UK Authors demand compensation for book thieves

[TadW]

via IWR (emphasis mine):

The Authors’ Licensing & Collecting Society (ALCS) is calling for the UK to move to the European copyright model and pay authors when their work is copied. The call came in response to the Gowers Review of intellectual property, which recommended the decriminalisation of private copying of legally acquired content onto an electronic device for personal use.

The issue has come to the fore with the launch of the Amazon Kindle and other e-book readers, which might let users copy books and articles freely.

“We need to crack down on people who blatantly abuse and commercially benefit from illegal activity,” Atkinson said.

I've always known it. The Kindle is evil!

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by TadW

via IWR (emphasis mine):



I've always known it. The Kindle is evil!

Yeah? Well the ALCS is even *EVILER*! They come across as a group of toad-lickers wanting to monitor even more of the individual's life. Glad I'm not a Brit. It's bad enough we've got this convoluted mess in the US, but what they're proposing would require the totalitarianism of Stalin.

Derek

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

They come across as a group of toad-lickers wanting to monitor even more of the individual's life.

Lotta that going around these days.

And, of course, the Kindle expressly doesn't "let users copy books and articles freely" with its proprietary DRM.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by bwaldron

Lotta that going around these days.

And, of course, the Kindle expressly doesn't "let users copy books and articles freely" with its proprietary DRM.

I think they were referring to an individual copying nonDRMed content on to the Kindle. For instance, ebooks from here.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think they were referring to an individual copying nonDRMed content on to the Kindle. For instance, ebooks from here.

wait, what would be wrong with that ? all the books here are in the public domain.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

wait, what would be wrong with that ? all the books here are in the public domain.

No, the editions here are not in public domain. So I assume that according to UK laws you cannot format shift a book from here.

The title of this thread is not very accurate. They are talking about "decriminalisation of private copying of legally acquired content onto an electronic device for personal use" a thing which usually is legal around the world.

[Over]

What's wrong with "the decriminalisation of private copying of legally acquired content onto an electronic device for personal use"?!

[zelda_pinwheel]

i admit to being still confused. then again, i have not read the article, so perhaps it's my own fault (i'll read it tomorrow).

[Over]

I've read the article, and I think the point of it is this quote (precisely the only part not quoted by the author of this topic ):

ALCS CEO Owen Atkinson said that if copyright exceptions were brought in, they should be accompanied by compensation.

“The UK is very much out of kilter with the rest of Europe in terms of the way it deals with private copying,” Atkinson said. “The way the European model works is that on top of the cost of a photocopier or MP3 player or DVD player, there is a small amount added to recognise that there is a value in all the creative content.”

[zelda_pinwheel]

aaaah, right, the (in)famous "pirate tax". now i understand.

[tirsales]

Oh well ... I like this tax. Once upon a time it was legal to copy a CD, DVD or something for private use. License holders wanted to get money for this - so there was charges added on every burner, copying machine, etc
But nowadays it is illegal to make private copys - so why still pay this charge?

[RobbieClarken]

“We need to crack down on people who blatantly abuse and commercially benefit from illegal activity,” Atkinson said.

Does anyone actually benefit commercially from pirated ebooks? I've heard of people selling copied DVDs on the street but I'm yet to encounter anyone passing off illegal ebooks for $$$.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by epiphany

Does anyone actually benefit commercially from pirated ebooks? I've heard of people selling copied DVDs on the street but I'm yet to encounter anyone passing off illegal ebooks for $$$.

Yes, absolutely people do. We've had numerous examples here of people buying pirated books. A couple of weeks ago someone said that they'd bought a copy of "Lord of the Rings" from somewhere or other, and, even more blatantly, someone posted a link to a web site a while ago which was selling whole bundles of pirated books for quite significant sums of money. In both cases these were unquestionable pirated books, since no "legal" eBook is available from those authors.

One might argue that no harm is done to anybody in creating an eBook for personal use in cases where one has bought the paper book, and no eBook is commercially available, but I'm sure that most people would agree that selling such eBooks to make money is a different matter altogether.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Oh well ... I like this tax. Once upon a time it was legal to copy a CD, DVD or something for private use. License holders wanted to get money for this - so there was charges added on every burner, copying machine, etc
But nowadays it is illegal to make private copys - so why still pay this charge?

the arguments i have heard against this tax is that it is indiscriminate and therefore unfair ; it assumes that you are buying blank media in order to copy someone else's (copyright protected) work, and therefore charges compensation ; but what if you are only using it for *your* *own* work ? why should you be taxed to archive your own files ? i think it was the assumption of guilt rather than the tax itself which caused controversy.

[tirsales]

i think it was the assumption of guilt rather than the tax itself which caused controversy.

Yes, you are right. But this got even stranger with the new law prohibiting copying media for private use - I still have to pay that tax, so the government is essentially assuming that I am breaking the law (and to believe that they actually certified that I am trustworthy (and law-abiding) enough to handle explosives ...)

Perhaps one should start a case of defamation

--edit:
I mean - if you would apply the "presumption of innocence" and a tax differing between "media used for copying" and "other media" - you would actually have to pay that tax for nearly none medias (and that's why it is indiscriminating...)
Oh well, who ever heared of a tax or cession abolished after the original meaning has been lost? (For Germans: Sparkling wine tax ... established to pay for WW1 )