Originally Posted by Alexander
But the outcome would be the same, wouldn't it? So who has the burden of proof later on how you obtained the electronic version if you also own the hardcover book?
From what I understand, copyright is mostly civil law in many jurisdictions, and civil law doesn't have a concept of "burden of proof".
Let's assume you're hauled into court by a publisher, and the publisher claims you downloaded the ebook version instead of format shifting it yourself, something most US courts would consider fair use.
You then have the option to deny or admit that you did so; the former would be perjury, a criminal offence (though one that I understand is hardly ever prosecuted, and tough to prove).
Where does the law say, by the way, that illegally obtained works that perform the role of a home-made format-shift are in themselves illegal? I am not saying it's not true, it's just that this is the first I have heard of it.
(IANAL. This is not legal advice.)
On to another topic; I too have witnessed that whenever you discuss the availability of illegal copies of a specific work, folks will come to your forum and ask you for that work, regardless of what you said before.
Why is that? I find it very hard to believe that so many people are that stupid. Could it be that for every person who doesn't read the thread, a thousand have read what went on before and concluded on the basis of that that they would not post? That would signify a tremendous amount of interest in ebooks, or at least in ebook versions of Harry Potter.