Archive.org

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Many of Ian Fleming's books were published at the time when copyright in the U.S. was subject to renewal requirements. If any copyrights were not renewed, the books are in the public domain.

Unfortunately it's more complex than that. With Ian Fleming being an English author GATT come into this. I wouldn't even try to decide if any of his works were PD in the US based on non-renewal. They might be, but the determination gets hairy. Project Gutenberg won't even bother when one of the authors is a known non-US citizen that's a non-US resident. It's too easy to miss something and get it wrong. Now, that isn't a statement that I think they are all under copyright. I just don't know.

That GATT changes means there are cases for non-US authors to have no renewals, but still have a work under copyright.

For US authors the determination of non-renewal status is bad enough.

Greg

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gweeks

Unfortunately it's more complex than that. With Ian Fleming being an English author GATT come into this. I wouldn't even try to decide if any of his works were PD in the US based on non-renewal. They might be, but the determination gets hairy. Project Gutenberg won't even bother when one of the authors is a known non-US citizen that's a non-US resident. It's too easy to miss something and get it wrong. Now, that isn't a statement that I think they are all under copyright. I just don't know.

That GATT changes means there are cases for non-US authors to have no renewals, but still have a work under copyright.

For US authors the determination of non-renewal status is bad enough.

Greg

OK, I bow to your greater knowledge. But this just illustrates the point that copyright law is so confusing and complex that it's an unfair burden to expect an individual to try to wade through the morass before downloading something for personal use. One just relies on the site to have behaved lawfully.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But this just illustrates the point that copyright law is so confusing and complex that it's an unfair burden to expect an individual to try to wade through the morass before downloading something for personal use. One just relies on the site to have behaved lawfully.

I agree with you. Copyright laws are too complex for the average reader to wade through.

[Cinisajoy]

Example of a free book.
I got "The Da Vinci Code" free a couple of weeks before Inferno came out.
Yes, it was a promotion by the publisher because it had an excerpt from Inferno in it.
I am reasonably certain it is still copyrighted.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

OK, I bow to your greater knowledge. But this just illustrates the point that copyright law is so confusing and complex that it's an unfair burden to expect an individual to try to wade through the morass before downloading something for personal use. One just relies on the site to have behaved lawfully.

Yes, exactly.

There are cases that are obvious as in the pre-1923 case in the US, but many are difficult even with a copyright attorney.

Greg

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, as promised, here we are. Section 17 of the Act is what prohibits unauthorised downloading of digital material:



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/17

(Emphasis mine)

When you download something from the Internet you are "reproducing the work" and "storing it by electronic means".

As I said last night, the portion of the Act that you quoted refers to the import of physical goods that are pirated or counterfeit.

Hope that helps,

I believe that you are misinterpreting this. As I have pointed out, both my own country's and yours allow the downloading of copyright material provided it is for domestic and private use (i.e. it is not shared). That legislation is plain as day and so beyond challenging.

The legislation you refer to is for the cases along the lines of the copier, that in the download of an eBook sense is the person who made the copy and provided it for sharing. The section you rely on is in regards to the primary infringements, the next section covering secondary infringement makes it perfectly clear that downloading is permitted for domestic and private use. If one was to take your interpretation of the clause you rely on as being all encompassing you would not be allowed to take a photograph for your own private use of a piece of art one had on ones wall.

Now I know, but have not paid attention to so cannot expand, there has been some issue in the UK regarding making personal copies of digital media and that may have some affect in all this (I am not making any claim one way or the other and it may be resolved) and this may have even sprung from the legislation that you quote which, on the face of it if considered alone without looking at other possible affecting legislation, means that one cannot make backup or portable MP3 copies of ones CD collection, for example.

Now if that is still the case (and of course it does not matter to me if it is ) I would suggest that the law is an ass because it will be ignored by most of those aware of it and unwittingly broken by those who aren't. It is also an ass because if the action arising from the law is civil then the burden of collecting and presenting proof is beyond contemplation (unlike it is for torrents) and if it is criminal then I suspect that the law has better things to do than run around checking people's computers and eReaders for possible illicit copies and then proving that they were in fact illicit.

In the end both your legislation (which was quoted in earlier posts) and my own specifically allows downloading of copyright material for private and domestic use which excludes sharing. While I do not rely on the news media I have had a brief search through UK media and from that I can see the discussion regarding the illegality of downloading specifically states torrents (where, of course, the downloader shares) or is plainly referring to that.

I'll leave it at that, I guess we will just have to disagree.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by TimW

Sometimes the site has illegitimate content. Three or four years ago, I discovered To Kill a Mockingbird available for download. (It was a working copy, I checked.) This was before an authorized digital copy was being sold by HarperCollins. No doubt it was eventually removed.

If so, it is back at their OpenLibrary.org site.

However, each borrowed copy is backed by a paper copy not being read. And each borrowed copy is much lower quality than one from Amazon, Kobo, or Overdrive.

If the quality of To Kill a Mockingbird from OpenLibrary was equal to that available, via Overdrive, from local public libraries, that would be, to me, unfair. I support Overdrive's right to charge far higher prices for eBooks sold to libraries than I am charged for an individual copy. But I also support OpenLibrary when it, directly or indirectly, pays a far lower price for a quite inferior copy.

If HarperCollins, backed by the wealth of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., felt they were being ripped off by an organization with a fixed address and identifiable assets, and could win their case, wouldn't they be issuing, to OpenLibrary, takedown notices, and suing if not honored?

If they did sue, no one would question that To Kill a Mockingbird is under copyright. Instead it would be a question of fair use and the held copy borrowing model.

In past discussions of the long American copyright terms, I neglected to mention the lesser US protections while under copyright. In additional to expansive fair use, the US has the Chafee Amendment:

http://www.loc.gov/nls/reference/guides/copyright.html

AFAIK, no one complains about that.

The international nature of the internet doesn't fit well with the big differences in national intellectual property protections. It isn't sporting to enjoy US laxities at OpenLibrary and then take advantage of the shorter Canadian copyright term available a few clicks away. But, especially given the tiny bandwidth needed to download a book, there's no practical way to stop it. I don't have a good answer for that.

[bandorchod]

Originally Posted by Catlady

OK, I bow to your greater knowledge. But this just illustrates the point that copyright law is so confusing and complex that it's an unfair burden to expect an individual to try to wade through the morass before downloading something for personal use. One just relies on the site to have behaved lawfully.

Yep, that is only fair, but I suppose copyright laws are so complex for a reason

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I believe that you are misinterpreting this. As I have pointed out, both my own country's and yours allow the downloading of copyright material provided it is for domestic and private use (i.e. it is not shared). That legislation is plain as day and so beyond challenging.

No, I really have not misinterpreted it. There is no exemption for unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material in the UK. It's copyright violation, plain and simple, just as it is in the U.S., Australia, Canada, and the majority of other western nations.

Making a copy for your own use of something that you've legally bought (or licensed) on the other hand, is allowed. Eg it's fine to buy a CD and make a copy of it to play in your car. You can't of course give that copy to someone else.

[Dr. Drib]

Moderator Notice

While opinions can and do differ regarding the issue of copyright and the interpretation of certain aspects of copyright law, it is encouraging to see members express those differences and to work through them without resorting to personal attacks.

Thank you to all the members who are participating in this thread.