View Full Version : Is this a pirate site?


Pages : [1] 2

lene1949
03-05-2010, 03:05 AM
[Link deleted by moderator]

They say it's a library and based on donations...

I'm curious..

HarryT
03-05-2010, 03:09 AM
It's a pirate site. Been around for years. Link deleted.

lene1949
03-05-2010, 03:12 AM
OK... thanks... They seem to be alive and well...

They do have a notice to the Authors about they contacting them, if they have any problems...

lene1949
03-05-2010, 03:12 AM
I also did try a search on here for them, but found nothing..

HarryT
03-05-2010, 03:27 AM
You wouldn't find anything here at MR, because we have a policy of deleting any references to pirate sites. This particular site is, however, very well known.

lene1949
03-05-2010, 03:33 AM
You wouldn't find anything here at MR, because we have a policy of deleting any references to pirate sites. This particular site is, however, very well known.

I thought it might have been... that's why I posed the question...

The thing that caused me to find it legit, was you can only 'borrow 5 book per fortnight' as well as the requests for proof readers... The disclaimer to the authors also made it seem legit...

lene1949
03-05-2010, 03:38 AM
Why not mention the site, so people can get some honest feedback...?

I'm a member of a parrot site, and there are many illegal importers of parrots, and some people think they get a good deal... But these sites are mentioned on the forum.. If you find a Sulphur Crested Cockatoo for sale in America, you can be sure it's been illegally imported.

Iphinome
03-05-2010, 04:31 AM
I would guess that no matter anyone's personal opinions on these things that linking to known pirate sites is just asking for the wrong kind of attention in the form of DMCA takedown notices and other nasty letters from lawyers representing the publisher types but hey the deals sections often links to free books where that have a good 99% chance to be authorized.

PKFFW
03-05-2010, 06:12 AM
I must be completely clueless as I've never even heard of a pirate site masquerading as a library!

Ben Thornton
03-05-2010, 06:25 AM
I'm a member of a parrot siteWhen I first read this, I thought this was a euphemism - i.e. that you meant you were downloading parrot copies of ebooks. :rofl:

Iphinome
03-05-2010, 06:28 AM
*squack* Polly wants some Heinlein!

kennyc
03-05-2010, 06:31 AM
buncha birdbrains! :p

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dylrob
03-05-2010, 06:41 AM
When I first read this, I thought this was a euphemism - i.e. that you meant you were downloading parrot copies of ebooks. :rofl:

Is that related to Audio Books on Parrot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzXfLEsuUjc#t=2m42s)?

Shaggy
03-05-2010, 11:01 AM
I would guess that no matter anyone's personal opinions on these things that linking to known pirate sites is just asking for the wrong kind of attention in the form of DMCA takedown notices and other nasty letters from lawyers representing the publisher types but hey the deals sections often links to free books where that have a good 99% chance to be authorized.

Mentioning the name and linking to it are completely different things. I can understand not wanting links, don't know why they won't let people say what the site is so that the rest of us know what they're talking about.

Shaggy
03-05-2010, 11:01 AM
I must be completely clueless as I've never even heard of a pirate site masquerading as a library!

Me neither, assuming it actually is a pirate site.

MaggieScratch
03-05-2010, 12:22 PM
Wasn't there actually a problem with MR linking to a site, not a pirate site but something to do with a DRM-breaking script?

Shaggy
03-05-2010, 01:07 PM
I must be completely clueless as I've never even heard of a pirate site masquerading as a library!

It's not, really. It looks nothing like a library, just some guy distributing copies of copyrighted material that he says come from his "personal" library. Looks like he only allows you 5 downloads because he's trying to get "donations".

Of course, taking money starts putting this into the realm of criminal copyright infringement, but it doesn't look like this guy has a clue anyway.

Shaggy
03-05-2010, 01:10 PM
Wasn't there actually a problem with MR linking to a site, not a pirate site but something to do with a DRM-breaking script?

Yes, I believe MR got a takedown request from Amazon at one point. It was an obvious abuse of the DMCA by Amazon, but that doesn't matter when lawyers start getting involved. MR doesn't have the resources to fight them.

kennyc
03-05-2010, 01:36 PM
It's not, really. It looks nothing like a library, just some guy distributing copies of copyrighted material that he says come from his "personal" library. Looks like he only allows you 5 downloads because he's trying to get "donations".

Of course, taking money starts putting this into the realm of criminal copyright infringement, but it doesn't look like this guy has a clue anyway.

Ah, now I know which one we're talking about.....definitely a pirate site.

Crusader
03-05-2010, 02:40 PM
Strangely enough I came across the site after reading this thread and then someone completely unrelated to MR mentioning the site on a random thread I was reading at Goodreads.

At least I'm 99% sure it's the site in question. The "personal collection" claims and 5 downloads are a dead giveaway.

Quite the coincidence.

Sharing copyrighted works is questionable enough, but to try to make money from it takes it to a whole new level!

Shaggy
03-05-2010, 02:50 PM
Sharing copyrighted works is questionable enough, but to try to make money from it takes it to a whole new level!

Makes me wonder what country this site is based out of. This isn't even the grey area of hosting user content, this person is doing direct distribution and taking money for it. I'm shocked he hasn't gotten nailed by the copyright police yet.

lene1949
03-05-2010, 03:10 PM
Makes me wonder what country this site is based out of. This isn't even the grey area of hosting user content, this person is doing direct distribution and taking money for it. I'm shocked he hasn't gotten nailed by the copyright police yet.

I don't think he's in America - he doesn't use American spelling.. and he asks for European currency..

Kevin2960
03-05-2010, 04:36 PM
Pirates Have Parrots RIGHT ? ......

So maybe Parrot Sites let you download Pirate Books ???

kennyc
03-05-2010, 04:41 PM
Pirates Have Parrots RIGHT ? ......

So maybe Parrot Sites let you download Pirate Books ???

And Parrots have Rights, right?

Moejoe
03-05-2010, 06:04 PM
Makes me wonder what country this site is based out of. This isn't even the grey area of hosting user content, this person is doing direct distribution and taking money for it. I'm shocked he hasn't gotten nailed by the copyright police yet.

The first rule of.....well you know the rest :)

sabredog
03-05-2010, 06:10 PM
And Parrots have Rights, right?

Only the Geographically Restricted ones

HansTWN
03-05-2010, 06:36 PM
And Parrots have Rights, right?

Our African Gray rules the house. Totally dominates our poor dog.

kennyc
03-05-2010, 06:48 PM
Our African Gray rules the house. Totally dominates our poor dog.


Ah yes. Dogs don't have a change against parrots. :)

HansTWN
03-05-2010, 07:30 PM
Ah yes. Dogs don't have a change against parrots. :)

How could they, dogs are are nowhere near as intelligent. And while dogs are trusting and always faithful and loving, parrots are exactly like human children.

FizzyWater
03-05-2010, 07:34 PM
... parrots are exactly like human children.

:eek:

I'll stick to dogs!

HansTWN
03-05-2010, 07:43 PM
:eek:

I'll stick to dogs!

Taking the easy way out, I see. Of course, dogs can't sing and answer the phone. Or say "see you tomorrow" at bed time.

jgaiser
03-05-2010, 10:53 PM
It's not, really. It looks nothing like a library, just some guy distributing copies of copyrighted material that he says come from his "personal" library. Looks like he only allows you 5 downloads because he's trying to get "donations".

Know the site. The 5 download limit is determined on IP address and easily bypassed. Yes it's a pirate site.

Nakor
03-05-2010, 11:45 PM
Ah yes. Dogs don't have a change against parrots. :)

They also don't have a chance against robins, chickadees, or steller's jays. My dachshund has made that quite clear from his efforts to clear them out of 'his' back yard.

Billjr13
03-06-2010, 03:36 AM
What about the Norwegian Blue, Pining for the fijords. Beautiful plumage the Norwegian Blue... No This parrot is dead... He's not dead he's just restin'. It's not resting, it's passed on. This parrot is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late parrot. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-parrot.

HarryT
03-06-2010, 03:42 AM
Makes me wonder what country this site is based out of. This isn't even the grey area of hosting user content, this person is doing direct distribution and taking money for it. I'm shocked he hasn't gotten nailed by the copyright police yet.

The site is in Hong Kong; a place not noted for its rigid enforcement of copyright laws.

lene1949
03-06-2010, 02:59 PM
It's strange then that he asks for Euro's and not USDollars

AlfonsVH
03-06-2010, 03:14 PM
Take a look at his disclaimer (add disclaimer.php to the base url)

m-reader
03-07-2010, 07:40 AM
Makes me wonder what country this site is based out of. This isn't even the grey area of hosting user content, this person is doing direct distribution and taking money for it. I'm shocked he hasn't gotten nailed by the copyright police yet.

Eastern Europe (fmr USSR countries), Pacific Islands, Middle East, you name it!

m-reader
03-07-2010, 07:42 AM
The site is in Hong Kong; a place not noted for its rigid enforcement of copyright laws.

Ah, there you go. I hadn't read your post before commenting.
It's probably harder finding countries that do implement effective restrictions on these sort of web sites rather than vice versa.

gastan
03-07-2010, 12:55 PM
Taking the easy way out, I see. Of course, dogs can't sing and answer the phone. Or say "see you tomorrow" at bed time.

Sue went into the pet shop and immediately spotted a large, beautiful parrot. The sign on the cage said $50.

"Why so little?" Sue asked.

The owner looked at her and said, "Look, I should tell you that this bird used to live in a bawdy house and sometimes it says some pretty vulgar things."

Sue considered and decided to purchase the bird anyway because it was so beautiful. She took it home, hung the cage up, and waited for it to say something. The bird looked around the room, then at her, and said, "New house, new madam."

Sue was a little shocked at the implication but then thought, "That's really not so bad."

When her two teen-age daughters came home from school, the parrot saw them and said, "New house, new madam, new girls."

Sue and her daughters were a bit offended at first but began to laugh, considering how and where the parrot had been raised.

Moments later Sue's husband, Doug, came home from work.

The parrot looked at him and said, "Hi Doug."

Don't trust parrots.

Hamlet53
03-07-2010, 04:01 PM
It seems to me no discussion of parrots on a ebook site would be complete without mention of the role the wonderful trained parrot plays in Confederacy of Dunces.

Hellmark
03-07-2010, 05:45 PM
It's strange then that he asks for Euro's and not USDollars

Not really when you consider that one euro is worth 1.37 dollars right now. Why not ask for the stronger currency?

DawnFalcon
03-07-2010, 06:06 PM
They also don't have a chance against robins, chickadees, or steller's jays.

Or domestic rabbits. I find little yappy dogs treed by a Rabbit bigger than them amusing, I admit.

HansTWN
03-07-2010, 06:27 PM
Sue went into the pet shop and immediately spotted a large, beautiful parrot. The sign on the cage said $50.

"Why so little?" Sue asked.

The owner looked at her and said, "Look, I should tell you that this bird used to live in a bawdy house and sometimes it says some pretty vulgar things."

Sue considered and decided to purchase the bird anyway because it was so beautiful. She took it home, hung the cage up, and waited for it to say something. The bird looked around the room, then at her, and said, "New house, new madam."

Sue was a little shocked at the implication but then thought, "That's really not so bad."

When her two teen-age daughters came home from school, the parrot saw them and said, "New house, new madam, new girls."

Sue and her daughters were a bit offended at first but began to laugh, considering how and where the parrot had been raised.

Moments later Sue's husband, Doug, came home from work.

The parrot looked at him and said, "Hi Doug."

Don't trust parrots.

Good one! I have another one.

A man goes to a pet shop and sees 3 cages with 3 parrots. He asked the owner how much the first one is. "500", says the owner. "Why so expensive", asks the man. "He can talk", is the reply.

"And the second one?"

"It costs 1000, because it can speak two languages".

The third bird looks very old, with faded plumage. So the customer remarks "this one must be cheaper".

"Oh no, he costs 2000", the owner answers.

"Can he speak three languages?"

"I have no idea what he can do, but the other two call him boss!".


We actually have a lot of fun with ours when he makes the right remark at the right time. Once my wife was sitting in a chair and working. Our parrot was slowly climbing up the side of her chair to get up to her shoulder. My wife looked down at him and he said "what are you looking at?" Even the tone of his voice was perfectly appropriate.

Marcy
03-07-2010, 07:41 PM
I will admit to having used this site, for books I wanted. These are books I *wanted* to give money to someone for and was unable to, because they are not available as ebooks. And they are all books I have bought pbook copies of.

The books I downloaded are the Jean Auel books and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, one of my favorite books of all time. In fact I found the site while searching for a copy, any copy, of TMIAHM. I was practically salivating over the thought of giving someone money to have this book on my reader and the only copy available is a pirate version. :tdown:

Now comes the "pirate's dilemma." These books are plain text, with OCR errors and no significant formatting. I've taken them and gone through them alongside my pbooks page by page and fixed the OCR errors, added back all the italics and bolding, fixed the formatting including the large caps to start each chapter and given each a table of contents. So, what do I do if the publisher actually finally releases them as ebooks? I would have happily paid for them previously, but now I have several hours invested in each book, such that I would probably balk at paying more than $5 each for an 'official' copy.

I think it goes to show how not releasing things legitimately just creates a black market. But perhaps I'm misguided.

-Marcy

Ilkyway
03-08-2010, 07:30 AM
@ Marcy: I totally understand your point, but I have two reasons for you, why you should by a legal version anyway if it ever comes out:
If the books are worthwhile putting so much effort into them as you did, than it is worthwhile supporting the author, so that he might wright more of such good books.
Justifying piracy just because a product one wants to by is not available jet is not so fare from justifying piracy because a product is too expensive in ones opinion. I think, from the point of view of the author it stays plain piracy.
Don't missunanderstand my: my favorit book is not out as a ebook as well. If I had the chance, I might do, just as you did. But I would not count my effort I put into a book that I got illigaly to count for making it legal in any way.
Ilkyway

Kevin2960
03-08-2010, 07:48 AM
Anyone who wants to swap thier parrot for my 19 year old son ...... Deal Done

NO Questions Asked ......

...... In fact i'll give $1000 US as well :thumbsup:

PS Even DEAD Parrots considered :cool:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

khalleron
03-08-2010, 09:58 AM
I agree with Ilkyway, Marcy. I, like many of us here, had pirated copies of LOTR and The Hobbit before they finally became available as ebooks, but I, and many others, bought the ebooks when they came out.

And Tolkien is dead - it would be all the better to buy the books of living authors.

Pirating a book when no legit copy is available doesn't really hurt anyone. Pirating a book when a legit copy is available does.

Shaggy
03-08-2010, 10:44 AM
I will admit to having used this site, for books I wanted. These are books I *wanted* to give money to someone for and was unable to, because they are not available as ebooks. And they are all books I have bought pbook copies of.

Just a thought, but since you already own the pBook it is legal in the US to scan it yourself and make your own eBook. Is what you did really any different? The end result is the same.

tompe
03-08-2010, 10:54 AM
Just a thought, but since you already own the pBook it is legal in the US to scan it yourself and make your own eBook. Is what you did really any different? The end result is the same.

The bad thing was to pay for it and get a bad edition. Much better to download one of the big science fiction book collections that are available without paying and contribute fixes back to these collections.

luqmaninbmore
03-08-2010, 11:30 AM
I agree with Ilkyway, Marcy. I, like many of us here, had pirated copies of LOTR and The Hobbit before they finally became available as ebooks, but I, and many others, bought the ebooks when they came out.

And Tolkien is dead - it would be all the better to buy the books of living authors.

Pirating a book when no legit copy is available doesn't really hurt anyone. Pirating a book when a legit copy is available does.

If I have a legitimately obtained paper copy, I hardly see the difference. If someone wants to save me the time of ripping my paper copy, I have no problem with that. The fact that the person is in Hong Kong and not in my living room is absolutely irrelevant from an ethical perspective.

HarryT
03-08-2010, 11:33 AM
If I have a legitimately obtained paper copy, I hardly see the difference. If someone wants to save me the time of ripping my paper copy, I have no problem with that. The fact that the person is in Hong Kong and not in my living room is absolutely irrelevant from an ethical perspective.

You don't see any ethical difference between creating your own copy from a legitimately bought book, and accepting one from someone who's giving them out to all and sundry, regardless of whether or not they've bought the book?

Seems like a very different situation to me!

Shaggy
03-08-2010, 11:42 AM
You don't see any ethical difference between creating your own copy from a legitimately bought book, and accepting one from someone who's giving them out to all and sundry, regardless of whether or not they've bought the book?

Seems like a very different situation to me!

For who?

Is the distributor justified... absolutely not. Nobody is saying they are.

But in this case can you say the downloader really did anything unethical? If they're legally allowed to scan their own, does it really matter where they get it from?

HarryT
03-08-2010, 11:52 AM
The end result may be the same, but for me, yes, the origin of the material does matter.

It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.

Shaggy
03-08-2010, 12:03 PM
It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.

Except, in this case, both are free and there are no taxes involved. As far as that is concerned, there is no difference between legitimately scanning your own eBook or downloading one that somebody else scanned. Neither is generating revenue for the rights holder, but in this specific example, they're not supposed to.

HarryT
03-08-2010, 12:08 PM
We must agree to differ, I'm afraid. For me, the origin matters. For others, it perhaps doesn't. That's fine by me.

Ben Thornton
03-08-2010, 12:09 PM
The end result may be the same, but for me, yes, the origin of the material does matter.

It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.This doesn't seem the same to me as the case where you have a copy of the pbook and download a scanned copy. In the case of the dodgy booze (was that a Sherlock Holmes case?), you've not bought the content legitimately before, whereas with the book, you have.

It seems to me to be analagous to the case where you have a record on vinyl and download a copy of the mp3.

I acknowledge that scanning a book yourself and snarfing a copy off the 'tubes are different, but it seems to me that they're more alike than snarfing and dodgy-booze-buying.

OTOH, it does smell of hypocrisy to say that uploading is bad while downloading is perfectly fine. Is it wrong to download something whose uploading you feel is wrong? It seems to me that it probably is, so I would agree with you that the source matters - while disagreeing with your analogy.

kennyc
03-08-2010, 12:39 PM
You don't see any ethical difference between creating your own copy from a legitimately bought book, and accepting one from someone who's giving them out to all and sundry, regardless of whether or not they've bought the book?

Seems like a very different situation to me!

I agree. In the first case it really is format shifting for your own use. Whereas in the second it is obtaining what is clearly an illegal copy.

Ilkyway
03-08-2010, 12:44 PM
Well, but if you compare one has a venyl and downloads a copy of mp3 seems a very different case for me. It maybe because I am expereanced in making anything that has a sound and that I owe into mp3. But I have no clue how to turn a book that I own in an ebook. As far as I understand the process of making an ebook there is much more work to do. And the original might get hurt in the process, or am I wrong here?

And I agree with HarryT regarding the matter of the origin. With copyright that seems to be all that matters. If you produce something of value this should be respected. Because that is not naturaly the case with all people there is the low considering the copyright. But apart from that law: Creating something worse while reading or listening to should be honored because this is much more diffecult than copying. And it should have a fair price.

But that are just my two cents and Marcy as I understood it, asked if her opinion might be seen different by some of us.

ziegl027
03-08-2010, 01:30 PM
Why not mention the site, so people can get some honest feedback...?

I'm a member of a parrot site, and there are many illegal importers of parrots, and some people think they get a good deal... But these sites are mentioned on the forum.. If you find a Sulphur Crested Cockatoo for sale in America, you can be sure it's been illegally imported.

:offtopic:

But, Sulphur Cresteds are fairly common in American aviculture. Their parents or grandparents *may* have been illegally imported, but many if not most were legally aquired (note there is a difference between "legally" and "humanely" or "environmentally wisely") before the various exportation and trade restrictions took effect. Australia exported its wildlife for some decades before it shut the door, and the US had process for legal quarantine and import. Wild caught birds can no longer be traded, but captive-bred ones can.

USDA is actually pretty darn tight at enforcing bird importation laws, particularly with the whole Avian Influenza thing. There are some other avian diseases that can be transmitted to poultry, so enforcement is a higher financial priority with birds than it is for, say, lizards. The vast majority of Sulphur Cresteds and other exotic birds on the market here really are legal captive-breds.

Interestingly, some species like Rose Breasted/Galah 'toos are pretty rare here, because for whatever reason there weren't many of them imported before the crackdown (despite the teeming thousands that apparently plague farmers in parts of Australia), therefore there aren't many breeding pairs to generate chicks to put on the market. Moluccans, which are highly endangered in the wild, are much more common and are relatively inexpensive. Heck, you can get 'em free from rescue groups once their previous owner discovers they don't like living with a three year old child that carries an air horn and a pair of pliers with them at all times.

luqmaninbmore
03-08-2010, 02:04 PM
The end result may be the same, but for me, yes, the origin of the material does matter.

It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.

Do you subscribe to a deontological ethical system, Harry?

Anyway, the situation you outline above is different because the consequences are different; in your case taxes remain unpaid and the public is deprived of a benefit which it is owed.

In my case, I do not owe the author anything for making an additional personal copy of a book I have legally obtained. Whether I myself make the copy or have a volunteer (say my wife or my brother or, in this case, a stranger) do it is irrelevant from an ethical view point. Why is the case different if this second party makes the copy from their own legally obtained book? Is there some mystical property present in my own personal book that is transmissible via my own labor to the copy, thereby conferring legitimacy?
I am not going to buy an ebook version of a work that I have already purchased in paper format. A decision to download a scan made by someone else as opposed to making one with my own scanner does not result in differing consequences for any of the parties involved. From a consequentialist (or utilitarian) conception of ethics, the action is ethically neutral.

Luqman

Marcy
03-08-2010, 02:34 PM
Do you subscribe to a deontological ethical system, Harry?

Anyway, the situation you outline above is different because the consequences are different; in your case taxes remain unpaid and the public is deprived of a benefit which it is owed.

In my case, I do not owe the author anything for making an additional personal copy of a book I have legally obtained. Whether I myself make the copy or have a volunteer (say my wife or my brother or, in this case, a stranger) do it is irrelevant from an ethical view point. Why is the case different if this second party makes the copy from their own legally obtained book? Is there some mystical property present in my own personal book that is transmissible via my own labor to the copy, thereby conferring legitimacy?
I am not going to buy an ebook version of a work that I have already purchased in paper format. A decision to download a scan made by someone else as opposed to making one with my own scanner does not result in differing consequences for any of the parties involved. From a consequentialist (or utilitarian) conception of ethics, the action is ethically neutral.

Luqman

I will happily buy an ebook version of a pbook I already own. I then donate the pbook, if it isn't in too horrible a shape to the library. I wanted to buy these books as ebooks, they just aren't available. I'm having the same issue with a couple of other favorite books -- they are only available on the darknet. I haven't succumbed in their cases yet, but it gets more tempting every day.

I note that Baen is slowly re-releasing a Heinlein. If The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is released by Baen, I'd buy it in a flash, just because I'd like to support them. That would be the only reason I purchased it at any expensive price now, however. Robert Heinlein died 22 years ago, his wife died 7 years ago and they had no children. By repurchasing a book that I have already bought 4 times in pbook (to replace copies that were falling apart) I don't see exactly who I'm supporting.

I agree that Auel is more a grey area, since she is still living. However, I did purchase each of her books as pbooks. If scanning those pbooks into a file myself is okay, I don't see how downloading them off the darknet is any different. It just saves me the time and effort. It is not similar to the whiskey analogy, since I would have bought the legit ebook if it was available.

-Marcy

Ilkyway
03-08-2010, 03:24 PM
Dear Marcy, it sounds that you put a lot of thoughts into the authors situation and when I get it right, than you just download what you did purchase in any way beforehand. Many people tent to get leger when starting to use a pirates service: the first book I had in paper, but this one I`ll get es soon as... and so it starts. Anyway, I get the impression, that this is not the case with you so I think you don't have to re-read what I wrote above.
It was much more written for such persons who tent to talk themselve into "there is nothing wrong with this, my brothers friend has bought the book, he lent it once to me, so I could have scaned it than..."
For this kind of attitude I wrote what I did, because copyright is not a word the government inventet to make our lives harder, it is something to help the creative people, who make life much more worth living to all of us, get there money they earned.
God night, Ilkyway

Elfwreck
03-08-2010, 04:41 PM
Well, but if you compare one has a venyl and downloads a copy of mp3 seems a very different case for me. It maybe because I am expereanced in making anything that has a sound and that I owe into mp3. But I have no clue how to turn a book that I own in an ebook. As far as I understand the process of making an ebook there is much more work to do. And the original might get hurt in the process, or am I wrong here?

It's not difficult, but it does require hardware that's not standard for computers--you need a scanner. Sometimes, depending on the original, you need to cut the spine off it so you can scan it; that destroys the original as a book.

Ripped MP3s are common because computers come with a CD player, and there's plenty of free software for making MP3s from audio CDs. If computers came with a scanner & free OCR software, ripping books would be common.

They don't, and aren't going to, although a lot of printers now have copy/scan abilities, and free scan-to-PDF software. But as hardware gets cheaper, both digital camera and page-scanner ebooks are going to be more common.

It's *NEVER* going to be harder to copy things than it is right now. It will never be more difficult to create & share digital files, nor more difficult to remove anti-copy protections. A hundred years ago, if you wanted a copy of an out-of-print book, you had to sit down with a typewriter. Fifty years ago, you could hold it down to a xerox machine. Now, you can take pictures of the pages with a $20 camera, and convert it to a PDF with free software.

Right now, this is considered complicated and troublesome. It will get easier (in part, because legitimate businesses need to do things very much like this, and they will find ways to make it easier), and digital copies of printed material will be made & shared much like MP3s are now.

Publishers & authors who don't want their materials copied are going to be upset. If they want to *continue making money* at their craft, they'll have to figure out how to get people to buy what they could get for free, not fret over who's not paying for it.

It's not impossible. It's not even difficult. ITunes is raking in money for songs that are widely available on torrents. And bottled water is a billion-dollar industry, despite almost everyone having access to water just as good from their local taps. Many people are willing to pay for what they could get for free; the publishing industry needs to find them & market to them, not spend millions trying to prevent the digital equivalent of used ebook stores and private lending libraries.

Shaggy
03-08-2010, 05:34 PM
I agree. In the first case it really is format shifting for your own use. Whereas in the second it is obtaining what is clearly an illegal copy.

There's no such thing as a specific copy being illegal, itself. The distribution was undoubtedly illegal, but that's on the uploader. As for the actual file, there's really no difference between scanning it yourself or downloading it from somebody else. It's the same file, in the end.

Shaggy
03-08-2010, 05:49 PM
If scanning those pbooks into a file myself is okay, I don't see how downloading them off the darknet is any different. It just saves me the time and effort.


A second thing to consider... provided that you're not re-distributing these files yourself, the copyright holder is never going to know or care.

kennyc
03-08-2010, 06:03 PM
There's no such thing as a specific copy being illegal, itself. The distribution was undoubtedly illegal, but that's on the uploader. As for the actual file, there's really no difference between scanning it yourself or downloading it from somebody else. It's the same file, in the end.

Of course there is a difference. It depends on the source. The file may or may not be identical, but it is certainly illegal if it is not obtained via legal means.

Over
03-09-2010, 04:50 AM
There's no such thing as a specific copy being illegal, itself. The distribution was undoubtedly illegal, but that's on the uploader. As for the actual file, there's really no difference between scanning it yourself or downloading it from somebody else. It's the same file, in the end.

You can not exclude other repercussions of downloading an illegal file. By downloading it, you're encouraging file sharing. And if for you it's okay because you have the original, there will be other people who will download for illegal reasons.

Even if the file sharer is not making any profit, he is getting something for that: either personal gratification for sharing something or even site ad revenue or something.

In any case, it's illegal and unethical to download a pirated ebook. Even if for the right reasons. You can just acept that what you're doing is wrong but live fine with it.

HansTWN
03-09-2010, 05:01 AM
I fully agree, why support those who obviously break the law (the people uploading the file)? Even if this is not financial support, downloading their stuff is still helping them and encouraging them.

Ilkyway
03-09-2010, 05:28 AM
I have red, that the german law says: the souce has to be legal to make the copy legal. If one downloads from the internet not knowing if the source is legal or not, than this download is not legal and can be punished. And I have to say, that in this case the law and my personal sense of wright and wrong agree.
But I think Elfwreck is wright two: There has to be found a new way in dealing with digital files. Since sharing is so easy and has many advanteges, one beeing, that education is cheaper and easeyer to gain by poor people, there has to be found a way so that nobody is the looser.

And Since nearly everybody I know has a copy of one file or another from which the sorce might be illigeal, a way has to be found, to sort that out. If all the people who have but one such a file should go to jail, the streets would be empty. So law and realety have to fit together.
And I think, that moral is not oldfashined. You have karma in this forum. That is mend to show nice behavier. Here is an anty piracy policy. We are discussing the wright and wrong of piracy and wether or not there is a grey-sone (can I say that in english?).
All this seems to be part of the wright way. Unthoughtfull taking what ever is offered, just because it is possible and might not be punished isn`t.
Karma (the real one) means: all that you think and do has consequences.
Ilkyway

d.culloch
03-09-2010, 09:44 AM
I think I know the site they are talking about. Is that the site where the ebooks are in Ms word format?

kennyc
03-09-2010, 10:08 AM
Mostly pdfs from what I've seen.

AlfonsVH
03-09-2010, 01:13 PM
I thought they were talking about the site with mostly text & RTF files. :o

Shaggy
03-09-2010, 01:30 PM
You can not exclude other repercussions of downloading an illegal file. By downloading it, you're encouraging file sharing. And if for you it's okay because you have the original, there will be other people who will download for illegal reasons.

I'm sure there will be lots of other people who download without having the original, that has nothing to do with me though.

Shaggy
03-09-2010, 01:58 PM
If one downloads from the internet not knowing if the source is legal or not, than this download is not legal and can be punished.

That makes just about everyone using the internet guilty.

luqmaninbmore
03-09-2010, 02:04 PM
You can not exclude other repercussions of downloading an illegal file. By downloading it, you're encouraging file sharing. And if for you it's okay because you have the original, there will be other people who will download for illegal reasons.

Even if the file sharer is not making any profit, he is getting something for that: either personal gratification for sharing something or even site ad revenue or something.

In any case, it's illegal and unethical to download a pirated ebook. Even if for the right reasons. You can just acept that what you're doing is wrong but live fine with it.



How is downloading a book encouraging file sharing?

You have not demonstrated that it is unethical. You are simply claiming that it is. Where is your evidence, your argumentation? Or is your claim that you "know" it's unethical "in your heart?" I.e., is your argument "It feels wrong for me to download a book from a pirate site, therefore it is wrong to download a book from a pirate site?"

Luqman

Shaggy
03-09-2010, 02:16 PM
Of course there is a difference. It depends on the source. The file may or may not be identical, but it is certainly illegal if it is not obtained via legal means.

The act of distributing it is illegal, the file itself is not.

Ilkyway
03-09-2010, 03:06 PM
How is downloading a book encouraging file sharing?

You have not demonstrated that it is unethical. You are simply claiming that it is. Where is your evidence, your argumentation? Or is your claim that you "know" it's unethical "in your heart?" I.e., is your argument "It feels wrong for me to download a book from a pirate site, therefore it is wrong to download a book from a pirate site?"

Luqman

I can totally follow Overs argumentation, but I can not find one argument in your statement. What are you saying? It is ethical to download files when you KNOW the source is not legal? It is ethical to let this person who does this pirat-site think, that he is doing a good job? It is ethical to violate the rights of authors just because he has a scanner and knows how to do it?
It would be ethical, if he would try to find a way to make cultural goods available to everybody for a reasonable price. It would be ethical if he wrote great books himselve and gave them away for free. But he is trying to make money with the work of other people.
And while I can understand Marcy, I can't understand how other people here are trying to make it sound like the right thing to do.

Ilkyway

kennyc
03-09-2010, 03:21 PM
The act of distributing it is illegal, the file itself is not.


Yes it is, it's an illegal (an unauthorized) copy.

Shaggy
03-09-2010, 03:45 PM
Yes it is, it's an illegal (an unauthorized) copy.

Again, unauthorized copying is illegal, unauthorized distribution is illegal, those are acts. The file itself has nothing to do with the act. The file sitting in a directory on your PC is neither legal or illegal according to copyright. Copyright law does not address the file, only the act of what you do with it.

kennyc
03-09-2010, 03:49 PM
Again, unauthorized copying is illegal, unauthorized distribution is illegal, those are acts. The file itself has nothing to do with the act. The file sitting in a directory on your PC is neither legal or illegal according to copyright. Copyright law does not address the file, only the act of what you do with it.

There ya go again....confusing reality with law...

:smack:

Shaggy
03-09-2010, 03:50 PM
I can totally follow Overs argumentation, but I can not find one argument in your statement. What are you saying? It is ethical to download files when you KNOW the source is not legal? It is ethical to let this person who does this pirat-site think, that he is doing a good job? It is ethical to violate the rights of authors just because he has a scanner and knows how to do it?
It would be ethical, if he would try to find a way to make cultural goods available to everybody for a reasonable price. It would be ethical if he wrote great books himselve and gave them away for free. But he is trying to make money with the work of other people.
And while I can understand Marcy, I can't understand how other people here are trying to make it sound like the right thing to do.


I don't think anybody has said that what the uploader is doing is ethical.

What some of us are saying is that whether or not the uploader is ethical and whether or not the downloader is ethical are separate issues. Others don't believe there can be a separation, that's the discussion.

Discussions about ethics are mostly pointless anyway. Everybody has their own opinion, and most are unlikely to change it. There is no correct/incorrect answer.

Krystian Galaj
03-09-2010, 05:14 PM
Yes it is, it's an illegal (an unauthorized) copy.

It sound similar to that idea about some chunks of meat having souls, and other chunks not having them.

kennyc
03-09-2010, 05:19 PM
It sound similar to that idea about some chunks of meat having souls, and other chunks not having them.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything. ;)

Shaggy
03-09-2010, 06:55 PM
There ya go again....confusing reality with law...


I think what you're trying to do is equate the file with "stolen property". Is that your reasoning?

Logseman
03-10-2010, 03:40 AM
If one downloads from the internet not knowing if the source is legal or not, than this download is not legal and can be punished.
I'm not very sharp in Law Studies, but wasn't there a Latin principle stating "in dubio pro reo"?

Solicitous
03-10-2010, 04:12 AM
I'm not very sharp in Law Studies, but wasn't there a Latin principle stating "in dubio pro reo"?

You mean along the lines of "if the receiver was unaware that the goods received were stolen then they can not be held liable"? This is where people get confused. Up until recently most people looked upon piracy of digital media being the same as stealing physical goods. Well they are in fact completely different.

With the act of stealing a physical good, there will be someone who has lost something of value. So if you had a chair and I came in one night and took your chair you have lost something of value and it will cost you money to replace it.

With digital media it is different. If you publish an electronic book and I download a copy from a torrent site, I have not stolen goods from you, you do not need to spend money to replace it. What I have done is breach copyright legislation.

Logseman
03-10-2010, 04:23 AM
I meant more in the way: if the user downloads a book whose source is not known to be legal or illegal, and he or she gets sued for downloading it, it's up to the prosecutor to prove that the user has downloaded from an illegal site. Here it's being stated that, in case of doubt, you're guilty, without needing to prove that you're effectively downloading from an illegal source.

As for the copyright thing, I know something of it as a C4SS (http://c4ss.org) contributor, though of course those are my personal views and they don't belong in this topic.

Format C:
03-10-2010, 05:55 AM
The end result may be the same, but for me, yes, the origin of the material does matter.

It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.

Wrong analogy.
It's more like you pay taxes, you pay the distiller and all and you've got your bottle.
After that, they say it's been smudged and they make pay another time taxes, fees and all that for the same bottle.
And you've got to repay them entirely every time you smell whiskey somewhere.

;)

Format C:
03-10-2010, 06:01 AM
I agree. In the first case it really is format shifting for your own use. Whereas in the second it is obtaining what is clearly an illegal copy.

I agree, too.
And I can see the ethycal difference between making and downloading a copy of a book.

But I believe the flaw is in "illegal" and "copy" rather in "obtaining".
I believe that once you buy the right to access the content of the book (whether buying a paper copy, or just buing a sort of license), you've got right to own as many copies and format you like (provided you pay the copy-making process, of course, whether with money or with labour).

Sometimes it's the Law who's wrong.

;)

mr ploppy
03-10-2010, 06:39 AM
It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.

Actually, that would be more like buying an ebook from an America only ebook store when you are not in America. The original Whiskey producer would have been paid, the shopkeeper in France would have been paid, and French taxes would have bee paid.

Ilkyway
03-10-2010, 07:15 AM
about the germen copyright-low: it as been altered in the past: beforehand one could try and tell he did not know the source was illegal and he might have had a chance and got away with it. But now the law reasons, the user has responsebilaty as well. If an offer seems to be quastionable, than he has to make shure, what he is downloading is legal.
Don't you think that is fair? All over the world bright people are telling the lie: but I did not know that... Well, if you are using the internet and downloading content you should inform yourself.
And about ethical or not: there are not several different ways of right. If what you do does harm to someone that is wrong. The only question is, how much effort you put into finding out if your doing is harming someone. With the internet the "others" are so convienient far away and unknown to you. So hurting them is easy to overlook. And violations of copyright does hurt people. Otherwise there won't be DRM and this discussion.
But as it is said above: other solutions have to be found. Putting nearly everybody with a computer with one leg into jail is not a god solution. Shrugging the shoulders and thinking, no one will find out about my files on my computer isn't either.

But I woun't convince anybody here, there you are right. Persons who think along the same line like myselve will agree and the others will shake there heads.
But don't stop thinking about it, maybe someone finds a way out of this problem.

Ilkyway, who has said enough to this topic and wishes everyone a good time discussing it further.

frank.w
03-10-2010, 08:00 AM
Interesting commentary on the subject from the Guardian:

Why aren't ebooks taking off? Not enough pirates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/feb/09/kindle-ipod-books-piracy

Frank

kennyc
03-10-2010, 08:06 AM
I'm not sure exactly what that article is saying Frank, but I think the issues are different for book publishing than for music primarily because in the music revolution the industry moved to digital well before the pirate controversy began. That is not the case with the publishing industry and therein lies the difference IMO.

DawnFalcon
03-10-2010, 08:17 AM
With the act of stealing a physical good, there will be someone who has lost something of value.

The term is "deprivation", yes.

It's an intrinsic part of most country's theft laws - to the degree in the UK there's a different crime for temporarily stealing a car (TWOC, Taken Without Consent).

Shaggy
03-10-2010, 10:17 AM
But now the law reasons, the user has responsebilaty as well. If an offer seems to be quastionable, than he has to make shure, what he is downloading is legal.
Don't you think that is fair?

So every time you click on a link on the internet you have to research the copyright status first? How are you even supposed to find out what the copyright status is? Do you have a publicly available database that shows every host that has been authorized by every copyright holder? How do you even know if something falls under copyright (not to mention, how do you know this before you even see the content)?

Logseman
03-10-2010, 10:22 AM
Interesting commentary on the subject from the Guardian:

Why aren't ebooks taking off? Not enough pirates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/feb/09/kindle-ipod-books-piracy

Frank

I read in a paper magazine, a long time ago, that the Playstation One (one of the most easily and widespread pirated hardware ever) sold, in total, more devices than games. Go figure :rolleyes:

Shaggy
03-10-2010, 10:53 AM
I read in a paper magazine, a long time ago, that the Playstation One (one of the most easily and widespread pirated hardware ever) sold, in total, more devices than games. Go figure :rolleyes:

There are a lot of places that buy PS3s because they're relatively cheap/powerful computers, not because they want to play games on them. Some people create inexpensive server clusters out of them. Not sure if the same was true of the older consoles.

Logseman
03-10-2010, 11:06 AM
There are a lot of places that buy PS3s because they're relatively cheap/powerful computers, not because they want to play games on them. Some people create inexpensive server clusters out of them. Not sure if the same was true of the older consoles.

I don't think so. If I recall correctly, the PS1 processor was pretty worse than the PC ones of the time, which were strongly rising. By the time the PS2 was announced, the usual computer was around a Pentium II, much stronger than a PS1. It's not surprising that emulating it is fairly easy as well, unlike the Sega Saturn or Dreamcast *sigh* :(

Ilkyway
03-10-2010, 11:09 AM
@ Shaggy: sorry, I was under the impression, that we are talking about downloading ebooks or mp3s. My posts where regarding to that. Not to clicking on a link in the internet. Did I tap on your toe? If so I am really sorry.

Shaggy
03-10-2010, 11:24 AM
@ Shaggy: sorry, I was under the impression, that we are talking about downloading ebooks or mp3s. My posts where regarding to that. Not to clicking on a link in the internet.

Clicking on a link on the internet is the same thing as downloading an eBook/MP3/etc. Anytime you click on a link you're potentially downloading copyrighted material.

Did I tap on your toe? If so I am really sorry.

I'm not reacting to what you said, I'm reacting to what the German law says. Didn't mean to give the impression that I was arguing with you. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that that's what their law says, but such a law is pretty ridiculous and makes just about everyone guilty.

Ilkyway
03-10-2010, 12:06 PM
You are right, this law is an overkill right now. But some of the file-sharerers (can I say that?) overdid it a lot. If both sides are done with overreacting a solution will be found, I am quite sure about that.
Looking forward to other discusions, but this one seems to have covered nearly everything by now?!
Have a nice day, Ilkyway

Shaggy
03-10-2010, 12:14 PM
If both sides are done with overreacting a solution will be found

I agree, but I also doubt that is ever going to happen.

Iphinome
03-10-2010, 07:37 PM
Clicking on a link on the internet is the same thing as downloading an eBook/MP3/etc. Anytime you click on a link you're potentially downloading copyrighted material.


There really isn't anything potential about it since things are copyrighted on creation including the little bit of information Project Gutenberg includes in their text every link you click will contain copyrighted materials. This post is copyrighted material, I don't even need to send anything to the library of congress.

SpiderMatt
03-11-2010, 01:07 AM
I'm not sure exactly what that article is saying Frank, but I think the issues are different for book publishing than for music primarily because in the music revolution the industry moved to digital well before the pirate controversy began. That is not the case with the publishing industry and therein lies the difference IMO.

I think digital literature will have to be approached differently than digital music for sure but what do you mean the music "industry moved to digital well before the pirate controversy began"? Maybe in as much as CDs were digital but in terms of selling digital music, there was no kind of healthy online marketplace for music until after piracy became widespread. While piracy of copyrighted content is widespread in general now, it's not as big of an issue for publishing companies yet, probably due in part to the labor involved in scanning and OCRing books. I have no doubt that this will change as ebooks become more predominant, which will likely happen as more people catch on to the ease of cracking DRM. In terms of selling digital content online, I don't know that there was a time when piracy wasn't a real threat.

Nakor
03-11-2010, 01:18 AM
One of the major factors was also the huge number of people looking for their music online. Whether or not piracy is a concern with eBooks, the fact is the pbook readers outnumber those reading digitally by well over ten to one. Compare to the music industry where everyone and their dog was getting their music online, even the computer illiterate.

TGS
03-11-2010, 06:17 AM
One of the interesting things about this whole thread, and indeed the whole debate, is how the word "pirate" has got into the language in this context. The other contemporary use of the word is of course in the context of those armed gangs who ply the Gulf of Aden and take over cargo ships and other vessels by armed force, and then demand a ransom. This is much closer to the original usage.

Do we really think that unauthorized downloading and distribution of digital material is anything like commandeering a ship by the use of force? If we don't why do we insist on using the same word for the activity? It makes me wonder what rhetorical purpose it serves, and whose interest that rhetorical purpose promotes. It is of course a metaphor, but we all seem to be buying into this metaphor, and the metaphors we choose matter.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 06:23 AM
SpiderMatt I just mean the industry as a whole moved from vinyl to CD before any of the music piracy stuff started.

(sure there was cassette copying etc, but not like what was to come)

kennyc
03-11-2010, 06:24 AM
One of the major factors was also the huge number of people looking for their music online. Whether or not piracy is a concern with eBooks, the fact is the pbook readers outnumber those reading digitally by well over ten to one. Compare to the music industry where everyone and their dog was getting their music online, even the computer illiterate.

Exactly and that's what I mean by the industry moved to digital -- the product was available primarily as digital media. That has not happened with books yet and may never happen.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 06:26 AM
One of the interesting things about this whole thread, and indeed the whole debate, is how the word "pirate" has got into the language in this context. The other contemporary use of the word is of course in the context of those armed gangs who ply the Gulf of Aden and take over cargo ships and other vessels by armed force, and then demand a ransom. This is much closer to the original usage.

Do we really think that unauthorized downloading and distribution of digital material is anything like commandeering a ship by the use of force? If we don't why do we insist on using the same word for the activity? It makes me wonder what rhetorical purpose it serves, and whose interest that rhetorical purpose promotes. It is of course a metaphor, but we all seem to be buying into this metaphor, and the metaphors we choose matter.

That's why we need to call it what it is: THEFT!

:D

Ben Thornton
03-11-2010, 06:35 AM
Exactly and that's what I mean by the industry moved to digital -- the product was available primarily as digital media. That has not happened with books yet and may never happen.I suppose it's possible that books won't move to be available "primarily as digital media", but do you really think it at all likely that this won't happen? Assuming that civilisation doesn't end etc., I'd put very high odds on this happening within, say, 50 years.

HansTWN
03-11-2010, 06:36 AM
One of the interesting things about this whole thread, and indeed the whole debate, is how the word "pirate" has got into the language in this context. The other contemporary use of the word is of course in the context of those armed gangs who ply the Gulf of Aden and take over cargo ships and other vessels by armed force, and then demand a ransom. This is much closer to the original usage.

Do we really think that unauthorized downloading and distribution of digital material is anything like commandeering a ship by the use of force? If we don't why do we insist on using the same word for the activity? It makes me wonder what rhetorical purpose it serves, and whose interest that rhetorical purpose promotes. It is of course a metaphor, but we all seem to be buying into this metaphor, and the metaphors we choose matter.

To me any term that clearly indicates that such behavior is clearly wrong and that there should be absolutely no excuses is fine. Theft does seem to fit the bill most closely. Even though a right is being stolen, not a physical item.

So I am open to new suggestions, just no whitewashes.

HansTWN
03-11-2010, 06:40 AM
I suppose it's possible that books won't move to be available "primarily as digital media", but do you really think it at all likely that this won't happen? Assuming that civilisation doesn't end etc., I'd put very high odds on this happening within, say, 50 years.

50 years? I think it will happen much, much faster. In 10-15 years, I would say, the situation will be reversed. 90% digital, 10% print.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 06:44 AM
I suppose it's possible that books won't move to be available "primarily as digital media", but do you really think it at all likely that this won't happen? Assuming that civilisation doesn't end etc., I'd put very high odds on this happening within, say, 50 years.


I think there will always be paper books in one form or another. We may move to a primarily digital distribution of book/text but I think it's happening way slower than than the digital music shift.

Iphinome
03-11-2010, 06:49 AM
That's why we need to call it what it is: THEFT!

:D

What color is the sky in your world?

TGS
03-11-2010, 07:04 AM
That's why we need to call it what it is: THEFT!

:D

In many ways I agree with you - if theft is what it is, then that's what it should be called. But I guess many would disagree that it is theft.

Format C:
03-11-2010, 07:49 AM
That's why we need to call it what it is: THEFT!

:D

Yes.

I stole "Under the Dome", and mr. King doesn't even know it.
When they stole my car, I was well aware of the fact just an hour later, and I was at the PD shortly after [and I got my car back in a month...].
But it's been 6 months from my "theft", and nor S.King, nor his publisher know nothing about it!

How can they been so dumb?
They're the dumbest people I've ever seen! They've been deprieved of a valuable asset, and they even don't know it!
They deserve to be parted from their books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:




[Disclaimer: I'm just making a point, here. I don't really believe Stephen King is a dumb person; actually, I believe he's one of the best storytellers in the USA. And I paid way more than a fair amount to read Under the Dome, which is a very good novel. I enjoyed it, and I recommend it to every thriller fan around]

HansTWN
03-11-2010, 08:05 AM
Yes.

I stole "Under the Dome", and mr. King doesn't even know it.
When they stole my car, I was well aware of the fact just an hour later, and I was at the PD shortly after [and I got my car back in a month...].
But it's been 6 months from my "theft", and nor S.King, nor his publisher know nothing about it!

How can they been so dumb?
They're the dumbest people I've ever seen! They've been deprieved of a valuable asset, and they even don't know it!
They deserve to be parted from their books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:




[Disclaimer: I'm just making a point, here. I don't really believe Stephen King is a dumb person; actually, I believe he's one of the best storytellers in the USA. And I paid way more than a fair amount to read Under the Dome, which is a very good novel. I enjoyed it, and I recommend it to every thriller fan around]

Hey, I took your car for a spin and returned it before you noticed! And I took that idea you had at work and said it was mine. Since I created a second copy of your idea and you still have that original idea in your head, so no harm done! :smack:

I have another one for you: I took that file showing the details of that great invention of yours and made a copy. No problem, you still have your copy -- no theft, right?

Format C:
03-11-2010, 08:11 AM
Hey, I took your car for a spin and returned it before you noticed! And I took that idea you had at work and said it was mine. Since I created a second copy of your idea and you still have that original idea in your head, so no harm done! :smack:

I never said I wrote "Under the Dome".

But, if I did, would you rather call it "theft" or "plagiarism"?

And again, I'm sorry for my bad English. I swear I didn't know that "it's a felony different from theft" actually means "no harm is done". Now I know it, thank you.

;)

Even for your car trip there are other names for what you did. In my country it sounds like "unauthorized temporary possession", which is not theft, and is given, when proved, different penalties...

Iphinome
03-11-2010, 08:12 AM
Hey, I took your car for a spin and returned it before you noticed! And I took that idea you had at work and said it was mine. Well, you still have that idea in your head, so no harm done! :smack:

The first is illegal of course but maybe you should take the time to consider why. Notice or not someone would be deprived of the use of their car, there would be increased wear and tear and hey did you bother to refill the gas tank? Now on the other hand if you built an exact copy of the car and drove off who is harmed? But since you like to mislabel things I propose we say you raped the car you entered and used it without consent so you'd be a rapist.

The second I'm not aware of being unlawful it just makes you... I could use some rude words but why bother, you'd be just like most other people working in offices these days.

Format C:
03-11-2010, 08:36 AM
I have another one for you: I took that file showing the details of that great invention of yours and made a copy. No problem, you still have your copy -- no theft, right?

No theft, right.
It can be a lot of other things, from privacy violation, to plagiarism, to patent infringement to a lot of other things, but not theft (unless you stole a CD-ROM of mine: that's theft!).

A killer steals life, but he commits murder, not theft.
A raper steals pleasure and virginity, but he commits rape and assault, not theft.
A pedophile steals innocence, but he does not commit theft.
A goon steals beauty, but he's no thief.
A kindapper steals people, will he be tried for theft?

No way.
To call those acts "theft" is just plain wrong.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 08:36 AM
The first is illegal of course but maybe you should take the time to consider why. Notice or not someone would be deprived of the use of their car, there would be increased wear and tear and hey did you bother to refill the gas tank? Now on the other hand if you built an exact copy of the car and drove off who is harmed? But since you like to mislabel things I propose we say you raped the car you entered and used it without consent so you'd be a rapist.

The second I'm not aware of being unlawful it just makes you... I could use some rude words but why bother, you'd be just like most other people working in offices these days.

Better to call it like it is. The law is an imperfect implementation of what is right and wrong. As things change it becomes less perfect.

P.S. I guess if you can have sex with a car you might call it rape. :rofl:

HansTWN
03-11-2010, 08:45 AM
I never said I wrote "Under the Dome".

But, if I did, would you rather call it "theft" or "plagiarism"?

And again, I'm sorry for my bad English. I swear I didn't know that "it's a felony different from theft" actually means "no harm is done". Now I know it, thank you.

;)

Even for your car trip there are other names for what you did. In my country it sounds like "unauthorized temporary possession", which is not theft, and is given, when proved, different penalties...

Now you are introducing a very different word into the discussion "a felony different from theft". Yes, I could agree with that. I said theft comes close, I didn't say it covers it exactly. It is a different type of theft, a theft were someone did not steal a physical object, but the exclusive (I am disregarding fair use exceptions for the moment) right to create copies of a file. But since you agree that it should be a felony, why putting all this effort into finding a special word for it?

Ben Thornton
03-11-2010, 09:01 AM
It seems to me that it is a mistake to label something as a felony (which means a serious crime) if it would make the majority into criminals. Laws should be there to serve society, not to criminalise everyone.

In my view, some unauthorised copying is wrong (and some isn't) - but none of it seems like theft to me at all. On balance, I think that the law is biased too much in the favour of large corporations - as in so many areas. I would suggest that the law needs relaxing (in most countries), not tightening up to pick on individuals who copy a few files. How do their crimes compare with, say, the financial crimes perpetrated by corporations over the last decade which have resulted in the current recession, and for which they are, by and large, escaping not only unpunished, but in many cases massively rewarded?

Pablo
03-11-2010, 09:04 AM
We should start a new thread and ask mods to make it sticky: Is Piracy theft?
So everybody can say why (s)he thinks Piracy is (isn't) theft, thus preventing this topic to pop up in every thread.

HansTWN
03-11-2010, 09:11 AM
It seems to me that it is a mistake to label something as a felony (which means a serious crime) if it would make the majority into criminals. Laws should be there to serve society, not to criminalise everyone.

In my view, some unauthorised copying is wrong (and some isn't) - but none of it seems like theft to me at all. On balance, I think that the law is biased too much in the favour of large corporations - as in so many areas. I would suggest that the law needs relaxing (in most countries), not tightening up to pick on individuals who copy a few files. How do their crimes compare with, say, the financial crimes perpetrated by corporations over the last decade which have resulted in the current recession, and for which they are, by and large, escaping not only unpunished, but in many cases massively rewarded?

That is a matter for a completely different discussion. But I don't think somebody else's wrongdoing should be an excuse to justify one's own.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 09:47 AM
That is a matter for a completely different discussion. But I don't think somebody else's wrongdoing should be an excuse to justify one's own.

The Lemming Factor.

TGS
03-11-2010, 10:02 AM
We should start a new thread and ask mods to make it sticky: Is Piracy theft?
So everybody can say why (s)he thinks Piracy is (isn't) theft, thus preventing this topic to pop up in every thread.

So long as we don't prejudge the issue by calling it "piracy"!

DawnFalcon
03-11-2010, 10:31 AM
Not sure if the same was true of the older consoles.

Oh yes. PS1's, PS2's and Gamecubes have all been used (Maybe others, but I don't remember reading about them).

DawnFalcon
03-11-2010, 10:41 AM
Hey, I took your car for a spin and returned it before you noticed!

TWOC (a criminal offence, for a tangible object, not Theft.

And I took that idea you had at work and said it was mine.

Misappropriation of a trade secret (a civil offence, for an intangible), not Theft.

I have another one for you: I took that file showing the details of that great invention of yours and made a copy. No problem, you still have your copy -- no theft, right?

Patent Fraud (a civil offence, for an intangible), not Theft.

See, there's several patterns here....now, seems books are intangible...

Pablo
03-11-2010, 11:03 AM
So long as we don't prejudge the issue by calling it "piracy"!

Ok, let's call it "Is sharing copyrighted material theft?".

Ben Thornton
03-11-2010, 11:36 AM
That is a matter for a completely different discussion. But I don't think somebody else's wrongdoing should be an excuse to justify one's own.I'm not trying to justify anything. As I said, I think that some copyright infringement is wrong - the clearest case for me being: copying a book by a living author that's available digitally, rather than buying it, when you don't have a copy in another format.

What I was reacting against was the label "felony" being banded about in a discussion about copyright infringement, which seems to me to be disproportionate - hence my comparison with some other things that are worth getting upset about.

Ben Thornton
03-11-2010, 11:37 AM
Ok, let's call it "Is sharing copyrighted material theft?".Let's lynch the librarians!

HarryT
03-11-2010, 11:39 AM
It seems to me that it is a mistake to label something as a felony (which means a serious crime) if it would make the majority into criminals. Laws should be there to serve society, not to criminalise everyone.


Saying that something shouldn't be regarded as a crime, merely because lots of people do it, seems like a rather poor excuse. I suspect, for example, that the overwhelming majority of people who hold a UK driving licence get a speeding ticket at some point during their driving career; should we de-criminalise speeding simply because a lot of people do it?

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 12:38 PM
Do we really think that unauthorized downloading and distribution of digital material is anything like commandeering a ship by the use of force? If we don't why do we insist on using the same word for the activity? It makes me wonder what rhetorical purpose it serves, and whose interest that rhetorical purpose promotes. It is of course a metaphor, but we all seem to be buying into this metaphor, and the metaphors we choose matter.

I'll let you take a guess as to whose interests such terminology serves. It shouldn't be hard to figure out though. The exact same people that want you to think "copyright infringement" is "theft".

Such intentional mis-use of terminology is on purpose. Associating copyright infringement with "piracy" and "theft" serves their goals. It's unfortunate that many people fall for the rhetoric.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 12:40 PM
To me any term that clearly indicates that such behavior is clearly wrong

The problem is that some of the terms being intentionally thrown around by certain interests lead people to believe that some behavior is wrong... when it actually isn't. "Theft" implies a lot of things that don't actually exist in copyright law.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 12:42 PM
In many ways I agree with you - if theft is what it is, then that's what it should be called. But I guess many would disagree that it is theft.

Depends on your personal definition of "theft".

It certainly isn't according to the legal definition. Some people want you to think it is though.

HarryT
03-11-2010, 12:44 PM
The problem is that some of the terms being intentionally thrown around by certain interests lead people to believe that some behavior is wrong... when it actually isn't. "Theft" implies a lot of things that don't actually exist in copyright law.

So does "piracy", but people seem perfectly happy to use that, even though copyright infringement has absolutely nothing to do with robbery at sea, which is what piracy actually is.

We can't control what people call things. Like it or not, some people use the word "theft" for copyright infringement, just as other people use the word "piracy"; both are of course, technically incorrect, but language is a living, evolving, thing. It's futile to try to dictate to people what they should or should not call something.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 12:47 PM
Hey, I took your car for a spin and returned it before you noticed!

Except, of course, that's not what actually happens with copyright infringement so it's a bad analogy.

How about you make an identical copy of their car, and then take that copy for a spin. What crime occurred then? None.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 12:52 PM
It is a different type of theft, a theft were someone did not steal a physical object, but the exclusive (I am disregarding fair use exceptions for the moment) right to create copies of a file.

There's already a word for infringing on someone's exclusive rights. Some people believe that the word should be more sinister than it is, though. That's why they try to pick other words which aren't accurate, but will carry more of the tone that they personally believe should be associated with the act. They want to create associations with more serious behavior, that doesn't actually exist.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 12:55 PM
I'll let you take a guess as to whose interests such terminology serves. .... It's unfortunate that many people fall for the rhetoric.

What's unfortunate is that regardless of rhetoric, some people insist on doing harm and encouraging it. I mean you'd think society has lost any moral decency they might once have had.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 12:56 PM
Let's lynch the librarians!

They prefer to be called "Buccaneers".

mr ploppy
03-11-2010, 12:57 PM
Ok, let's call it "Is sharing copyrighted material theft?".

That wouldn't cover downloading something that someone else has "shared" :smash:

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 12:58 PM
Saying that something shouldn't be regarded as a crime, merely because lots of people do it, seems like a rather poor excuse.

Except, of course, that's not what he said. He said it shouldn't be a felony, not it shouldn't be a crime.

I suspect, for example, that the overwhelming majority of people who hold a UK driving licence get a speeding ticket at some point during their driving career; should we de-criminalise speeding simply because a lot of people do it?

Is speeding a felony?

HarryT
03-11-2010, 01:00 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "felony" - I don't think we use that word in Britain. If you tell me what it means, I'll tell you whether or not speeding is one!

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:00 PM
Ok, let's call it "Is sharing copyrighted material theft?".

The first thing you have to do is define "theft". Lots of people have their own personal definitions, or else try to come up with a definition specifically in order to make copyright infringement fit into it.

mr ploppy
03-11-2010, 01:02 PM
One thing that nobody seems to have mentioned yet in all this -- if that pirate site can make money from people who want to download hundreds of old/out of print ebooks to burn onto a CDR and forget about (and maybe even read 1 or 2 of them), why can't the publishers all get together do something similar? It's not as if there is going to be much of a market for those type of books at full price.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:05 PM
So does "piracy", but people seem perfectly happy to use that, even though copyright infringement has absolutely nothing to do with robbery at sea, which is what piracy actually is.

We can't control what people call things. Like it or not, some people use the word "theft" for copyright infringement, just as other people use the word "piracy"; both are of course, technically incorrect, but language is a living, evolving, thing. It's futile to try to dictate to people what they should or should not call something.

The difference I see is that "theft" is also a legal term, while "piracy" is not (at least not in a modern sense). People want to evolve the definition of theft to cover copyright infringement... but the legal definition of theft is not changing, nor are the legal proceedings/punishments, etc. When you change the definition of the common usage of "theft" it also makes people mistakenly associate that with the legal consequences of "real" theft. For many people, that is the reason they want to do so. It's an attempt to intentionally mislead people about the consequences and responsibilities of copyright infringement.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 01:06 PM
The first thing you have to do is define "theft". Lots of people have their own personal definitions, or else try to come up with a definition specifically in order to make copyright infringement fit into it.

You don't have to do anything. This is an evolving situation as I've tried to indicate, just because you don't like the term does not make it inappropriate. Just as using the term Pirate has come to have a specific meaning wrt digital media then other terms may come to have different meanings in this context. The term theft is perfectly descriptive to me, but you know that. :)

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:08 PM
I mean you'd think society has lost any moral decency they might once have had.

That includes corporations (including the content industry) as well as individuals. You can easily argue that what they're doing to increase the scope and punishments for copyright infringement are just as morally indecent as the people who are "pirating".

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:09 PM
That wouldn't cover downloading something that someone else has "shared" :smash:

Which isn't directly covered by copyright law.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 01:12 PM
That includes corporations (including the content industry) as well as individuals. You can easily argue that what they're doing to increase the scope and punishments for copyright infringement are just as morally indecent as the people who are "pirating".

Not disputing that, but it has no bearing on this discussion of piracy/theft.

Separate issue.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:14 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "felony" - I don't think we use that word in Britain. If you tell me what it means, I'll tell you whether or not speeding is one!

Basically... a felony is a law that is considered serious enough to fall under federal jurisdiction rather than just a state matter. Murder is a felony, speeding is not. Generally when you move up to the felony level the punishments increase significantly.

You don't have the same thing in the UK, that I know of.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:17 PM
Not disputing that, but it has no bearing on this discussion of piracy/theft.


If you're going to call out "pirates" as being immoral, you need to apply the same standard to both sides.

HarryT
03-11-2010, 01:18 PM
Basically... a felony is a law that is considered serious enough to fall under federal jurisdiction rather than just a state matter. Murder is a felony, speeding is not. Generally when you move up to the felony level the punishments increase significantly.

You don't have the same thing in the UK, that I know of.

We don't have that distinction, because we aren't a federal system of course. Speeding is certainly a crime; and one which you can, in exceptional circumstances, go to prison for, although the normal punishment is a 60 fine and 3 points on your driving licence. Points last for 3 years; accumulate 12 points at any one time and you get banned from driving - normally for 6 months, but driving bans can be longer, even for life.

bill_mchale
03-11-2010, 01:19 PM
Except, of course, that's not what actually happens with copyright infringement so it's a bad analogy.

How about you make an identical copy of their car, and then take that copy for a spin. What crime occurred then? None.

You want to tell the company that designed, developed and built the car that no crime occurred? :)

And lets assume for the moment that the car was an incredibly rare car whose rarity made it valuable. A copy that was identical in every respect could harm the owner by reducing the rarity of the car.

--
Bill

TGS
03-11-2010, 01:20 PM
So does "piracy", but people seem perfectly happy to use that, even though copyright infringement has absolutely nothing to do with robbery at sea, which is what piracy actually is.

We can't control what people call things. Like it or not, some people use the word "theft" for copyright infringement, just as other people use the word "piracy"; both are of course, technically incorrect, but language is a living, evolving, thing. It's futile to try to dictate to people what they should or should not call something.

We may be unable to control what people call things, but we can be aware of the way in which what we call things functions. In the current example calling what people do "theft" or "piracy" seems to function to throw more heat than light on the issue. It's a bit like whether one constructs tax as a "burden" or a "contribution". If you construct it as a burden you have already decided that it's something that's not a good thing, ought to be avoided and something that one almost has a duty to minimize. None of these things are intrinsic to tax as such, but convey an attitude towards it.

HarryT
03-11-2010, 01:24 PM
We may be unable to control what people call things, but we can be aware of the way in which what we call things functions. In the current example calling what people do "theft" or "piracy" seems to function to throw more heat than light on the issue. It's a bit like whether one constructs tax as a "burden" or a "contribution". If you construct it as a burden you have already decided that it's something that's not a good thing, ought to be avoided and something that one almost has a duty to minimize. None of these things are intrinsic to tax as such, but convey an attitude towards it.

Very true, and don't you think that many of the people who use the word "piracy" do so because the image of the pirate as an "outlaw" has a certain romanticism in popular culture, and makes the act of taking someone's intellectual property without paying for it sound less sordid than it actually is?

bill_mchale
03-11-2010, 01:26 PM
So does "piracy", but people seem perfectly happy to use that, even though copyright infringement has absolutely nothing to do with robbery at sea, which is what piracy actually is.

We can't control what people call things. Like it or not, some people use the word "theft" for copyright infringement, just as other people use the word "piracy"; both are of course, technically incorrect, but language is a living, evolving, thing. It's futile to try to dictate to people what they should or should not call something.

I would point out that your second paragraph essentially points out that using the word piracy and/or theft for illegally distributing files is now in fact appropriate. In English at least, many words have a one to many relationship.. I.e., a word can have multiple meanings some of which have very little to do with the original meaning of the word.

In addition, there tends to be legal definitions which often overlap with some of the common definitions of words. However, they don't limit the common use of the language.

So, I move that we abandon these pointless discussions by arm chair lawyers about whether file sharing is theft or piracy. Depending on your prespective its neither or both... or both neither and both at the same time.

The real questions are whether it should be legal and or whether it is ethical.

--
Bill

HarryT
03-11-2010, 01:27 PM
I would point out that your second paragraph essentially points out that using the word piracy and/or theft for illegally distributing files is now in fact appropriate. In English at least, many words have a one to many relationship.. I.e., a word can have multiple meanings some of which have very little to do with the original meaning of the word.


Yes, Bill, that's precisely the point I was making!

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:28 PM
You want to tell the company that designed, developed and built the car that no crime occurred? :)


Absolutely. You can do it already. There are various ways that an independent enthusiast can build their own clone of some popular collector cars, completely legally. The original company has no say in it, it's not a crime.

What law did you think it would fall under?

HarryT
03-11-2010, 01:31 PM
Absolutely. You can do it already. There are various ways that an independent enthusiast can build their own clone of some popular collector cars, completely legally. The original company has no say in it, it's not a crime.

What law did you think it would fall under?

It could conceivably be a trademark infringement, if the visual appearance of the car is a registered trademark.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:31 PM
Very true, and don't you think that many of the people who use the word "piracy" do so because the image of the pirate as an "outlaw" has a certain romanticism in popular culture, and makes the act of taking someone's intellectual property without paying for it sound less sordid than it actually is?

No, I would say just the opposite. Pirates were known for murdering, looting, and raping... etc, and were generally executed when caught. Not sure that really applies to copyright infringement.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:33 PM
So, I move that we abandon these pointless discussions

What's the use of a forum without constant pointless discussions? :D

HarryT
03-11-2010, 01:33 PM
No, I would say just the opposite. Pirates were known for murdering, looting, and raping... etc, and were generally executed when caught.

That's the reality of piracy, yes, but I don't think it's the image of it in popular culture, which is more shaped by 1930s Hollywood "swashbuckling" films with Errol Flynn!

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:35 PM
It could conceivably be a trademark infringement, if the visual appearance of the car is a registered trademark.

Only if you tried to sell it and claimed it was an original. Building your own car for personal use doesn't fall under trademark law. As long as you make it clear that it's a clone, and not an original, when you sell it, it's not a problem either. I've seen lots of auctions where people were selling clones.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 01:37 PM
That's the reality of piracy, yes, but I don't think it's the image of it in popular culture, which is more shaped by 1930s Hollywood "swashbuckling" films with Errol Flynn!

Who are the ones that started pushing the terminology "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement. The industry or the file sharers. That'll give you your answer as to which image was being sought.

TGS
03-11-2010, 01:40 PM
Very true, and don't you think that many of the people who use the word "piracy" do so because the image of the pirate as an "outlaw" has a certain romanticism in popular culture, and makes the act of taking someone's intellectual property without paying for it sound less sordid than it actually is?

Agree entirely - I suspect many of those who are happy to see themselves as "pirates" imagine themselves to be making some kind of stand against "the man", global capitalism, money grabbing corporations or some other bogey man. Another reason why we might want to give up the "pirate discourse" and replace it with something more helpful in understanding and unpicking the issues, (not sure the "theft discourse" is it though :D).

kennyc
03-11-2010, 01:40 PM
No, I would say just the opposite. Pirates were known for murdering, looting, and raping... etc, and were generally executed when caught. Not sure that really applies to copyright infringement.

Of course it does! :rolleyes:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

HarryT
03-11-2010, 01:41 PM
Who are the ones that started pushing the terminology "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement. The industry or the file sharers. That'll give you your answer as to which image was being sought.

The file sharers, I believe.

The term "piracy" to refer to something that's unauthorised goes back a long time, at least 50-odd years to the days of "pirate radio stations" in the late 1950s. Did you have those in the US? Here in Europe, they were ships which anchored in international waters, and broadcast pop music, without getting permission from the countries to which they were broadcasting to use the radio frequencies in that way. Hence the "nautical connection".

bill_mchale
03-11-2010, 01:43 PM
Here is a couple of thoughts on the original issue.

1. I think most of us agree (Except for those who ascribe to the information must be free philosophy) that downloading a copy of a book that you never paid for is illegal (except from a legitimate public library).

2. Most of us also agree that there would be no ethical issue with making a digital copy of said work from your own purchased physical copy via scanning (or if you are a masochist manually typing it yourself).

3. The original question converges on whether it is illegal to download a copy of a book that you own a physical copy of. In other words is it unethical to take that short cut since the copy is being distributed illegally?

I think there is another aspect to consider that might shed some light on the discussion. Lets say you bought a book in paperback and decided to make a copy of it? You determined that it was difficult to scan the paperback without damaging it so you go to the public library and find a hardback copy. Would it be unethical to use that edition to make your copy? I see it as something of a halfway point between what is surely ethical and what may not be ethical.

BTW, one last point... earlier the argument was made that downloading from the site in question encouraged the owner of the site. That might be so, but downloading without actually paying him will actually increase his costs.... In a weird way, to many people using him for free could actually force him to shut down... Kind of ironic huh? :)

--
Bill

bill_mchale
03-11-2010, 01:52 PM
Absolutely. You can do it already. There are various ways that an independent enthusiast can build their own clone of some popular collector cars, completely legally. The original company has no say in it, it's not a crime.

What law did you think it would fall under?

Actually, it might be. It depends on a number of factors. The most important being whether the replica is being passed off as the original car in question. In this hypothetical we are talking about an exact replica of the original car, which would include the use of the trademarks.

To put it in simple terms, if a new company was to start producing 2010 Toyota Camry's (it being the year 2010) you can be sure that Toyota would sue them and would win.

--
Bill

Elfwreck
03-11-2010, 01:54 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "felony" - I don't think we use that word in Britain. If you tell me what it means, I'll tell you whether or not speeding is one!

Link: Felonies vs Misdemeanors (http://www.hmichaelsteinberg.com/feloniesmisdemeanors.htm)

Felonies are "big crimes;" misdemeanors are "small crimes." (I think the federal/local split mentioned is inaccurate, but I am not a lawyer.)

Felonies are punishable by more than a year in prison, or by death. Misdemeanors are punishable by less than a year in jail (if it's more than a year, it's prison; they're different places) and/or a fine.

Infractions are smaller still--not punishable by incarceration at all, and often have small fines attached. Most infractions are local ordinance violations, and very few people believe they have anything to do with morality. (Parking violations are infractions. Doing business without a license can be an infraction.)

Parking in the wrong place: Infraction
Speeding; Reckless driving: Misdemeanor
Injuring or killing someone while driving: Felony

Exact details vary by state; there are also federal felonies. (DMCA violations are federal.)

guyanonymous
03-11-2010, 01:59 PM
The file sharers, I believe.

The term "piracy" to refer to something that's unauthorised goes back a long time, at least 50-odd years to the days of "pirate radio stations" in the late 1950s. Did you have those in the US? Here in Europe, they were ships which anchored in international waters, and broadcast pop music, without getting permission from the countries to which they were broadcasting to use the radio frequencies in that way. Hence the "nautical connection".

It goes back a bit farther than that...1897 for this NYT article (which is out of copyright!)

guyanonymous
03-11-2010, 02:00 PM
And once again - blame Canada ;)

Elfwreck
03-11-2010, 02:05 PM
Who are the ones that started pushing the terminology "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement. The industry or the file sharers. That'll give you your answer as to which image was being sought.

I suspect the concept comes from Bloom County's Oliver Wendell Jones, who popularized the idea of the "digital pirate" hacker. (I'd post links to images, but a quick search didn't turn up any of Oliver with his bandana and cutlass.) The pirate-as-Robin-Hood image appealed to hackers (break into rich corporate/oppressive government sites, liberate the data), and the pirate-as-criminal concept appealed to law enforcement personnel.

Almost nobody is objecting to the term "piracy;" they're arguing over the "true meaning" of piracy in this context. The memetic dispute is whether it means "dangerous criminals/thieves and looters" or "people living outside the law"--who are acting under their own code of ethics, rather than one inflicted on them by a society they perceive as stifling or outright oppressive.

Ralph Sir Edward
03-11-2010, 02:06 PM
Here is a couple of thoughts on the original issue.

1. I think most of us agree (Except for those who ascribe to the information must be free philosophy) that downloading a copy of a book that you never paid for is illegal (except from a legitimate public library).

2. Most of us also agree that there would be no ethical issue with making a digital copy of said work from your own purchased physical copy via scanning (or if you are a masochist manually typing it yourself).

3. The original question converges on whether it is illegal to download a copy of a book that you own a physical copy of. In other words is it unethical to take that short cut since the copy is being distributed illegally?

I think there is another aspect to consider that might shed some light on the discussion. Lets say you bought a book in paperback and decided to make a copy of it? You determined that it was difficult to scan the paperback without damaging it so you go to the public library and find a hardback copy. Would it be unethical to use that edition to make your copy? I see it as something of a halfway point between what is surely ethical and what may not be ethical.

BTW, one last point... earlier the argument was made that downloading from the site in question encouraged the owner of the site. That might be so, but downloading without actually paying him will actually increase his costs.... In a weird way, to many people using him for free could actually force him to shut down... Kind of ironic huh? :)

--
Bill


I suspect the "morality" involved with self-scanning is not morality, but throwing roadblocks in the path. To do a good scan/OCR/copyproof of a book takes 24-40 hours of labor. Most people won't go to that level of work, and if a few misguided people do, well, as long as they don't make that labor available for free (i.e. by uploading it), the moralists can live with it. They can't do too many books anyways....

DawnFalcon
03-11-2010, 02:07 PM
should we de-criminalise speeding simply because a lot of people do it?

...Simple speeding (without other factors like running someone over) is not a criminal offence, it's a traffic offence. This is not a coincidence, and you don't get a criminal record for simply having points on your driving licence!

TGS
03-11-2010, 02:09 PM
Who are the ones that started pushing the terminology "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement. The industry or the file sharers. That'll give you your answer as to which image was being sought.

It goes back a bit farther than that...1897 for this NYT article (which is out of copyright!)

So, Shaggy was right - the "pirate discourse" is obviously an industry plot - always has been! ;)

guyanonymous
03-11-2010, 02:14 PM
We need a fist shake emoticon! :D

May be used to indicate rage at:

a) pirates
b) DRM
c) copyright
d) patents
e) 'the man'
f) industry
g) publishers
h) authors
etc...

Elfwreck
03-11-2010, 02:19 PM
I suspect the "morality" involved with self-scanning is not morality, but throwing roadblocks in the path. To do a good scan/OCR/copyproof of a book takes 24-40 hours of labor. Most people won't go to that level of work, and if a few misguided people do, well, as long as they don't make that labor available for free (i.e. by uploading it), the moralists can live with it. They can't do too many books anyways....

24-40 HOURS??!

Not if the person has lots of experience with it.

Quick-and-dirty scan-OCR (with correction)-format: 1-4 hours, depending on book. That'll get a me a readable ebook version in Word-formatted PDF. It'll have some OCR errors, and the formatting won't be great, but it'll be fine for a novel I'm going to read once, or for first reading of a novel I want to format more carefully, but don't want to have the ending spoiled while I'm doing the formatting.

Extra-careful: ~6-10 hours (higher end only for image-heavy books where OCR zoning is critical) lets me fix the OCR errors, and format with line breaks between paragraphs & chapters tagged as H2 for Calibre conversion.

However, for that I'm assuming a high-speed scanner, good OCR software (Finereader Pro), and enough practice to make all the steps go smoothly.

Another dozen hours would let me produce nifty customized BookDesigner ebooks in several formats.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 02:25 PM
Here is a couple of thoughts on the original issue.

1. I think most of us agree (Except for those who ascribe to the information must be free philosophy) that downloading a copy of a book that you never paid for is illegal (except from a legitimate public library).


Many agree, but is it really true? Uploading a copy of a book without authorization is clearly illegal. I don't ascribe to the "information must be free" thing, but from a purely legal standpoint, whether downloading is actually illegal or not is a very cloudy question. It is not direct infringement, according to US law. It *may* be indirect infringement, but then you start getting into a whole ugly nest of things like intent... etc.

A downloader might be partly responsible for inducing an uploader to commit infringement, but they have not committed infringement themselves. I don't think anybody has ever been taken to court for downloading. It's always been for uploading without authorization, which is definitely illegal (assuming no fair use).

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 02:28 PM
To put it in simple terms, if a new company was to start producing 2010 Toyota Camry's (it being the year 2010) you can be sure that Toyota would sue them and would win.


Absolutely, but that's different from the original context. It is not theft, or copyright infringement... etc. If you don't try and sell/claim it as original than you won't have issues with trademark.

kennyc
03-11-2010, 02:29 PM
.. Uploading a copy of a book without authorization is clearly illegal. ...

Not really. Again "it depends"

If I upload it to my personal server simply to store there or access for my own personal use, that is no more illegal than making a backup copy or copying to a different device for my reading.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 02:30 PM
Felonies are "big crimes;" misdemeanors are "small crimes." (I think the federal/local split mentioned is inaccurate, but I am not a lawyer.)


You are probably right, I was thinking of federal felonies.

bill_mchale
03-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Many agree, but is it really true? Uploading a copy of a book without authorization is clearly illegal. I don't ascribe to the "information must be free" thing, but from a purely legal standpoint, whether downloading is actually illegal or not is a very cloudy question. It is not direct infringement, according to US law. It *may* be indirect infringement, but then you start getting into a whole ugly nest of things like intent... etc.

A downloader might be partly responsible for inducing an uploader to commit infringement, but they have not committed infringement themselves. I don't think anybody has ever been taken to court for downloading. It's always been for uploading without authorization, which is definitely illegal (assuming no fair use).

IIRC the Electronic Frontier Foundation actually believes that downloading is illegal. I agree it has generally never been tested in court, but that doesn't mean a judge would not find it to be infringement. I suspect that the biggest reason that it has never been tested is that most downloaders, since they use the torrents, are also uploaders and uploading is a clearer issue (and more profitable since people tend to download a given work once, but upload many times). And its too easy to get bad publicity by going after simple downloaders.

To put things in simple terms, by downloading an illegal copy, you are in fact making (or at least causing to be made) a new illegal copy on your hard drive.

In any case, I am not particularly interested rehashing that argument over again. I am more interested in the case of making your digital copy from a library book while you own your own paper copy.

--
Bill

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Not really. Again "it depends"


True, I'm assuming we're not talking about public libraries (as bill mentioned) or "fair use" which just makes the whole issue even cloudier.


If I upload it to my personal server simply to store there or access for my own personal use, that is no more illegal than making a backup copy or copying to a different device for my reading.

Technically, that is probably copyright infringement as well, but fair use can be used as a defense.

bill_mchale
03-11-2010, 02:37 PM
Absolutely, but that's different from the original context. It is not theft, or copyright infringement... etc. If you don't try and sell/claim it as original than you won't have issues with trademark.

What if you start making copies and giving them to people who were going to buy Toyota camry's? Remember, the claim is that the car is an exact duplicate; in other words, it will contain Toyota trademarks on the car. Eventually some who receive the car are going to try and sell it.

--
Bill

Elfwreck
03-11-2010, 02:42 PM
What if you start making copies and giving them to people who were going to buy Toyota camry's? Remember, the claim is that the car is an exact duplicate; in other words, it will contain Toyota trademarks on the car. Eventually some who receive the car are going to try and sell it.

Even if someone does--the crime is not "theft," it's "fraud."

As long as the seller is clear on saying, "this is not the original," it's not even that. Plenty of generic items sell by saying, "Compare our version to [brandname]", insisting they have the same ingredients/design and just lack the brandname official seal. An exact copy of a Camry--if it didn't run into patent violations--could advertise itself as a "Clonery" and sell as many as possible.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 02:51 PM
IIRC the Electronic Frontier Foundation actually believes that downloading is illegal.

It may be indirect infringement, but as I said, that is a very cloudy area and relies on all sorts of things that are difficult to define. Many people believe that it is direct infringement, which is not true (another reason why theft is a very misleading term, it completely misses this issue and actually implies the opposite). The uploader is the one that has committed direct infringement.

I'll probably regret saying this, but if some insist on making an analogy to theft, it would be a much better argument to say that the uploader is committing "theft" and the downloading is "receiving stolen goods". That still brings all sorts of associations and connotations into the equation that don't really exist. For example, there's no such thing as "stolen goods" in copyright. However, it may give people a clearer picture of the downloader's responsibility. Whether or not receiving "stolen goods" is a crime depends on whether the receiver knew the goods were "stolen".

Whether they knew or not is what makes it a cloudy issue, not to mention, in the digital world, actually knowing who is a downloader is virtually impossible.

Shaggy
03-11-2010, 03:03 PM
What if you start making copies and giving them to people who were going to buy Toyota camry's?

Nothing illegal about that.

Remember, the claim is that the car is an exact duplicate; in other words, it will contain Toyota trademarks on the car. Eventually some who receive the car are going to try and sell it.


Then we're just back to the same rule. If they try to claim it's a Toyota, then they're going to get into trademark law. Still has nothing to do with theft or copyright.

You can go to many collector car auctions and buy a clone that is virtually identical to the original, including any trademarked badges/design/etc. That happens today all the time. As long as the seller doesn't claim it's an original, then there is no problem.

But this is trademark law, which doesn't have much to do with the original question/analogy.

Marcy
03-11-2010, 03:42 PM
What if you start making copies and giving them to people who were going to buy Toyota camry's? Remember, the claim is that the car is an exact duplicate; in other words, it will contain Toyota trademarks on the car. Eventually some who receive the car are going to try and sell it.

--
Bill

What if someone wanted to buy a Toyota Camry and there weren't any for sale. The only ones for sale are the duplicate ones. What does the buyer do then? I downloaded from the pirate site. I wanted to give someone money for the books, but they weren't for sale at any price except free. I had bought all the books as pbooks first but don't have the time and patience to scan them myself.

-Marcy

Ralph Sir Edward
03-11-2010, 03:48 PM
24-40 HOURS??!

Not if the person has lots of experience with it.

Quick-and-dirty scan-OCR (with correction)-format: 1-4 hours, depending on book. That'll get a me a readable ebook version in Word-formatted PDF. It'll have some OCR errors, and the formatting won't be great, but it'll be fine for a novel I'm going to read once, or for first reading of a novel I want to format more carefully, but don't want to have the ending spoiled while I'm doing the formatting.

Extra-careful: ~6-10 hours (higher end only for image-heavy books where OCR zoning is critical) lets me fix the OCR errors, and format with line breaks between paragraphs & chapters tagged as H2 for Calibre conversion.

However, for that I'm assuming a high-speed scanner, good OCR software (Finereader Pro), and enough practice to make all the steps go smoothly.

Another dozen hours would let me produce nifty customized BookDesigner ebooks in several formats.


I'm talking about a fully proofed (zero OCR artifacts, against the paper copy) copy. The scanning takes very little time, it's the final proofing that takes all the time. If you depend on only a single read, you'll still find OCR errors the next read. The human minds fills in gaps too well.....

(Think of the weeks Harry T has put into some of the Dickens volumes.)

Ben Thornton
03-11-2010, 04:07 PM
Saying that something shouldn't be regarded as a crime, merely because lots of people do it, seems like a rather poor excuse. I suspect, for example, that the overwhelming majority of people who hold a UK driving licence get a speeding ticket at some point during their driving career; should we de-criminalise speeding simply because a lot of people do it?We certainly shouldn't treat it as a felony, which is what I was reacting against.

Ben Thornton
03-11-2010, 04:14 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "felony" - I don't think we use that word in Britain. If you tell me what it means, I'll tell you whether or not speeding is one!I'm in Britain, and I used it - and I said what it meant in my post!

It comes from English law:(Feudal Law.) An act on the part of a vassal which involved the forfeiture of his fee.later part of common and statute law(Common and Statute Law.) Formerly the general name for a class of crimes which may loosely be said to be regarded by the law as of a graver character than those called misdemeanours. No longer differentiated from misdemeanour (see quot. 1967).but since 1967 not differentiated from a misdemeanor.

Anyway, my point was simply that calling copying a "bad crime" was OTT.

Ben Thornton
03-11-2010, 04:22 PM
The term "piracy" to refer to something that's unauthorised goes back a long time, at least 50-odd years to the days of "pirate radio stations" in the late 1950s. Did you have those in the US? Here in Europe, they were ships which anchored in international waters, and broadcast pop music, without getting permission from the countries to which they were broadcasting to use the radio frequencies in that way. Hence the "nautical connection".Seeing as I had the dictionary open ;)One who appropriates or reproduces without leave, for his own benefit, a literary, artistic, or musical composition, or an idea or invention of another, or, more generally, anything that he has no right to; esp. one who infringes on the copyright of another.But the earliest reference surprised me:1668 J. Hancock Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.

Harmon
03-11-2010, 05:42 PM
You don't see any ethical difference between creating your own copy from a legitimately bought book, and accepting one from someone who's giving them out to all and sundry, regardless of whether or not they've bought the book?

Seems like a very different situation to me!

I think your position - which would otherwise have some moral force - is undermined by how publishers are using DRM. In ethical parlance, the publishers do not have "clean hands."

If the publisher doesn't want me to go to the pirate, then all it has to do is either give me an ecopy when I buy the pcopy, or stop using DRM to prevent me from making an ecopy myself.

It's the publisher's decision to make the ecopy available only from a pirate. I don't make the decision to distribute ecopies in that fashion - the publisher does.

Harmon
03-11-2010, 06:00 PM
The end result may be the same, but for me, yes, the origin of the material does matter.

It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.

The proper analogy is that you go down to the supermarket to buy a bottle of Scotch, and you find out that the only thing available is blended. You want a single malt, and the supermarket manager tells you that the purveyers of Scotch have conspired to buy up all the single malt and sell it to the French. So when the guy in the pub offers to give (not sell, GIVE) you a bottle of single malt, you take it. (But of course, before drinking it, you test it on the parrot.)

Harmon
03-11-2010, 06:08 PM
So does "piracy", but people seem perfectly happy to use that, even though copyright infringement has absolutely nothing to do with robbery at sea, which is what piracy actually is.

We can't control what people call things. Like it or not, some people use the word "theft" for copyright infringement, just as other people use the word "piracy"; both are of course, technically incorrect, but language is a living, evolving, thing. It's futile to try to dictate to people what they should or should not call something.

What one names something influences what others think about it. Here in America, it is illegal for foreigners to come into the country without proper permission, evidenced by documents. Foreigners who do so are "illegal immigrants" to those who think that the law should be enforced, and "undocumented workers" to those who don't. Whoever wins the word war, controls the terrain on which the argument is carried out - a distinct advantage, as the politically correct know.

People who call copyright infringment "theft" do so either out of ignorance, or deliberately to seize the verbal high ground, but in either case, allowing them to use the word "theft" effectively concedes a point which is sufficiently important that to lose the word war, loses the argument.

It's not "theft." It's "infringment."

Harmon
03-11-2010, 06:30 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "felony" - I don't think we use that word in Britain. If you tell me what it means, I'll tell you whether or not speeding is one!

The term "felony" originates in English law, and denoted a crime for which one's estate or one's life (execution or exile) was forfeited to the crown. Broadly speaking, it stood in contrast to "misdemeanor," which refered to a crime punishable by a fine or short term loss of liberty.

Historically, in England, felonies involved royal courts, and misdemeanors involved the local squire.

I suspect that the terms are still relevant in English law, and I'm confident that speeding is not a felony, unless maybe you run over the Queen...

Ben Thornton
03-11-2010, 06:36 PM
I suspect that the terms are still relevant in English lawNot since 1967, as I discovered today when I looked it up ;)

Harmon
03-11-2010, 06:39 PM
Many agree, but is it really true? Uploading a copy of a book without authorization is clearly illegal. I don't ascribe to the "information must be free" thing, but from a purely legal standpoint, whether downloading is actually illegal or not is a very cloudy question. It is not direct infringement, according to US law. It *may* be indirect infringement, but then you start getting into a whole ugly nest of things like intent... etc.

A downloader might be partly responsible for inducing an uploader to commit infringement, but they have not committed infringement themselves. I don't think anybody has ever been taken to court for downloading. It's always been for uploading without authorization, which is definitely illegal (assuming no fair use).

If the source of the download is a commercial enterprise in violation of copyright, the feds could probably get a downloader on a conspiracy charge, as a technical legal matter. It might have to involve a payment by the downloader, though. A freeloading downloader, paradoxically, might be better off than an "honest" downloader if the site is a pirate site.

Getting a conviction is another matter, so from a practical point of view, downloading isn't criminal, and won't be prosecuted unless there's something else going on, like filesharing.

Iphinome
03-11-2010, 07:31 PM
People who call copyright infringment "theft" do so either out of ignorance, or deliberately to seize the verbal high ground, but in either case, allowing them to use the word "theft" effectively concedes a point which is sufficiently important that to lose the word war, loses the argument.

It's not "theft." It's "infringment."

Fight back, don't let them rape the high ground.

pwarren
03-11-2010, 08:53 PM
Damnit, now I'm going to have to spend some hours googling for this 'infringement enabling private collection ebook website from hong kong'

:(

Harmon
03-11-2010, 10:29 PM
Not since 1967, as I discovered today when I looked it up ;)

Not even if you run over the Queen? England is no more...

Harmon
03-11-2010, 10:44 PM
The file sharers, I believe.

The term "piracy" to refer to something that's unauthorised goes back a long time, at least 50-odd years to the days of "pirate radio stations" in the late 1950s. Did you have those in the US? Here in Europe, they were ships which anchored in international waters, and broadcast pop music, without getting permission from the countries to which they were broadcasting to use the radio frequencies in that way. Hence the "nautical connection".

We didn't have the issues you guys in England had about the government trying to control what was being broadcast. Mainly, the government was concerned about regulating signal strength. There was some concern for trying to have some diversity of stations, but not much. Back in the late 50s, you could pick up stations from all over the country at night, when a lot of stations went off the air & the big ones could rachet up the signal strength. I used to listen to WLS in Chicago way down in south Alabama, with a Hitachi transistor radio my dad gave me.

In the early 60s, when we were stationed in West Germany, Radio Luxembourg was my primary source of rock & roll. I have a vague recollection of hearing Radio Caroline during that same time frame, but I might just have heard about it.

Apparently we do have the equivalent of pirate radio stations these days, in a sort of underground of very weak signal radio stations that operate in urban areas without licenses. Don't know much about them, though.

Harmon
03-12-2010, 12:04 AM
I am more interested in the case of making your digital copy from a library book while you own your own paper copy.

Here is what the copyright law in the US says:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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

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

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

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

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

First, notice the heading: Limitations on exclusive rights. In other words, copyright holders do not have the absolute right to control when copies of their works are made. There are some situations when someone can copy a work even over the heartfelt and sincere objections of the copyright holder. What this section of the law does is state the circumstances in which that is permissible - i.e. when making a copy is "fair use."

Next, notice that the law is not structured in terms of how the copier gets the copy. He can get it from anywhere, anyhow - the law doesn't say a word about it. He can read someone else's copy and type it out from memory. He can scan it. He can read it aloud to a secretary who writes down his dictation.

So the fact that you make a copy from the library's copy is irrelevant. The law isn't interested in that. If what you want to talk about is where the copy came from, the law does not give a damn. The law yawns, and checks its watch.

The law only gets interested once you slap the copy down on the table, and then the law inquires: "is this a fair use copy or not?"

So, if you accept that it is "fair use" for you to make a full copy of a book you have already bought, what additional factor from the ones listed in the four subparagraphs above comes into play if you make that copy using the library's volume as the original rather than your own? I don't see any.

Bottom line: if it is "fair use" to make a copy of a book you own, it is "fair use" to make that copy from the library book.

HarryT
03-12-2010, 02:43 AM
Bottom line: if it is "fair use" to make a copy of a book you own, it is "fair use" to make that copy from the library book.

But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so. In UK copyright law, for example, fair use for a book is specifically defined - you are permitted to copy one chapter or 10% of a book, whichever is the lesser amount, or one article from a magazine.

Sparrow
03-12-2010, 03:19 AM
Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so.

Format shifting?

HarryT
03-12-2010, 03:48 AM
Format shifting?

But that's the big "if", isn't it? Do you have a "right" to format-shift a book? You might like to do it, but is it a right? As you know, it certainly isn't here in the UK.

HansTWN
03-12-2010, 05:11 AM
But that's the big "if", isn't it? Do you have a "right" to format-shift a book? You might like to do it, but is it a right? As you know, it certainly isn't here in the UK.

I would like to see them sue me for format shifting if I bought an ebook that cannot be read on my device. But copying an ebook from a library? How can that be right? I would accept De-DRMing it for format shifting purposes and deleting it after the lending period has expired as no problem.

But legally, yes, I probably have no such right. However, since I delete the book, what would the damages be? I would have followed the spirit, if not the letter of the law. And they would be extremely stupid to sue the good customers. In the end, why do we have all these restrictions? Because quite a number of people feel that there is nothing wrong with illegal copying. It won't stop them, but the rest of us are being saddled with DRM and such nonsense. Somebody always pays.

Ben Thornton
03-12-2010, 05:15 AM
I would like to see them sue me for format shifting if I bought an ebook that cannot be read on my device. But copying an ebook from a library? How can that be right?I think that the original case mentioned was copying a pbook which the library had in hardback, as it would be easier to scan than the version you already had in paperback.

Just one of the many shades of grey!

Solicitous
03-12-2010, 05:31 AM
You don't see any ethical difference between creating your own copy from a legitimately bought book, and accepting one from someone who's giving them out to all and sundry, regardless of whether or not they've bought the book?

Seems like a very different situation to me!

I personally don't have any ethical problems with accepting an electronic copy from someone to save me the hassle of format shifting the paperback version for my own personal use. Here in Australia we are legally allowed to format shift under the provision that we own the original works and we own the device being shifted to, it does not suggest nor indicate how we should format shift. Might sound a little simplistic but I am merely format shifting through accepting a digital copy from elsewhere.

I can see how you feel they are different situations, but let me ask this. Legally you are allowed to record a television show for the sole purpose of time shifting (ie watching at a later time), provided that you watch it only once and do not distribute it. Now if you forgot to record a TV show but your neighbour did infact record it, would you quite happily accept the offer of them lending you the tape so you can watch that TV show?

HansTWN
03-12-2010, 06:54 AM
I personally don't have any ethical problems with accepting an electronic copy from someone to save me the hassle of format shifting the paperback version for my own personal use. Here in Australia we are legally allowed to format shift under the provision that we own the original works and we own the device being shifted to, it does not suggest nor indicate how we should format shift. Might sound a little simplistic but I am merely format shifting through accepting a digital copy from elsewhere.

I can see how you feel they are different situations, but let me ask this. Legally you are allowed to record a television show for the sole purpose of time shifting (ie watching at a later time), provided that you watch it only once and do not distribute it. Now if you forgot to record a TV show but your neighbour did infact record it, would you quite happily accept the offer of them lending you the tape so you can watch that TV show?

I don't think anyone (including the industry) really intends to stop such innocent uses on a small scale. But one really should draw a line in not downloading anything from the darknet and (much worse) uploading anything. If the great majority really agreed on that, there would be no need for any DRM or restrictions that prohibit us from doing what we always did with pbooks. Anything that goes on between members of a family and a few really good friends, who cares? Sure, there would still be a darknet, but the people using it wouldn't matter for authors and others hurt by it now.

Sparrow
03-12-2010, 07:27 AM
But that's the big "if", isn't it? Do you have a "right" to format-shift a book? You might like to do it, but is it a right? As you know, it certainly isn't here in the UK.

Depends on where you think 'rights' come from I guess.
I don't think our politicians or legal representatives have the moral authority to circumscribe what I consider to be my rights (because they have shown they are corrupt on too many occasions).

kennyc
03-12-2010, 07:36 AM
Depends on where you think 'rights' come from I guess.
I don't think our politicians or legal representatives have the moral authority to circumscribe what I consider to be my rights (because they have shown they are corrupt on too many occasions).

That's not really valid logic Sparrow. Just cause someone does something you don't agree with doesn't give you new rights or change what is moral in the society.

You may believe it is your right, but society may think differently. :)

HansTWN
03-12-2010, 07:46 AM
Depends on where you think 'rights' come from I guess.
I don't think our politicians or legal representatives have the moral authority to circumscribe what I consider to be my rights (because they have shown they are corrupt on too many occasions).

So every person decides what rights he or she has under the law for him or herself?

And as to the politicians' morals, why did you vote for them :blink: Or did you forever favor those that lost the last election?

mr ploppy
03-12-2010, 07:48 AM
And lets assume for the moment that the car was an incredibly rare car whose rarity made it valuable. A copy that was identical in every respect could harm the owner by reducing the rarity of the car.

--
Bill

There's no such thing as a rare ebook.

HansTWN
03-12-2010, 07:53 AM
There's no such thing as a rare ebook.

Of course there is. Legal copies are limited to the ones the rights holder issues and thus are rare. You can make a copy, but you cannot make a legal copy.

Sparrow
03-12-2010, 07:53 AM
That's not really valid logic Sparrow. Just cause someone does something you don't agree with doesn't give you new rights or change what is moral in the society.

You may believe it is your right, but society may think differently. :)

But equally my rights, and what is moral in society, don't change because politicians and lawyers are willing to sell themselves.

kennyc
03-12-2010, 08:02 AM
But equally my rights, and what is moral in society, don't change because politicians and lawyers are willing to sell themselves.

Morality is what society agrees it is and rights are derived from it via the politicians, lawyers and law - that by definition is what rights are. If society does not change it by removing/changing the politicians/lawyers/laws the your rights are not rights at all, regardless of what you believe.

All criminals believe they are right in what they do, or they would not do it.

Iphinome
03-12-2010, 08:10 AM
I don't think anyone (including the industry) really intends to stop such innocent uses on a small scale. But one really should draw a line in not downloading anything from the darknet and (much worse) uploading anything. If the great majority really agreed on that, there would be no need for any DRM or restrictions that prohibit us from doing what we always did with pbooks. Anything that goes on between members of a family and a few really good friends, who cares? Sure, there would still be a darknet, but the people using it wouldn't matter for authors and others hurt by it now.

The industry who's abusive lawsuits created the need for the first sale doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus ? The industry who says making a backup is not fair use http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6190.ars ? The industry that doesn't consider format shifting fair use http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-your-ipod-not-fair-use ?

HansTWN
03-12-2010, 08:13 AM
The industry who's abusive lawsuits created the need for the first sale doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus ? The industry who says making a backup is not fair use http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6190.ars ? The industry that doesn't consider format shifting fair use http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-your-ipod-not-fair-use ?

And your point is? Do I take it that if the industry allows format shifting and personal backup then you will fully support strong action against any use of the darknet?

My point was, that the darknet and the attitudes you are presenting here have caused the industry to be overly restrictive because they are losing money to the darknet and (stupidly) are trying to squeeze more money out of honest users.

Iphinome
03-12-2010, 08:18 AM
Morality is what society agrees it is and rights are derived from it via the politicians, lawyers and law - that by definition is what rights are. If society does not change it by removing/changing the politicians/lawyers/laws the your rights are not rights at all, regardless of what you believe.

All criminals believe they are right in what they do, or they would not do it.

I'd have to disagree, morality is completely subjective, what you hold to be moral cannot be changed by laws it can only be changed by you, freedom of conscience is a human right http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

HansTWN
03-12-2010, 08:22 AM
I'd have to disagree, morality is completely subjective, what you hold to be moral cannot be changed by laws it can only be changed by you, freedom of conscience is a human right http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

So I can decide that (for me) breaking into people's houses is moral? And then it is ok, even though some corrupt politicians made laws to forbid it? Sorry, hurting others cannot be justified as "moral" under any philosophy.

kennyc
03-12-2010, 08:23 AM
I'd have to disagree, morality is completely subjective, what you hold to be moral cannot be changed by laws it can only be changed by you, freedom of conscience is a human right http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

There is no morality in the absence of society.

mr ploppy
03-12-2010, 08:41 AM
Of course there is. Legal copies are limited to the ones the rights holder issues and thus are rare. You can make a copy, but you cannot make a legal copy.

But you can't sell an ebook, so it has no value.

HansTWN
03-12-2010, 08:50 AM
But you can't sell an ebook, so it has no value.

If you have to spend money to get a legal copy, then it does have a monetary value. Besides, everybody has many things nobody would ever want to buy, still they are worth something to you because you like them. And even if you say an ebook has no value for you, it does for the sellers.

Iphinome
03-12-2010, 08:52 AM
And your point is? Do I take it that if the industry allows format shifting and personal backup then you will fully support strong action against any use of the darknet?

My point was, that the darknet and the attitudes you are presenting here have caused the industry to be overly restrictive because they are losing money to the darknet and (stupidly) are trying to squeeze more money out of honest users.

My point is these people are about control and money and the things you thought they'd be okay with they've proven time and again to be against, they are against anything that doesn't involve giving them money as often as possible.

My attitude that copyrights are too long, yes it'll cause them to make less profit? Good! Laws shouldn't be passed to protect anyone's profit margin they should be passed when necessary to protect individual freedoms or to place a minimal restriction on said freedoms if needed keep society functioning, an example being speed limits on public roads limiting your natural right to move as fast as you'd like in the interest of public safety.

Or is it my attitude that if they claim what I'm paying for is a license to content I should be able to make it perpetual by format shifting as needed, that reduces profits too, not i said reduces profits not costs them money, when i format shift they don't lose they simply don't gain and that's the problem, the RIAA, the mpaa the publishing industry want you to pay again when your copy wears out, reasonable to ask you to pay to replace media but they want to force their replacement media on you just like the first sale. If I rip a cd and keep backups I pay once for the content and then only have the cost of whatever media I choose to use be it SD cards, cds or stone tablets.

Perhaps it's that I see no difference in the end result if I do the format shifting myself or outsource it?

Could it be that I refuse to call copyright infringement theft? Get over it Sticking your fingers in your ears and crying lalalalalalalalalala theives lalalalalala doesn't make it so. I also don't call undocumented workers illegal aliens, I don't approve of what they're doing, I'm all for deporting them but i don't like calling a person illegal for some reason I hope being a person will always be legal and only actions will be illegal. Let's hope skynet doesn't come along and change that I'm afraid the ebook supply would be too limited in post apocalyptic terminator world.

There's a darknet, life is hard sometimes, partly its a result of people who won't buy without trying and the local library doesn't keep every book, , some is people who won't pay any price and just want something free or just want to buck the system, part is a reaction to an outdated buisness model with content providers not offering what people want at a price they consider reasonable, look at everything the music indutrsy went thorugh before itunes came around and before it went drm free, the RIAA didn't want to offer what people wanted at a price they'd pay how much more would they have made if they had just gone to an itunes like model when it became clear people liked mp3s?

Iphinome
03-12-2010, 08:53 AM
So I can decide that (for me) breaking into people's houses is moral? And then it is ok, even though some corrupt politicians made laws to forbid it? Sorry, hurting others cannot be justified as "moral" under any philosophy.

You can decide that it's moral if you really feel that way, won't change that it's illegal.

Iphinome
03-12-2010, 08:56 AM
There is no morality in the absence of society.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

kennyc
03-12-2010, 10:04 AM
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Au contraire it is clear to me you do not understand. Maybe you don't understand the word "theft" either. :p

Harmon
03-12-2010, 10:06 AM
But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so. In UK copyright law, for example, fair use for a book is specifically defined - you are permitted to copy one chapter or 10% of a book, whichever is the lesser amount, or one article from a magazine.

The question that was asked, though, was not that one. The question assumed that you can make a full copy, for your own use, of a book you have bought and own. Given that assumption, you can use the library volume to make a copy of the volume you own.

The answer to your question, in the US, is that making a full copy, for your own use, of a book you have bought and paid for is "fair use."

It's really not debatable, even though it is constantly brought up for debate on this forum. But the simple fact is that any US lawyer who reads the section of the copyright law that I quoted will conclude that it is not a violation of copyright for you to make a copy of a book which you already own, so long as you are not reselling it or giving it to someone else. It is obvious - to a lawyer - from the structure of the statute, plus from the legal history of copyright.

It comes down to this: before there was any copyright law, you could legally make a copy, for your own use, of any book you own. There is nothing in the copyright law (in the US) that changes that. Something in addition to full copying is needed, something that damages the copyright holder's right to sell another copy of the book to someone else.

The copyright holder simply does not have the right to demand that you buy two copies of the same book for your own personal use.

mr ploppy
03-12-2010, 10:10 AM
If you have to spend money to get a legal copy, then it does have a monetary value. Besides, everybody has many things nobody would ever want to buy, still they are worth something to you because you like them. And even if you say an ebook has no value for you, it does for the sellers.

It would only have any value to the sellers if it was for sale. Since there is no second hand market for ebooks, if it is available for sale anywhere it can't be considered "rare".

The argument was that by making an extra copy of something rare, you are somehow devaluing the original item. My point is there is no such thing as a rare ebook, since they are either available or they are not available. And since you cannot sell an ebook second hand, they have no financial value. Therefore you cannot reduce the value of an ebook by copying it.

DawnFalcon
03-12-2010, 10:31 AM
All criminals believe they are right in what they do, or they would not do it.

Lmao. Okay, putting you on ignore now because you really ARE that dogmatically fixated on your own righteousness.

DawnFalcon
03-12-2010, 10:35 AM
My point was, that the darknet and the attitudes you are presenting here have caused the industry to be overly restrictive because they are losing money to the darknet and (stupidly) are trying to squeeze more money out of honest users.

Prove the highlighted contention. Darknet users have been shown to be in studies some of, for example, the music industry's best customers and studies have also shown a minority of darknet usage is in place of paying...

kennyc
03-12-2010, 10:47 AM
Lmao. Okay, putting you on ignore now because you really ARE that dogmatically fixated on your own righteousness.

Darn and I just took you off of ignore cause....

Elfwreck
03-12-2010, 12:52 PM
But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so.

A student or researcher might want a letter/A4-sized complete copy for markup purposes. Copying an entire book to single-sided paper in a binder would allow for extensive notes on the backs, and the ability to replace to replace pages with new marked-up versions as more research gets done.

This also connects to a wish to digitize a book for research--the first book I purchased for the purpose of cutting the spine off, scanning & converting was in order to find out how many instances of a particular word were used in it. That was 8 years ago; it's still not available as a purchasable ebook.

Shaggy
03-12-2010, 01:22 PM
But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book?

It certainly is in the US.

Shaggy
03-12-2010, 01:23 PM
Lmao. Okay, putting you on ignore now because you really ARE that dogmatically fixated on your own righteousness.

You just noticed?

kennyc
03-12-2010, 01:29 PM
You just noticed?

Some are quicker studies than others. :p

HarryT
03-12-2010, 01:30 PM
It certainly is in the US.

Is that actually a legal ruling by a court, or is US copyright law sufficient clear on the matter as to leave no possible doubt?

Shaggy
03-12-2010, 01:33 PM
Is that actually a legal ruling by a court, or is US copyright law sufficient clear on the matter as to leave no possible doubt?

I have never seen a ruling that said space/format shifting or backups for personal use were NOT fair use (and it has been ruled fair use before). The RIAA even says that ripping CDs is legal, and they don't admit that anything is legal unless they absolutely have to.

I assume we're talking about personal use, right?

kennyc
03-12-2010, 01:35 PM
...

I assume we're talking about personal use, right?


Which is really a different thing than "Fair Use" which is intended to cover public publication/quoting/usage of copyrighted material.

HarryT
03-12-2010, 01:38 PM
I have never seen a ruling that said space/format shifting or backups for personal use were NOT fair use (and it has been ruled fair use before). The RIAA even says that ripping CDs is legal, and they don't admit that anything is legal unless they absolutely have to.


But on the other hand, the judge in the "RealDVD" lawsuit ruled that the "right" to make a personal backup copy of your DVDs didn't exist, so presumably that is equally true for other forms of media?

Shaggy
03-12-2010, 01:42 PM
Which is really a different thing than "Fair Use" which is intended to cover public publication/quoting/usage of copyrighted material.

No, personal use infringement falls under fair use too.

Shaggy
03-12-2010, 01:43 PM
But on the other hand, the judge in the "RealDVD" lawsuit ruled that the "right" to make a personal backup copy of your DVDs didn't exist, so presumably that is equally true for other forms of media?

That is because in order to make a personal backup of a DVD you have to strip the DRM. It's not a copyright fair use issue, it's a DMCA issue. The same is not true for books.

HarryT
03-12-2010, 01:49 PM
That is because in order to make a personal backup of a DVD you have to strip the DRM. It's not a copyright fair use issue, it's a DMCA issue. The same is not true for books.

Sorry, you may perhaps misunderstand me.

RealMedia had argued that people had a legal right to make personal backups of their DVDs, and that right justified the removal of the DRM. The judge ruled that there was no right to make a backup, and that therefore it fell foul of the DMCA. It's the "you don't have a legal right to make a backup" point that I was making.

You are, of course absolutely right in saying that the RealDVD lawsuit was a DMCA issue, not a copyright one, but I've seem people here argue that you have a right to make a backup of a book that you've bought, and the RealDVD ruling appears to throw some doubt on whether such a right exists.

kennyc
03-12-2010, 01:56 PM
No, personal use infringement falls under fair use too.

Please provide a link to the section of the Fair Use law that supports your claim.

Please define "Personal Use Infringement" while you are at it.

Thanks.

Shaggy
03-12-2010, 01:59 PM
RealMedia had argued that people had a legal right to make personal backups of their DVDs, and that right justified the removal of the DRM. The judge ruled that there was no right to make a backup, and that therefore it fell foul of the DMCA. It's the "you don't have a legal right to make a backup" point that I was making.

What that means is if you are able to backup copyrighted material without violating any other laws, then you can do so. However, content producers do NOT have to guarantee that you are able to backup their material.

By arguing it as a legal right (which it is not), RealMedia was attempting to justify the DRM removal by saying that the MPAA had to allow people to make backups. Backups are legal, but there is no "right" to make a backup. That's not a contradiction.

As stated previously though, this doesn't apply to books.