Doc Savage Novels?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I honestly doubt CN expects Doc Savage and the Shadow to be worth that much. Judging by their past actions, they just seem to want to maximize their profit off the property, regardless of its worth on the market. That'll probably keep people away from it, therefore, when they see what CN wants to charge.

They lost their chance to market it when Indiana Jones was big... and now retro adventure is getting tired. At this point, they might as well sell at a loss.

For stuff like The Shadow and Doc Savage, I think the smart thing for CN to have done would have been to allow Blackmask to continue to host the files, but with CN copyright notices clearly affixed, and "offered by permission of Conde Nast" emblazoned. This would have protected CN's rights, and helped keep the material in front of the audience, increasing, if by a tiny amount, the chance that someone would see a market and want to license print, TV or film rights. It's not like CN was losing revenue on Blackmask's offerings, since BM wasn't charging and CN wasn't selling anything competing.

I can't see CN's action as anything other than a reaction to the fact that if you don't defend your rights on stuff like that, you can lose them.

Of course, the idea that you might make more on something long term by giving it away short-term isn't something that would occur to them.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why? Do you mean that it is illegal for you to have these two files?

It is in the U.S. The files were created by an unauthorized agent (Blackmask), without the permission of the copyright holder (Conde Nast). In fact, Blackmask was sued to take the Doc Savage and Shadow e-book files off of their site. According to U.S. law, it is illegal to distribute those files, for free or at cost, without the copyright holder's express permission.

Blackmask tried to counter that the books had been neglected by Conde Nast, and therefore should have been considered publicly accessible in e-book form, but the court denied the argument. Today, there are no e-book versions of the Doc Savage or Shadow material that are authorized by the legal copyright holder, Conde Nast. And that means that if I, an American citizen, posess those files, I am breaking the law.

[recycledelectron]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The ones that Conde Nast (?) - the US copyright holders - will take you to court under, just like they did the owner of "BlackMask", should you be unwise enough to try and make them available on a server in the US.

I'm not worried...unlike most lawyers, I know that there are servers in countries not covered by US copyright laws.

As for the lawyers who do meddle, I've met very few layers that a .30 caliber round will not take care of.

Andy

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by recycledelectron

As for the lawyers who do meddle, I've met very few layers that a .30 caliber round will not take care of.

Better hope your lawyer isn't named Ironside...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It is in the U.S. The files were created by an unauthorized agent (Blackmask), without the permission of the copyright holder (Conde Nast). In fact, Blackmask was sued to take the Doc Savage and Shadow e-book files off of their site. According to U.S. law, it is illegal to distribute those files, for free or at cost, without the copyright holder's express permission.

But you are not distributing them so is it really illegal to have them? Blackmask were sued for making the files available. And how is the law formulated that makes it illegal? How does it excludes books that you borrow from friends for example? I am curious because it seems to be very problematic to formulate this kind of law.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Better hope your lawyer isn't named Ironside...

Oooo. Now you're dating yourself! ... And so am I for catching the allusion (I recall enjoying the show, but I was pretty young).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

But you are not distributing them so is it really illegal to have them? Blackmask were sued for making the files available. And how is the law formulated that makes it illegal? How does it excludes books that you borrow from friends for example? I am curious because it seems to be very problematic to formulate this kind of law.

The same law that says Blackmask was wrong to distribute them, says that I was wrong to download them. But basically, it was easier for lawyers to pursue Blackmask than me, which is the only reason why I and many others weren't sued.

Originally Posted by NatCh

Oooo. Now you're dating yourself! ... And so am I for catching the allusion (I recall enjoying the show, but I was pretty young).

Guilty as charged. I remember most of the genre "disabled detectives," or as Mad Magazine once described them: "Ironside (handicapped); Longstreet (blind); Columbo (retarded!)"

(Apologies to the disabled community.)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The same law that says Blackmask was wrong to distribute them, says that I was wrong to download them. But basically, it was easier for lawyers to pursue Blackmask than me, which is the only reason why I and many others weren't sued.

I do not get it. First do you not have intention as a requirement for something to be illegal? If you thought that you downloaded it legally and had no reason to suspect otherwise how could it be illegal? But even if you downloaded them illegally how does that makes it illegal to have them? Is it because the downloading action it is illegal? If you had found them on the street thrown away would it have been illegal to have them then?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not get it. First do you not have intention as a requirement for something to be illegal? If you thought that you downloaded it legally and had no reason to suspect otherwise how could it be illegal? But even if you downloaded them illegally how does that makes it illegal to have them? Is it because the downloading action it is illegal? If you had found them on the street thrown away would it have been illegal to have them then?

Steve's a little mistaken here.

Here in the U.S. it is not illegal to download content. It's only illegal to make such content available for others to download (of course, if you use BitTorrent, you are making the content available for others).

It is not illegal to have unauthorized content on your PC.
It is not illegal to use unauthorized content.

The analogy is that if Fred takes a paper book, makes a copy of it, and then sells you that copy (at that point, it's a copyright violation), then Fred - not you - is the one who will be charged.

Also, we are talking about "copyright violation" not "theft". So your local law enforcement can't do anything about it until someone representing the copyright holder shows up and asks them to do something to you.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Here in the U.S. it is not illegal to download content.

Are you certain about that, Lauzon? I would be very surprised if that were true. You are breaking the copyright law if you download an unauthorised copy of an item which is under copyright protection, surely?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you certain about that, Lauzon? I would be very surprised if that were true. You are breaking the copyright law if you download an unauthorised copy of an item which is under copyright protection, surely?

Nope. Because, you the downloader, did not make the copy.

I will put a disclaimer here that I am not a lawyer. This is what I understand by reading what groups like the EFF write.

So far, there have been no cases where the downloaders were prosecuted and there has been no assertions in any copyright violation cases (that I am aware of) that the downloaders did something wrong.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not get it. First do you not have intention as a requirement for something to be illegal? If you thought that you downloaded it legally and had no reason to suspect otherwise how could it be illegal? But even if you downloaded them illegally how does that makes it illegal to have them? Is it because the downloading action it is illegal? If you had found them on the street thrown away would it have been illegal to have them then?

In this country, there's a saying... "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Technically, even if I didn't know I was getting something stolen, I could be held liable for having something stolen... I would be an "unwitting accomplice" of sorts. (Generally, the court looks the other way, but it's their prerogative.)

Imagine if you bought a car that it turned out had been stolen. Technically, you are guilty of receiving stolen goods, but usually, you're just told to surrender the car. But if foreknowledge of the car's status is proven, you can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Same thing for illegal e-books.

The reason it would be illegal to have the files is because they were "illegally created and illegally obtained," that is, created and downloaded without the copyright owner's permission. Again, ignorance of that status is considered no excuse, and I would be required to delete/surrender them or face prosecution.

U.S. law is different (and noticeably vague at times) regarding things designated as "discarded." If it can be demonstrated that the property is discarded, and you picked it up, that is considered legal. The trick is in proving it was discarded. If it is considered only "lost," in picking it up you have in fact "found" it. In many cases, if the owner has proof of ownership (a receipt, etc), and especially if they have reported it lost or stolen, they can demand it back once it is found (think of the car scenario again). Even if they have not reported it lost, if they discover it has been found, they are within their right to claim their legal property (which admittedly can suck).

Or in other words, "Finders keepers" doesn't hold much water in U.S. courts.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Nope. Because, you the downloader, did not make the copy.

I will put a disclaimer here that I am not a lawyer. This is what I understand by reading what groups like the EFF write.

So far, there have been no cases where the downloaders were prosecuted and there has been no assertions in any copyright violation cases (that I am aware of) that the downloaders did something wrong.

The fact that downloaders haven't been prosecuted is more an issue of their being harder to identify than the uploader. Although the uploader has the lion's share of blame, by the letter of the law the downloader is at fault, too.

However, thanks to the precedents set by tape recording over the years (the court's practice of looking the other way over what was legally a violation of copyright by individuals copying and sharing taped music), the courts have essentially ignored the people at the end of the distribution chain, and gone after the ones at the head of the chain instead. It's mostly just an expediency thing.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Imagine if you bought a car that it turned out had been stolen. Technically, you are guilty of receiving stolen goods, but usually, you're just told to surrender the car. But if foreknowledge of the car's status is proven, you can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Same thing for illegal e-books.

The reason it would be illegal to have the files is because they were "illegally created and illegally obtained," that is, created and downloaded without the copyright owner's permission. Again, ignorance of that status is considered no excuse, and I would be required to delete/surrender them or face prosecution.

Could you point me to some text I can read to confirm this since there is also a claim here that it is not illegal. Why does it matter what you technically are guilty of? In Sweden we have some principle that you must have intention in most cases for it to be a crime. So exactly the same action can be illega (a crime) in one instace and legal in another instance.

Concerning stolen gods the laws until some years ago was that if you bought it in good faith it was your to keep. I think the have changed that so you have to surrender it now but i think you then can get compensation from your insurance company.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Here in the U.S. it is not illegal to download content.

Nope. You're wrong. A number of the RIAA cases involved downloaders. Go look them up.