Copyright infringement terminology

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

Specifically, how the heck can we put any kind of negative connotation on an action deemed in compliance with "fair use / fair dealing"?

Because some groups don't want fair use / fair dealing to even exist. The industry would certainly like to spin them as being negative, and actively tries to prevent them with things like DRM.

[theducks]

Why is it legal for a EULA to contain Illegal restrictive language without breaking out the restriction exceptions by locale?
Warranties Do
Contest Rules Do
Revolving Loan (credit cards) terms Do.

[DawnFalcon]

A EULA is a Licence. Those are contracts.

[pietvo]

It is only a contract if both parties have agreed to it. And some rights are unalienable and cannot be voided by a contract (this is dependent on the legislature in which they function). Sometimes even one non-allowed contract term can make the whole contract void.

[DawnFalcon]

Precisely. A EULA is a one-way grant of licence, whereas you see direct benefits (and hence a two-way relationship) by entering a contest, signing a credit card agreement or agreeing to an extended warranty.

The rules are not the same!

As to voiding, that's why contracts have the "if any clause is held to be void, that term only is struck" language, if the people drafting it have any sense.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Because that's how the copyright law works. It's shades of grey. Fair Use/Dealing is a defence which has to be tested in each case, not a right per-se: the rights are on the side of the copyright holder, who is limited in the situations in which he can exert those rights by fair use/dealing.

Exactly. That is why even a company like Google that could have poured millions into defense of their Google Book scans as fair use was instead willing to settle and payout millions to those who claimed copyright infringement.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

How about the verb snarf for obtaining a copy without paying?

As I said before, this is a good suggestion. But a few minutes ago I was trying to remember what you'd suggested, and "snaffle" came to my mind.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/snaffle

–verb (used with object),-fled, -fling. British Informal.
to appropriate for one's own use, esp. by devious means; purloin; filch.

I think that snarf is more American and snaffle more British. And, indeed, the wonderful Dialecticon supports this idea. Using the past tenses (snarfed, snaffled) to avoid the noun use of snaffle as a horse's bit, we find about equal use of snarfed and snaffled in the US, but a massive 97.5% for snaffled in the UK. (Australia seems to follow the UK, and Canada likes snarfed even more than the US!)

Checking the other forms of the words, it's still the case that UK and Australia prefer snaffle, while US and Canada prefer snarf.

So from now on I'll be snaffling the occasional ebook that's otherwise unobtainable.

[leebase]

Making backup copies or stripping DRM so you can read an eBook you paid for on a device you are not licensed to -- that's merely copyright infringement.

Getting copyrighted materials you haven't paid for, sharing copyrighted materials you have paid for with those who haven't in violation of the terms of purchase -- is both copyright infringement and theft.

Lee

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by leebase

Getting copyrighted materials you haven't paid for, sharing copyrighted materials you have paid for with those who haven't in violation of the terms of purchase -- is both copyright infringement and theft.

There are lots of ways that you get copyrighted material you haven't paid for. The easiest one is libraries. Also, just about all material you see on the internet is copyrighted. You're not paying for the majority of that either. Getting something without paying for it is not a good determination of infringement/theft.

Regarding sharing, doing so in violation of copyright law is what would make it infringement, not necessarily the terms of purchase. Those are two different things.

[pietvo]

Making backup copies is not copyright infringement. At least not where I live, and I guess neither in most jurisdictions. I routinely backup my whole laptop and I don't need any permission for that by any author or publisher or whatever copyright holder. That reminds me: I didn't make a backup today. Just plugged in my backup disk. The computer will take care of the rest.

[leebase]

I said "in violation of the terms". When you get content from a library, you are not violating the terms.

When you get a Grisham novel on the net -- that you didn't pay for -- you are stealing. If you post such a book for others to download -- you are stealing and violating copyright.

I have no qualms about violating copyright, but I am against stealing. That's just where I draw the line. I have no problem taking one of my amazon books, stripping the DRM and then reading it with Stanza because I like the Stanza app better (ironically, Amazon bought Stanza).

I'm not claiming to be a paragon of virtue -- but I don't think the issue is cloudy at all. I know I'm violating copyright when I strip drm (or theoretically since I still haven't done so).

When I was in college, and I was making cassette tapes from my friend's LP's -- I knew that I was stealing.

Lee

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by leebase

I said "in violation of the terms". When you get content from a library, you are not violating the terms.

You are not violating the law, it has nothing to do with terms of purchase.

When you get a Grisham novel on the net -- that you didn't pay for -- you are stealing.

Oh goody, another "copyright infringement" = "stealing" discussion.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You are not violating the law, it has nothing to do with terms of purchase.



Oh goody, another "copyright infringement" = "stealing" discussion.

What law? Fair use maybe?



It is stealing. So yeah, it will coming up, you might as well surrender, you will be assimilated.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

So from now on I'll be snaffling the occasional ebook that's otherwise unobtainable.

Snaffle is much older than snarf (16th Century vs. 1960s), snarf having increased use recently through the technical community. The OED doesn't list snarf at all (up to the versions that I have), and Chambers only has the meaning of eating quickly. I wonder if the comparison by country reflects different usage for the same sense, or perhaps more the fact that .com sites dominate technical discussions?

Both words have a meaning of obtaining something by rather dubious means - in a way they are both suggestive of a kind of harmless stealing. If we wanted to avoid that association, perhaps we could use another synonym - "liberate" They want to be free, after all.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

No, I'm still me (I think). But yes, I regret that this is, in essence, a 'need a new word' thread.

But perhaps the incidental discussion will, for once, generate more light than heat.

I'm of the mind that breaking the EULA for fair use is OK. And that if you do obtain the eBook without paying for it, then you are in fact stealing. I know it's a digital file and how do you steal a copy of a digital file, but if nothing else, it's stealing money from the author and/or publisher.

So what we need to do is come up with a word that means obtaining a copy of a digital file without paying for it. I'm not going to call this copyright infringement because if that's what it is then what is copyright infringement needs to be changed so this (in effect) is called some form of theft.