won't hold up.

Retailers can not make you think you own the product when you hand over your money, and then try to claim that you don't really own it afterwards because of the fine print of something you clicked on when you signed up for an account. This is what they are trying to do though.


Agreed.

The current situation is e-books are a small niche, so the issue hasn't gotten before courts yet. When

it does, they'll probably put the same restrictions they have on software--that if they want to do it that way, they have to be upfront that you're buying a license to read the book on machines tied to your account. Not buying the file to own. That or they just scrap DRM as a result of the ruling.

Elfwreck
03-01-2010, 05:58 PM
it does, they'll probably put the same restrictions they have on software--that if they want to do it that way, they have to be upfront that you're buying a license to read the book on machines tied to your account. Not buying the file to own. That or they just scrap DRM as a result of the ruling.

It's too much of a tangled mess for them to pull that off, at this rate.

One of the requirements for "license" rather than "sale" is an expected return date or condition--if you get to keep it permanently, it's a sale, and usage restrictions don't apply. So ebook sellers would need to specify a date that your books expire ("five years from purchase," if they want to be generous), or maybe a condition for expiration ("when we release the new firmware, which doesn't happen more than once a year" or "when we renew the contract with that publisher"--not "when we feel like it."). You can't license something for indefinite use and yank it back whenever you feel like it, and you can't just say "it's a license so I can change my mind about how you get to use it anytime I want."

DRM'd library books are licensed; they stop working after 2 weeks. DRM'd kindlebooks are sold; they're supposed to work forever.

And after several years of selling ebooks like products, not licenses, they'll have a hard time convincing customers to "license" books that they used to buy. Especially if they try to pull, "last month, those were sales; now we're implementing limited licenses for the same price."

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 06:01 PM
This would be the same way. Having a criminal penalty for illegally uploading doesn't take away the copyright holder's right to sue for damages.


Uploading is already illegal, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. If the uploading is big enough to get the governments attention, then it is already criminal. The "smaller" stuff is civil and is up to the right's holder to pursue.

If all you want is to make the smaller stuff criminal as well, the only thing that really does is put the government in the position of working to protect a private business's interests, rather than societies interests. I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 06:16 PM
It's too much of a tangled mess for them to pull that off, at this rate.


Agreed. I think DRM just gets dropped eventually like it did with MP3s.

I do worry about all content going to some pay for access model in the future when we have super broad band everywhere, and they no long sell movies, music, books etc. You just pay for access to services that have all the content available where ever you go. But we're a long ways from that being remotely possible in any case.


If all you want is to make the smaller stuff criminal as well, the only thing that really does is put the government in the position of working to protect a private business's interests, rather than societies interests. I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

Shoplifting is small stuff most of the time. It's illegal and people get charged with a crime for it. Thar's really protecting private businesses interests. Society isn't much harmed if people steal Snicker's bars etc.

Yeah the crime/harm is a bit more probably since the store lost a physical item, but it's still small stuff. And in the future if some content is only available digitally, and illegal download becomes the only way to "steal" something.

So yeah, I think they should go after the smaller uploaders who are getting files to 10, 20, 30 people (whatever cut off they want to use) and not only go after the extreme cases.

It's in societies interest to protect businesses so stores don't go under from theft, online stores don't go under as everyone is getting is free, so content creators don't lose incentive to put out new material when they're losing a ton of sales to piracy etc.

I see just as much societal incentive to enforce laws on illegal uploading etc. as I do most other minor misdemeanor crimes personally.

kennyc
03-01-2010, 06:18 PM
....Society isn't much harmed if people steal Snicker's bars etc.
.....

I would disagree if it is widespread and common.

darylbrayman
03-01-2010, 06:31 PM
Hopefully the fines would make the agency largely self sufficient.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 06:33 PM
It's in societies interest to protect businesses so stores don't go under from theft, online stores don't go under as everyone is getting is free, so content creators don't lose incentive to put out new material when they're losing a ton of sales to piracy etc.

I'm not sure the content industry is really in any danger of "going under" due to piracy. The MPAA/RIAA likes to tell everyone that piracy is killing them, but they're still making record profits every year.

If you want to convince the public that it's in their best interest to protect those businesses, you'd probably need to show that they're actually in danger first. Otherwise, all you're really doing is helping to increase their profit margin (which is what most modern copyright/DMCA laws are really about).

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 06:42 PM
I'm not sure the content industry is really in any danger of "going under" due to piracy. The MPAA/RIAA likes to tell everyone that piracy is killing them, but they're still making record profits every year.

If you want to convince the public that it's in their best interest to protect those businesses, you'd probably need to show that they're actually in danger first. Otherwise, all you're really doing is helping to increase their profit margin (which is what most modern copyright/DMCA laws are really about).

But again a convenience store probably isn't going to go under from people shoplifting either, as the majority of shop lifters are never caught and punished. Expected loss from theft is built into prices and operating costs.

So I don't think the loss has to be a threat to the business to justify enforcing the law about loss/theft. Otherwise we'd just tell retail stores to hire security and deal with shoplifters in civil court and not treat them as misdemeanor criminal offenses.

CyGuy
03-01-2010, 06:54 PM
Otherwise, all you're really doing is helping to increase their profit margin (which is what most modern copyright/DMCA laws are really about).

This is accurate in my opinion.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 09:17 PM
So I don't think the loss has to be a threat to the business to justify enforcing the law about loss/theft.

Is there a loss? This gets into the always fun realm of pick your favorite report based on some source with an agenda. According to some the industry is loosing ungodly amounts of money due to piracy. According to others piracy is not a lost sale. According to yet others, piracy increases sales. This is why using the term "theft" is always misleading (and why it's used intentionally by those who want to mislead). There is no loss unless there is a lost sale. Using terms like "theft" certainly make it sound like there is always a lost sale, and I'm sure the industry is trying to spin it that way, but it's far from a universally accurate statement.

Before we get into a system where the public is funding an agency to protect these businesses from "loss", shouldn't we determine that there is actually something to protect them from? Otherwise you're in danger of getting swindled by them in order to pay for a system that does nothing but increase their profits, not protect them from anything damaging.

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 09:29 PM
If you don't consider it a loss--then we're going to have a very screwed up systems of laws when we move to having ONLY digital versions of content in the future.

I mean, again it's the same as shoplifting--minus the loss of a tangible, physical product. Would the person who shoplifted a Snickers bar have bought it if there was a camera etc. and they didn't feel they could get away with it? Of course the loss of the candy bar is a clear lost sale as no one else can buy--so their is a difference of course.

But I think all the arguments about piracy increasing sales etc. are just bunk the most part, and are mainly just coming from people who pirate stuff to rationalize/justify their actions. Some people pirate a song to check out a new band etc. and then run out and buy the band's albums, concert tickets etc. But that's not the real issue with piracy. The problem with piracy are those that just pirate everything and never pay for anything.

I think anyone that's been in college from 2000 or so on probably knows/knew plenty of people who downloaded hundreds or thousands of songs, downloaded movies etc. and never bought CDs, never went to the theater etc. Would they have bought ALL those CDs if piracy wasn't so easy? No, but most probably would have bought some of them, so some sales were lost. Just hard to quantify it exactly in terms of how many.

Loss/harm isn't as easy to quantify as it is with physical items where the store has lost an item that someone would have bought (or they could have returned etc.) eventually. So I just say treat each download as a lost sale in terms of the harm done, as the end result is a person has material they didn't pay for.

It's pretty dangerous to assume there's no loss/harm when digital products are downloaded illegally etc. as that sets a very dangerous precedent for protecting individuals and companies product as we move into a fully digital era in many industries.

Go that route, and I can pretty much guarantee my fear above of all digital content being streaming services only when internet capacity allows for becoming reality as that will be the only way companies can protect their product.

kennyc
03-01-2010, 09:33 PM
If you don't consider it a loss--then we're going to have a very screwed up systems of laws when we move to having ONLY digital versions of content in the future.

I mean, again it's the same as shoplifting--minus the loss of a tangible, physical product. .....

This is exactly my point when I say it is theft.

Thank you.

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 09:43 PM
This is exactly my point when I say it is theft.

Thank you.

I'm ok with calling in piracy or something else, as it's not exactly the same. I do get that with theft of a physical item a sale is definitely lost as the person took a physical item that could have been bought by someone else, vs. taking a digital copy. So it's a loss of a sure sale, vs. a potential sale.

I have no issues choosing a different term for semantic reasons, rather than shifting the meaning of theft. I have BIG issues with the notion that there's no loss or harm to copyright holders when content is downloaded illegally.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 10:07 PM
I mean, again it's the same as shoplifting--minus the loss of a tangible, physical product. Would the person who shoplifted a Snickers bar have bought it if there was a camera etc. and they didn't feel they could get away with it? Of course the loss of the candy bar is a clear lost sale as no one else can buy--so their is a difference of course.


With shoplifting you have
(1) The loss of the physical object.
(2) The loss of the next person who can no longer buy that object.
(3) The potential loss, if the person shoplifting would have bought it anyway.

With copyright infringement 1 and 2 don't exist. You're left with 3, which is only a potential loss, not always a real loss. The real question is, how often would a "pirate" have actually bought the item. There is no answer to that question. Some would tell you "always", others would tell you "never". Neither are correct. Where in the that gray line is the truth?


But I think all the arguments about piracy increasing sales etc. are just bunk the most part, and are mainly just coming from people who pirate stuff to rationalize/justify their actions.


So are the arguemnts about the astronimical amounts of loss that the industry claims they are suffereng. That is just bunk too, coming from people who are trying to rationalize/justify stronger laws/punishments to prop up their business.

The industry is lying just as much as those who are trying to justify piracy. The truth is somewhere in between.


Some people pirate a song to check out a new band etc. and then run out and buy the band's albums, concert tickets etc. But that's not the real issue with piracy. The problem with piracy are those that just pirate everything and never pay for anything.


The REAL issue with piracy are those that pirate when they would have bought. If they pirate everything and never pay for anything, when they wouldn't have paid for anything anyway, that's not a real loss either.

Unfortunately nobody has any idea what those numbers really are.


I think anyone that's been in college from 2000 or so on probably knows/knew plenty of people who downloaded hundreds or thousands of songs, downloaded movies etc. and never bought CDs, never went to the theater etc. Would they have bought ALL those CDs if piracy wasn't so easy?


Anybody from the 80's or 90's knows plenty of people who traded/copied cassette tapes and never bought any themselves. This is nothing new.


No, but most probably would have bought some of them, so some sales were lost. Just hard to quantify it exactly in terms of how many.


That's exactly the point, you can't quantify it.


Loss/harm isn't as easy to quantify as it is with physical items where the store has lost an item that someone would have bought (or they could have returned etc.) eventually. So I just say treat each download as a lost sale in terms of the harm done, as the end result is a person has material they didn't pay for.


Your answer to it not being measurable is to assume 100% loss, and assume every pirate would have bought the material? That's the same nonsense that the industry claims. It's obviously a lie.


It's pretty dangerous to assume there's no loss/harm when digital products are downloaded illegally etc. as that sets a very dangerous precedent for protecting individuals and companies product as we move into a fully digital era in many industries.


It's also just as dangerous to lie about there being 100% loss when you're trying to get the public to pay for your protection.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 10:12 PM
I mean, again it's the same as shoplifting--minus the loss of a tangible, physical product. .....This is exactly my point when I say it is theft.


So it's "theft", except for the part that actually makes it theft.

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 10:15 PM
See for me I honestly don't give a flying f*** if a loss takes place.

The act of obtaining copyrighted digital content that is for sale without paying for it is wrong. It doesn't matter if there is a clear, quantifiable loss, it's wrong and there should be a penalty if you're caught with it, even if it's stuff the person would never would have bought. If they didn't pay for it, they shouldn't be able to get the enjoyment of having their own copy of the content.

The act itself is wrong. Just like drunk driving isn't only a crime if you get into an accident--I mean there was no harm or loss that occured if they didn't hit anything etc. Or various things like prostitution, illegal drug use, etc. are illegal even if there's no harm to anyone but the people willingly involved etc.

Harm/loss to others/society aren't requirements for things to be crime. There doesn't have to be an absolute loss that occurs for something to be wrong and to be subject to criminal penalties.

Every illegal download/upload is wrong and should be a misdemeanor criminal act IMO. Though again, I'll concede that enforcement probably has to focus just on the uploaders.

You seem to feel differently, and that's fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree as we're just both re-iterating the same points over and over.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 10:27 PM
See for me I honestly don't give a flying f*** if a loss takes place.

The act of obtaining copyrighted digital content that is for sale without paying for it is wrong. It doesn't matter if there is a clear, quantifiable loss, it's wrong and there should be a penalty if you're caught with it, even if it's stuff the person would never would have bought. If they didn't pay for it, they shouldn't be able to get the enjoyment of having their own copy of the content.


So you're not concerned with the financial justification of encouraging artists, you're just worried about control? You're offended because somebody managed to do something with content without the owners permission, even if it does no harm?


The act itself is wrong. Just like drunk driving isn't only a crime if you get into an accident--I mean there was no harm or loss that occured if they didn't hit anything etc. Or various things like prostitution, illegal drug use, etc. are illegal even if there's no harm to anyone but the people willingly involved etc.


You're not seriously comparing copyright infringement to drunk driving, prostitution, drugs... :smack:

dmaul1114
03-01-2010, 10:43 PM
So you're not concerned with the financial justification of encouraging artists, you're just worried about control? You're offended because somebody managed to do something with content without the owners permission, even if it does no harm?


I'm worried about both. In any case it's a potential lost sale. Even worse, most people I know who download stuff illegally also have it up for others to download on torrents ,p2p clients etc. So even if they wouldn't have bought it, they're making it available to tons of other people so some sales are lost along the way.

What I'm saying is that I think there is loss, and it's best to just assume a lost sale for each illegal transfer personally. Versus trying to quantify exactly how many were lost, which is impossible.

And then I'm saying even if there is NOT not a lost sale, the act itself is WRONG and should be illegal. And I'll get back to this below in responding to the other part of your post.

But yes, a lot of it is control. If I create something, and choose not to give it away freely but to try to make money off it. I want full control over it in terms of how people can get it (pay

If we had those memory erasing flash things from the Men in Black movies (or the Haitian from Heroes) I'd support using them on people who illegally obtained my material to wipe the experience of enjoying my content without paying for it from their brains. :D

But in all seriousness, yes, I support copyright holders having their sales protected, as well as having a great deal of control over their material and what people who didn't pay for it can do with it. I think control should be passed over in many ways when people do pay for it--can't copy and sell it, plagiarize etc., but they should be able to sell it, loan it etc.--I'm not lover of DRM. It's a hassle for legit users and does nothing to stop pirates.

You're not seriously comparing copyright infringement to drunk driving, prostitution, drugs... :smack:

I'm not comparing the nature of the acts. Just showing there are various things that are criminal law violations that are behaviors that don't necessarily involve harm/loss.

The criminal law systems does not exist primarily to repair loss etc. It exists to shape behavior. Behaviors that are outlawed are behaviors which society doesn't want to occur--some cause harm/loss and need to be prevented, some don't, some are ambiguous on that front etc.

The legal system and punishments are deterrents to encourage people not to engage in those behaviors.

Copyright is one of those behaviors I think we need criminal laws to dissuade as many as possible from engaging in. Regardless of monetary loss, it's a wrong act that shouldn't happen.

kennyc
03-01-2010, 10:51 PM
So it's "theft", except for the part that actually makes it theft.


Sorry. It's theft. Something has been taken without permission.

You can continue to stick your head in the sand and call it file-sharing or copying if you like. I prefer to call it like it is.

Shaggy
03-01-2010, 10:55 PM
Sorry. It's theft. Something has been taken without permission.

This has been discussed to death, and I probably shouldn't fall for the bait, but nothing has been taken.

You can continue to stick your head in the sand and call it file-sharing or copying if you like. I prefer to call it like it is.

I prefer to call it copyright infringement, which is what it actually is.

Harmon
03-02-2010, 12:06 AM
On the other hand, if you've agreed to the terms of sale of an ebook store which say "you can't give it away", then I think you should be bound by those terms which you've knowingly agreed to when you bought the book.

But actually, you see, I don't "knowingly agree" to those terms. In fact, I knowingly disagree with them. As far as I'm concerned, when they tell me I can't give it away, they are blowing smoke. Obviously I can give it away. And what's more, they can't stop me from doing it. All they can do is try to place obstacles in my way.

The existence of an "agreement" is a factual question, a gloss on the exchange which extends to what happens after the exchange. And the law, at least in the US, frowns very strongly on the idea that once an exchange takes place, the party who handed over the property to another person in exchange for money can continue to control what happens to that property.

That's why it is neither criminally wrong, or legally actionable, if I take my ebook and give it to someone else. The issues about that all surround what happens if there are copies made, and the ambiguities concerning the transmission of originals by making copies.

But if you take the purest situation, where I acquire an ebook on my Sony 505, and then give or sell the 505 to some other person with the original ebook file on it, it is abundantly clear, utterly beyond question, that I can legally and morally do that. And if the terms of the "agreement" explicitly say that I can't, they are simply not enforceable.

When one party completely controls the terms of a sale, where the only leverage that the other party has is to take it or leave it, then there is no "agreement."

I think that's why you recognize that you are on shaky ground when a husband gives a copy of the ebook to his wife. You recognize the human situation - husbands, wives, sons & daughters, and friends, share things. A sale of an object to a husband presupposes that his wife may use it, no matter what the "agreement" says to the contrary. Neither law nor morality allows a seller to take that away in the absence of a real agreement, negotiated in good faith by the specific parties to the agreement concerning that particular copy of the ebook.

Harmon
03-02-2010, 12:14 AM
These big companies with huge teams of lawyers aren't going to put that stuff in the fine print without knowing they have a legal backing to do so.

That's simply not true. Lawyers frequently make legal claims on behalf of their clients which they know cannot be successfully challenged except at great expense to the other person. If the fine print results in scaring the vast majority of customers into compliance, it doesn't matter if the terms really can be enforced.

The fine print in any of these so-called agreements that are foisted on the general public is nothing more than the opinion of the lawyer who wrote it, that he can come up with a legal argument if he is ever challenged.

Harmon
03-02-2010, 12:19 AM
Hopefully the fines would make the agency largely self sufficient.

My God I hope not. There is no surer way to corrupt a bureaucracy than to let the bureaucrats be paid from the fines they collect.

Harmon
03-02-2010, 12:25 AM
Go that route, and I can pretty much guarantee my fear above of all digital content being streaming services only when internet capacity allows for becoming reality as that will be the only way companies can protect their product.

What's wrong with that? At least we'll know what we're getting, and prices will come down. Just compare Netflix with used DVDs.

And of course, those who want to will be able to capture the stream.

dmaul1114
03-02-2010, 12:40 AM
What's wrong with that? At least we'll know what we're getting, and prices will come down. Just compare Netflix with used DVDs.

And of course, those who want to will be able to capture the stream.

Yep. I don't have much issue with it personally. Full access to anything I want and no worries about storage space or losing every thing in a burglary etc.?

Well, only worry is selection, censorship etc. if some things are kept off the streaming services etc.

And it's a blow to to collectors who like having the physical item. I used to be that way, but I'm starting to feel it's a bit silly. I have around 350-dvds/blu rays, but I seldom watch any of them as I usually watch something for the first time from Netflix (disc rental or the streaming service). Have about the same number of CDs, but mostly listen to MP3s etc.

So while I like having the physical media, if I could pay a fee to stream any of them in some future where the internet is blazing fast (so quality doesn't suffer) and has a wide system of back ups so there's seldom an outage etc. I could see myself going for the convenience of not having to store physical copies of stuff I seldom use.

Stream capturing may occur, but if you have to pay for the stream, and always have access to it, it won't be a major issue. Not many are going to capture all they want then cancel their subscription to never sign up again. They'll want new content and have to keep the subscription--and not point in capturing it if you have full access to stream the content everywhere you can go and log into your account etc.

But for now it's a pipestream as we're decades away from having even today's broad band everywhere in the US, much less everywhere around the globe and at much faster speeds and much better reliabilities.

captcrouton
03-02-2010, 03:19 AM
Every time a library buys a book, it definitely translates into losses of sales. Every time that book is read and returned, it's a possible loss in sales. If that book is stolen, the library may have to buy a new one, so that translates into increased sales.

Why are the big publishers not putting the smack down on public libraries? Or should I not give them ideas.

HarryT
03-02-2010, 03:37 AM
Every time a library buys a book, it definitely translates into losses of sales. Every time that book is read and returned, it's a possible loss in sales. If that book is stolen, the library may have to buy a new one, so that translates into increased sales.

Why are the big publishers not putting the smack down on public libraries? Or should I not give them ideas.

1. Libraries are amongst the biggest buyers of hardback books, and publishers often produce special "library editions" of books, which are more expensive than the standard hardback.

2. Many countries have a "public lending right", which pays an author directly (ie the money goes straight to the author, not the publisher) every time the author's book is borrowed from the library. Eg, in the UK, an author gets slightly over 6p (about US 10c) per loan.

To equate libraries to piracy is inaccurate.

Sweetpea
03-02-2010, 03:49 AM
Most EULAs are unfair, and possibly illegal. I have no qualms about ignoring provisions that seem to me to be grossly unfair and one-sided.

So I modify the ebooks I download from Fictionwise for my own use, and do not feel that I'm doing anything wrong by doing so, even though Fictionwise has in its terms of use (under section 9, Ebooks):

I'm breaking that EULA every single time I buy a book... As I will always remove DRM and reformat the books (I hate empty lines between paragraphs!)... Do I feel anything about that? Nope. Nothing, nada, zip...

The only thing I refuse to do is redistribute outside my house. Don't ask me for that book I just bought, because you can't have it. It will only go on my device and my husband's. I won't even give it to my mother (though, that point is theoretical only, as my mother doesn't read English and I do :rofl:)

Shaggy
03-02-2010, 03:50 AM
Stream capturing may occur, but if you have to pay for the stream, and always have access to it, it won't be a major issue. Not many are going to capture all they want then cancel their subscription to never sign up again. They'll want new content and have to keep the subscription--and not point in capturing it if you have full access to stream the content everywhere you can go and log into your account etc.

No, what will happen is the same thing that happens now with piracy. Somebody will pay for the stream, capture it, and then share it with everyone else. All those other people won't be paying for the stream. It won't change anything.

kennyc
03-02-2010, 06:14 AM
This has been discussed to death, and I probably shouldn't fall for the bait, but nothing has been taken.



I prefer to call it copyright infringement, which is what it actually is.

I'm not the one that poked the elephant. And yes it has been discussed and will continue to be discussed until things change. This a new age, with new requirements. The old tired laws, methods and definitions don't work. You can either move into the future or live in the past. All I can do is show you the water, I can't make you drink.

:thumbsup:

llreader
03-02-2010, 07:02 AM
All questions of legality aside, I find your behavior shockingly immoral.

Dude, you bought a book by Michael Crichton? And then sent it to your MOM?!? That is a hanging matter. ;)

Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

pdurrant
03-02-2010, 07:28 AM
The old tired laws, methods and definitions don't work. You can either move into the future or live in the past. All I can do is show you the water, I can't make you drink.


You prompted me to start a new thread. Perhaps you'd like to contribute.

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75599

kennyc
03-02-2010, 07:57 AM
You prompted me to start a new thread. Perhaps you'd like to contribute.

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75599

:eek: :thumbsup: :rofl:

Shaggy
03-02-2010, 11:58 AM
This a new age, with new requirements.

Such as FUD.

dmaul1114
03-02-2010, 12:05 PM
No, what will happen is the same thing that happens now with piracy. Somebody will pay for the stream, capture it, and then share it with everyone else. All those other people won't be paying for the stream. It won't change anything.


I think it will be less prevalent. As long as the streaming services aren't that pricey, it will be more convenient to just have the service than having to dig around online to find it.

And if things like Netflix are any indication, prices don't have to be very high. Netflix is $8.99 (10.99 if you want Blu Ray rentals) for one disc out at a time AND unlimited streaming. Granted the streaming is only 17,000 or so movies, so it's a pittance compared to their disc selection.

But if they get price right, they can cut down on piracy as it's more worthwhile to just pay for the service and have full access to everything than to pirate stuff for more people than it is now. Especially if people grow up with access to all this streaming stuff and having the service(s) is just the norm like having cable or satellite TV is todya.

But you're right that piracy will still happen, and again there needs to be a large and aggressive effort to enforce copyright infringement. Criminalize it and be uber aggressive in shutting down the darknets.


But again, we're both just restating the same views over and over. My views on the topic are clear, so I'll bow out of this thread and not keep restating it over and over.

kennyc
03-02-2010, 12:09 PM
Such as FUD.

You seem to use other misleading words for theft, so yeah I guess that works for me. :D

Shaggy
03-02-2010, 01:07 PM
I think it will be less prevalent. As long as the streaming services aren't that pricey, it will be more convenient to just have the service than having to dig around online to find it.

Assuming, of course, that the people pirating would want to pay for it in the first place.

I agree with the idea that the best thing to do is make your product better/easier and you'll get rid of some of the pirates.... usually the ones that are interested in paying. As for the rest, they were never going to be your customers anyway, so why worry about them.

I don't know if the answer to that is necessarily streaming, or improving the value in other ways.

Shaggy
03-02-2010, 01:08 PM
You seem to use other misleading words for theft, so yeah I guess that works for me. :D

Yes, using misleading terms like referring to "copyright infringement" as "copyright infringement". I see what you mean. :smack:

Elfwreck
03-02-2010, 04:08 PM
The act of obtaining copyrighted digital content that is for sale without paying for it is wrong.

However, the act of obtaining copyrighted *physical* content without paying for it is an established part of book culture. Why is digital content inherently wrong to acquire without payment? We certainly have no problem with physical books being loaned or given away; why should we object to digital files being loaned or given?

There is a technical issue in that it's difficult--but not impossible--to loan a digital file without making a copy of it. But that shouldn't change the inherent morality of the act.

It doesn't matter if there is a clear, quantifiable loss, it's wrong and there should be a penalty if you're caught with it, even if it's stuff the person would never would have bought. If they didn't pay for it, they shouldn't be able to get the enjoyment of having their own copy of the content.

Ah, *THIS* is a key issue. It's not about "paying the author," it's about whether the reader deserves to be able to read the content.

It's not about the law. It's about money and social standards: only those who can afford entertainment and information should have access to it.

Harm/loss to others/society aren't requirements for things to be crime.

Yes, it is. The harm doesn't have to be measured in dollars, but acts presumed harmless are not considered criminal. In the case of drunk driving, whether an incident is harmful or not is based on luck, rather than skill of the driver; since people without skills to control a car safely aren't given licenses, a drunk driver is effectively an unlicensed driver. Prostitution is considered "morally harmful," and is often harmful to the women involved, who may be coerced or forced into the job against their will. Some drug use is considered harmful to society at large--both because, like drunk drivers, some drug users aren't in control of their actions, and because ... um, kinda drawing a blank here, but I gather there's plenty of arguments that claim some drugs are illegal because they do cause harm, none that say they're illegal because of some inherent evil in the drug itself separate from any damage it can do.

There doesn't have to be an absolute loss that occurs for something to be wrong and to be subject to criminal penalties.

There doesn't have to be an objectively-measurable loss, but harm is required.

Every illegal download/upload is wrong and should be a misdemeanor criminal act IMO.

Do you believe *every* illegal act is wrong, and that there is no such thing as an unjust law?

Another key question: How can an individual downloader know what files violate copyright? How can I know if the distributor has the right to distribute the ebook or song or whatever? (Note that Amazon sold Orwell's books to hundreds of customers who believed Amazon had a legal right to sell them. Should they all have been prosecuted for illegal downloading?)

When you visit a website, how can you ascertain ahead of time that nobody's uploaded illegal content to it?

If a work is found to infringe on copyrights, are people who downloaded it before the court ruling guilty of the crime?

This is *important.* Right now, there is often *no way to know* if something is copyright infringement until a court has ruled on it. If someone's selling bootleg CDs, it's easy to say, "he's distributing more than 10 copies, for profit... that violates the law." However, if someone is distributing an ebook version of Harry Potter--that needs to be measured against the four factors; it might be fair use. It's not competing with the ebook market, and might serve to promote physical sales. If someone releases an ebook, "Harry Potter: 20 years later," and claims it's a parody, who decides if it's fair use or an infringing derivative work?

Krystian Galaj
03-02-2010, 09:12 PM
You seem to use other misleading words for theft, so yeah I guess that works for me. :D

By the way, which is more a theft to you: downloading a copy of the book from the Internet server, or buying the book from a used books store? Since in both cases you don't have the copyright owner's permission to obtain the book, and the copyright owner doesn't get a dime, and in the second instance you're also rewarding the person helping you to commit the act, buying from a used books store would be more of a theft?

kennyc
03-02-2010, 09:28 PM
By the way, which is more a theft to you: downloading a copy of the book from the Internet server, or buying the book from a used books store? Since in both cases you don't have the copyright owner's permission to obtain the book, and the copyright owner doesn't get a dime, and in the second instance you're also rewarding the person helping you to commit the act, buying from a used books store would be more of a theft?

Very different situations as you well know. You're just trying to stir the pot. The author of paper books has already given permission in the form of the contracts for publishing the book in paper form and in subscribing to the first sale doctrine. Neither is the case for digital media.

Iphinome
03-02-2010, 10:42 PM
The first sale doctrine came about because copyright holders tried to claim selling at anything other than their own set terms was infringement making discount and used sellers pirates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus

I only bring this up to note that just because content providers claim something doesn't mean it should be taken at face value. consider http://iplitigator.huschblackwell.com/2010/03/articles/copyright/federal-circuit-says-korean-war-memorial-stamp-violated-sculptors-copyright/

A sculptor of a memorial on public land objected to use of a photo by the postal service. Whatever you think would you at least agree reasonable people could see this case differently? Kenny would call it theft of course but would other people? The artist was payed, the piece is on public display. A photo of a 3d image is far from an exact replica, the us postal service profited from the image but isn't really run on a for profit basis. We might move that discussion to another thread I don't mean to thread jack I'm just saying things aren't as cut and dry as some here are trying to claim.

kennyc
03-03-2010, 06:29 AM
..

A sculptor of a memorial on public land objected to use of a photo by the postal service. Whatever you think would you at least agree reasonable people could see this case differently? Kenny would call it theft of course but would other people? ..

No. No. No. Please don't talk out yer A$$. You clearly do not understand my position on this. And this is such a warped example that it doesn't even apply.

:smack:

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 06:31 AM
Did the post office not steal by making a copy without permission and then selling it and encouraging people to stick it on envelopes and send it to friends? All that stealing the post office are thieves

HansTWN
03-03-2010, 06:46 AM
Did the post office not steal by making a copy without permission and then selling it and encouraging people to stick it on envelopes and send it to friends? All that stealing the post office are thieves

Hey, next time I go to a sports event or concert I will print my own ticket. I won't steal anything, since they still have their tickets. And I would never pay for a ticket so they didn't lose anything. So that is fine, that is the way you think.

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 06:53 AM
Hey, next time I go to a sports event or concert I will print my own ticket. I won't steal anything, since they still have their tickets. And I would never pay for a ticket so they didn't lose anything. So that is fine, that is the way you think.

You'd be trespassing and using a false ticket is probably fraud.

HansTWN
03-03-2010, 07:07 AM
You'd be trespassing and using a false ticket is probably fraud.

So using a "false" ebook -- a copy not created by somebody legally authorized is also fraud? I was just using the above example as a case from the physical world where the event organizers' damage is exactly the same as when an ebook is copied (except for fair use). Because some always make the argument "the copy rights' holders still have their copy, so I didn't do anything wrong". If you believe that, you must also believe that you haven't harmed anyone by going to the concert for free.

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 07:14 AM
Did you pass it off as real? Deny anyone else the ability to use an authorized copy?

HansTWN
03-03-2010, 07:27 AM
Did you pass it off as real? Deny anyone else the ability to use an authorized copy?

It is a hypothetical example. Of course, you would have to pass the fake ticket off as real. And let us assume that they were not sold out, so you are not denying anyone his or her seat. So, would it be wrong?

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 07:52 AM
Wrong? Well, trespassing, fraud passing off a copied ticket as original, wear and tear on the facilities, sounds unlawful. Would it be wrong to stand outside and listen to the show? Either way I saw arguing that a case of infringement isn't always cut and dry and against people using the word theft, I wouldn't say the person with the copied ticket stole a concert, I'd say they trespassed and the mere possession of a copied ticket isn't the issue. In fact I wish I had perfect copies of some tickets I used in the past instead of just the stubs, stubs are good enough but the full ticket with some of my playbills, that'd be kind of cool.

Thank you HansTWN, at first i was a bit dubious on this copying of tickets idea but you've sold me on it, so where do I get these perfect copies and can this copier make nice playbills too? Some of mine are a bit beat up.

Anyway since you equate infringement to theft, what do you think of the way overly long copyrights pushed by big media companies rape the public domain. I mean I'm sure there's plenty of inflammatory words to go with piracy and theft.

kennyc
03-03-2010, 08:02 AM
Many corporate tactics are equivalent to rape. Wars are often termed rape and plunder.

Taking things you don't have rights to is theft. It's really quite simple.

HansTWN
03-03-2010, 08:19 AM
Wrong? Well, trespassing, fraud passing off a copied ticket as original, wear and tear on the facilities, sounds unlawful. Would it be wrong to stand outside and listen to the show? Either way I saw arguing that a case of infringement isn't always cut and dry and against people using the word theft, I wouldn't say the person with the copied ticket stole a concert, I'd say they trespassed and the mere possession of a copied ticket isn't the issue. In fact I wish I had perfect copies of some tickets I used in the past instead of just the stubs, stubs are good enough but the full ticket with some of my playbills, that'd be kind of cool.

Thank you HansTWN, at first i was a bit dubious on this copying of tickets idea but you've sold me on it, so where do I get these perfect copies and can this copier make nice playbills too? Some of mine are a bit beat up.

Anyway since you equate infringement to theft, what do you think of the way overly long copyrights pushed by big media companies rape the public domain. I mean I'm sure there's plenty of inflammatory words to go with piracy and theft.

You can over analyze any example. Just disregard the part that has no relevance to our discussion here. And may I suggest you take a look at some of those advanced laser printers out there?

I am with you that copyrights are too long. I wouldn't call it rape, however. But let us take this at face value -- someone else does something wrong, so that justifies our wrongdoing? Corporate greed justifies personal greed?

So I understand you correctly :p, you only object to overly long protection and you agree unauthorized copying is theft when it occurs within a reasonable period, let us just say 20 years (or whatever)?

TGS
03-03-2010, 08:24 AM
Taking things you don't have rights to is theft.

Nah, property is theft - I thought everyone knew that!

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 08:27 AM
Many corporate tactics are equivalent to rape. Wars are often termed rape and plunder.

Taking things you don't have rights to is theft. It's really quite simple.

So then I was correct you think what the post office did was stealing, they apparently didn't have the right to use a photo of a memorial on public grounds. To you that's theft. Of course to the courts that was infringement and to me it's silly on several levels. I suggested reasonable people could disagree on something like that. You and HansTWN jumped on me, if you want a down and dirty argument on the subject I can provide one and I can do more than repeat the words stealing and theft over and over.

For example, taking a photo isn't the same as taking a monument any more than making a photocopy of an article is taking a magazine you seem to miss the point that nothing was taken let's try it like this, if you hook into a cable company's system to took their service, put stress on their network created a measurable loss. If you set up a satellite dish and make use of a signal that was just bouncing around the planet (receiving not transmitting) that's their loss, you didn't take anything from them, the dumbasses put the signal in the public airwaves. Both parties will call you a thief but you only had an impact on one of them.

Don't you find it odd that other people understand the difference between theft and infringement? How about robbery and embezzlement?

kennyc
03-03-2010, 08:35 AM
Nah, property is theft - I thought everyone knew that!


That's sure a funny thing to believe. Property = Theft. :blink:

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 08:36 AM
So I understand you correctly :p, you only object to overly long protection and you agree unauthorized copying is theft when it occurs within a reasonable period, let us just say 20 years (or whatever)?

Part one pretty much, part 2 never. Infringement != theft. I'll agree it's immoral in many but not all cases. Some people argue ebooks are an added value I disagree. Some might even argue scanning your own book is infringement since it makes an unauthorized copy, I disagree with that. Backups of ebooks may or may not be considered fair use but even if it ends up being decided to not be fair use legally I'm all for it. I see no moral difference between scanning you falling to pieces copy of the moon is a harsh mistress and downloading it from someone who saved you the trouble of doing it yourself and I'm personally starting to wonder if a form of statutory license for some uses might be a good compromise to the problems that are starting to emerge, it worked for radio and sheet music, both industries who are called pirates and thieves back int he day and in fact now radio is being hounded about who they pay and what they pay.

kennyc
03-03-2010, 08:37 AM
So then I was correct you think what the post office did was stealing, they apparently didn't have the right to use a photo of a memorial on public grounds. ...

What I find odd it that you don't have a clue what I'm talking about and you keep acting like you do. No you are NOT CORRECT. It is a very poor example and has little relevance to the digital book world. The sports ticket or movie ticket example is way more relevant.

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 08:44 AM
What I find odd it that you don't have a clue what I'm talking about and you keep acting like you do. No you are NOT CORRECT. It is a very poor example and has little relevance to the digital book world. The sports ticket or movie ticket example is way more relevant.

So the acts of trespassing fraud and adding wear and tear onto someone's facilities are the equivalent of of creating some 0's and 1's on your computer that come in the same pattern as the 0's and 1's someone somewhere might be selling but then again they might not have even made the source into 0's and 1's themselves at all and may never do so. But the act of using images of a copyrighted work without permission from the creator for sale is nothing at all like ebook copying. Got ya. Well my original point was that things aren't so cut and dry.

TGS
03-03-2010, 08:44 AM
That's sure a funny thing to believe. Property = Theft. :blink:
Mmm, Karl Marx thought it was odd too. Say, you're not one of these damned commies are you kennyc?

kennyc
03-03-2010, 08:49 AM
Mmm, Karl Marx thought it was odd too. Say, you're not one of these damned commies are you kennyc?

No, worse. I'm a Libertarian!

:rofl:

GhostHawk
03-03-2010, 08:54 AM
The only thing that I can say for sure kenny, is that on every discussion of terms, you seem to end up on the wrong side.

With no physical property being taken it can not be theft.
Society decides what terms mean, you don't get to change the meanings to suit yourself. Not unless your willing to put yourself outside of society. Even then the only person who will agree with you, is you.

No matter how much you want to, you can not make gray into black, nor black into gray.

kennyc
03-03-2010, 08:56 AM
It's not me that's on the wrong side of the law. :)

(or ethics or morality for that matter :) )

GhostHawk
03-03-2010, 09:00 AM
Is it immoral to speed? Its against the law, yet people do it all the time.
Is it Immoral to cheat on your taxes?

Leave Morality out of the picture. That is a personal choice and definition.
What is moral for one person is not for another.

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 09:01 AM
wouldn't a liberation be against the government enforced monopolies on copying as it prevents a free market for the work and puts restrictions on your freedom to copy to create derivative works? I'd think a libertarian would be opposed to all copyrights and patents as not being the government's buisness. Heinlein's society on Tertius had no copyright laws.

HansTWN
03-03-2010, 09:07 AM
Is it immoral to speed? Its against the law, yet people do it all the time.
Is it Immoral to cheat on your taxes?

Leave Morality out of the picture. That is a personal choice and definition.
What is moral for one person is not for another.

In that case.... copyright infringement is illegal! So what are you arguing about? :eek:

And haven't you considered that "copyright infringement" is just another word for a specific type of theft that involves IP, not physical goods?

kennyc
03-03-2010, 09:11 AM
...
Leave Morality out of the picture. That is a personal choice and definition.
What is moral for one person is not for another.

No. And no it's not, morality is only applicable within a society it has nothing to do with individuals. Law is an outgrowth or implementation of morality (regardless of whether it is a correct implementation or not).

kennyc
03-03-2010, 09:16 AM
wouldn't a liberation be against the government enforced monopolies on copying as it prevents a free market for the work and puts restrictions on your freedom to copy to create derivative works? I'd think a libertarian would be opposed to all copyrights and patents as not being the government's buisness. Heinlein's society on Tertius had no copyright laws.


Well you seem to think a lot of things. Keep thinking. But please quit assuming you know what others think or believe and quit putting words in their mouths, most people here can speak for themselves. :)

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 09:21 AM
No. And no it's not, morality is only applicable within a society it has nothing to do with individuals. Law is an outgrowth or implementation of morality (regardless of whether it is a correct implementation or not).

Laws put restrictions on individual freedoms for the sake of society as a whole. There's nothing moral about a speed limit it's just there because one day people decided it was safer for everyone if some bozo didn't go tearing though town at top speed. There's nothing moral about a law against murder society simply wouldn't function if everyone was killing each other, that's not moral that's practical. If you want laws that conform to your morality go found a theocratic state, the holy kennyc empire. Personally, I like a system where other people aren't suppose things on me based only on what they think is moral. I love living in a place where people don't go to jail for adultery or sodomy or working on a sunday or coveting or blasphemy goddammit! It sure isn't a perfect system but hey I get to decide what's moral for me and then not force it on you unless for some reason a whole big bunch of people decide it's really necessary for a functioning society and a bunch more people in funny robes and answering to "your honor" decide it doesn't violate constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Iphinome
03-03-2010, 09:23 AM
Well you seem to think a lot of things. Keep thinking. But please quit assuming you know what others think or believe and quit putting words in their mouths, most people here can speak for themselves. :)

I apologize for taking your claim of being a librarian at face value.

kennyc
03-03-2010, 09:23 AM
Can we get back on topic please.

llreader
03-03-2010, 10:10 AM
I apologize for taking your claim of being a librarian at face value.

The problem is that Kenny wants everyone to listen to the voices in his head, but I can't hear them! :rofl:

No offense Ken, but no one seems to be able to figure out exactly what you want the world to be like.

Anyway, back to the topic feeling like a thief. It looks like some other countries are not thrilled about adopting the US interpretation of IP protection, and are saying so as part of the ACTA process (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/new-acta-leak-shows-major-resistance-to-us-style-drm-rules.ars). So, people all over the world, including governments, don't "feel like a criminal" even though some companies say they should.

TGS
03-03-2010, 10:10 AM
Can we get back on topic please.

The topic seems to be that A thinks activities of type X constitute theft, whilst B thinks that activities of type X do not constitute theft. All seem to agree that activities of type Y constitute theft, and all seem to agree that activities of type Z do not constitute theft.

So the dispute is about what X is going to count as - theft or not theft, and the protagonists adduce arguments to support the claim that X is more like Y than it is like Z, or X is more like Z than it is like Y.

We might think that the way in which things come to count as something is in some way a property of the world - that's just how it is, and we come to know about it by discovering it. However, following the philosopher John Searle, the way in social facts such as whether X constitutes theft come to be known is not by discovery but by social action. If X is some kinds of copying of copyrighted material it seems we are not yet in a position to say whether X counts as theft. Yes, we can call it theft, but that is to use the word "theft" in a way that it has not heretofore been used. But there are things about X which make it a lot like theft.

As much as kennyc will not like this, it is simply indeterminate at this point whether X is to count as theft. It is because it is indeterminate that we have all sorts of inflated talk from government and industry which is aimed at resolving the indeterminacy. But such a resolution has not happened yet.

Embrace the indeterminacy I say ;)

guyanonymous
03-03-2010, 10:41 AM
No, worse. I'm a Libertarian!

:rofl:

And here I thought that with all this reading and copyright obsession, you were a Librarian! ;) hehe

kennyc
03-03-2010, 10:52 AM
.....
No offense Ken, but no one seems to be able to figure out exactly what you want the world to be like.
......


I know and I try to state it so clearly too. You might think others just don't want to understand. :D

BTW, it's KENNY. :thumbsup:

kennyc
03-03-2010, 10:52 AM
And here I thought that with all this reading and copyright obsession, you were a Librarian! ;) hehe

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That deserves Krama!

:thumbsup:

kennyc
03-03-2010, 10:56 AM
...

As much as kennyc will not like this, it is simply indeterminate at this point whether X is to count as theft. ...

Embrace the indeterminacy I say ;)

Amazingly I agree. The laws have not caught up with the new reality.

I prefer to say it as Heisenberg did -- "Embrace the uncertainty" -- it is impossible to know both the law and the morality at the same time, or have you every seen superman and clark kent together?

ardeegee
03-03-2010, 12:40 PM
No, worse. I'm a Libertarian!

:rofl:

Saw an excellent definition of that recently:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/libertarianism_defined.php

TGS
03-03-2010, 12:49 PM
Saw an excellent definition of that recently:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/libertarianism_defined.php

You get some karma for that ardeegee :2thumbsup:2thumbsup

Harmon
03-03-2010, 05:43 PM
So using a "false" ebook -- a copy not created by somebody legally authorized is also fraud? I was just using the above example as a case from the physical world where the event organizers' damage is exactly the same as when an ebook is copied (except for fair use). Because some always make the argument "the copy rights' holders still have their copy, so I didn't do anything wrong". If you believe that, you must also believe that you haven't harmed anyone by going to the concert for free.

The argument that is being made is not "the copy rights' holders still have their copy, so I didn't do anything wrong". It is "the copy rights' holders still have their copy, so making a copy isn't theft."

But you raise an interesting analogy, "book" as "performance." It shifts the attention from the object to the author. If you consider the author as a performer rather than a creator, the "book" becomes a "ticket."

But the argument breaks down when you consider that in the performance world, the customer has to buy a new ticket for each performance. The interesting thing, though, is that in terms of a subscription service for ebooks, that is what would occur. So if publishers moved to a subscription model for their ebooks, what you suggest would certainly have some logical force.

Harmon
03-03-2010, 05:56 PM
That's sure a funny thing to believe. Property = Theft. :blink:

Hmm. A inexplicable gap in your knowledge. It's a socialist political slogan, originated by an anarchist, P. J. Proudhon:

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2010proudhon

And it's the title of an anthology of his books which is available, in part, electronically:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/property-is-theft

AND if you run "P. J. Proudhon " in Inkmesh you'll find some of his books for free.

Ben Thornton
03-03-2010, 06:34 PM
Why doesn't Marx drink proper tea? Because proper tea is theft.

Sorry.

Back OT, I think that the morality around appropriate behaviour with ebooks, for most people, is based on what you could have done with the equivalent pbook. So most of us, I suspect, think that giving your ebook to someone else and deleting the copy that you use (your library/ebook copy or whatever) is OK.

Morality is likely to shift over time on this - as it does on all issues. Indeed, it seems to be shifting already, in that my impression is that people are becoming less bothered about whether they are "supposed" to have digital content. I'm not sure if this impression is created by a genuine shift in attitude, though, or simply more opportunity to obtain content via the internet.

ardeegee
03-03-2010, 06:55 PM
One topic I haven't seen covered yet on fake electronic books is construction quality-- with real electronic books, you can be assured that all the electrons really are electrons. With fake electronic book, you run the risk of some of the electrons actually being positrons, which could result in damage to your electronic devices and your own health.

kennyc
03-03-2010, 07:57 PM
One topic I haven't seen covered yet on fake electronic books is construction quality-- with real electronic books, you can be assured that all the electrons really are electrons. With fake electronic book, you run the risk of some of the electrons actually being positrons, which could result in damage to your electronic devices and your own health.

Sue the bastards!

guyanonymous
03-03-2010, 08:29 PM
Silly guys, that's why you wrap your usb cables in tinfoil, to realign and transformationalize the positrons back into electrons and make sure they're going the right way. The worst, though, is when you use imported tinfoil, as sometimes your books are translated into a foreign language.

Gladtobemom
03-03-2010, 09:44 PM
So far, I've avoided DRM books because of this. I have been thoroughly enjoying spending my money on non-DRM books from Baen and enjoying out of copyright books.

I have grown boys that read and a husband that reads, I'm the one that bought them their ereaders and they all love them.

We've always shared books, whenever the boys come over, they bring books and pick some up. Same for magazines and journals.

I ONLY buy books from people that say I can share books with my family.

guyanonymous
03-03-2010, 09:59 PM
But think of the publishers authors!

TGS
03-04-2010, 04:04 PM
But you raise an interesting analogy, "book" as "performance." It shifts the attention from the object to the author. If you consider the author as a performer rather than a creator, the "book" becomes a "ticket."


I'm not saying this just to wind up kennyc with my hifalutin literary theory nonsense, I'm really not... :D but there is a school of literary theory that holds
that it is the reader who "performs" the literary work, the writer merely provides guidelines for that performance. On an analogy with music, the book is analogous to the score, but the reader is analogous to both the orchestra and the audience.

Maybe the buggers ought to start paying us for performing their works and giving them life :)

kennyc
03-04-2010, 04:06 PM
..... but there is a school of literary theory that holds
that it is the reader who "performs" the literary work, ....

Maybe the buggers ought to start paying us for performing their works and giving them life :)

:thumbsup:

Shaggy
03-04-2010, 04:08 PM
Maybe the buggers ought to start paying us for performing their works and giving them life :)

With the way things are, they'd probably try to sue us for unauthorized performance.

kennyc
03-04-2010, 04:10 PM
With the way things are, they'd probably try to sue us for unauthorized performance.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Harmon
03-05-2010, 12:43 AM
I'm not saying this just to wind up kennyc with my hifalutin literary theory nonsense, I'm really not... :D but there is a school of literary theory that holds
that it is the reader who "performs" the literary work, the writer merely provides guidelines for that performance. On an analogy with music, the book is analogous to the score, but the reader is analogous to both the orchestra and the audience.

Maybe the buggers ought to start paying us for performing their works and giving them life :)

Yeah, I've read some of that stuff and there is some truth in it, I think. But where it goes off track is that it doesn't recognize the author as the conductor as well as the composer. Still, we all bring our unique selves to any book, and as a consequence, no one actually reads exactly the same book.

Therefore, we owe ourselves royalties...

HansTWN
03-05-2010, 12:53 AM
Yeah, I've read some of that stuff and there is some truth in it, I think. But where it goes off track is that it doesn't recognize the author as the conductor as well as the composer. Still, we all bring our unique selves to any book, and as a consequence, no one actually reads exactly the same book.

Therefore, we owe ourselves royalties...

:p So I should ask my wife to up my allowance.

Krystian Galaj
03-05-2010, 01:37 PM
:p So I should ask my wife to up my allowance.

Won't you have to mention your increased earnings? :)