Copyright infringement terminology

[mr ploppy]

Unauthorised content consumption.

It always amuses me when I read these sort of threads and see people getting all hysterical about lost income due to unauthorised content consumption.

There are basically 2 different types of downloaders:

1. Try before you buy. Self explanatory really, if they like what they download they will buy it, or buy something else from you, recommend you to friends, etc. So there is a potential you might make money from them that you wouldn't make if they hadn't downloaded it. The only potential lost sale would be if they bought something they didn't like. But would you really want to take their money on that basis?

2. If it is free I will have it. aka Freeloaders, hoarders, etc -- see it, download it, burn it to a CDR, file it away, forget about it. Over 99% of the books they download will never be read, so they certainly wouldn't be buying any of them, not even at a car boot. The only way to make money from those people is either through selling advertising at the point of download (or within the product itself), or by selling them the blank media on which to store all their downloads.

If, as all the content producers seem to want, and are prepared to buy MPs in order to obtain, all the unauthorised downloaders were sent to jail or kicked off the internet forever, they would make no money at all from type 2, and lose any income they were already making from type 1. There would also be a knock on effect on the blank media industry, nobody would bother with fast internet connections, so the ISPs would suffer too.

Then there's the whole new can of worms that presumed guilt upon accusation would open up. If it works for unauthorised content consumption and terrorism, it will work for other crimes too. The amount of money such a system would save the government would be quite staggering.

[K-Thom]

What about "inconsiderate replication" for all downloads or copies without any criminal intention?

[Ben Thornton]

How about the verb snarf for obtaining a copy without paying? It already has a very similar sense. The computing dictionary at dictionary.com has:

3. To acquire, with little concern for legal forms or politesse (but not quite by stealing). "They were giving away samples, so I snarfed a bunch of them."

Copies that you make once you've got the content could be called copies.

So, you'd say: "I was going to snarf the file off the darknet, but I found it on Amazon for a few quid instead." Or "I think snarfing a file is as bad as stealing a book." Or "Information wants to be snarfed!"

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

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

So, you'd say: "I was going to snarf the file off the darknet..."

Does that mean you would say "I snarfed it from the Library"?

Obtaining without paying is a very poor test of whether it was legal/illegal, or even right/wrong.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Does that mean you would say "I snarfed it from the Library"?

Obtaining without paying is a very poor test of whether it was legal/illegal, or even right/wrong.

Quite so - I wasn't trying for a precise definition. What I meant was, where we might say "pirating" a copy, we would instead say "snarfing" a copy.

Getting a copy from the library is called "borrowing" (so long as you use your library card, otherwise it's called "stealing").

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

So what's the difference between infringing copyright by burning a copy of a purchased ebook to CD-R for back-up, and infringing copyright by downloading a copy from some dodgy server on the internet?

If you're still in possession of the backup, you did not break the DRM, and use no more than the maximum number of alloted copies (many allow use on up to 6 different machines), then this is perfectly legal. It is not copyright infringement until you give away your backup, or give away your primary copy and begin to use the backup.

[DawnFalcon]

Check your own country's laws, that's not true in the UK...

[Hellmark]

Yeah, should have clarified that was for the US.

[Robert Minneman]

I guess I'm a bit confused about the symantics/syntax being used in this discussion, and my extremely rudimentary/ignorance laden understanding of copyright law may show through, please forgive me and educate me where I am wrong.

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

As I currently understand it, copyright laws in various countries actually define/refer to "fair use / fair dealing", so any copies created that are in ultimate compliance with "fair use / fair dealing" are not "unauthorized" as the copyright holder cannot negate "fair use / fair dealing".

There should be absolutely NO negative connotation when referring to anything falling within those legal limits. If we get into the habit of referring in any negative way to this sort of thing we are abdicating our rights as consumers to the publishers and copyright holders.

If "media shifting" or creating a backup falls under "fair use / fair dealing" in your country, then it CAN NOT be considered "unauthorized", as you ARE authorized to do so specifically because the "fair use / fair dealing" portions of your country's copyright laws say so!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

I guess I'm a bit confused about the symantics/syntax being used in this discussion, and my extremely rudimentary/ignorance laden understanding of copyright law may show through, please forgive me and educate me where I am wrong.

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

As I currently understand it, copyright laws in various countries actually define/refer to "fair use / fair dealing", so any copies created that are in ultimate compliance with "fair use / fair dealing" are not "unauthorized" as the copyright holder cannot negate "fair use / fair dealing".

There should be absolutely NO negative connotation when referring to anything falling within those legal limits. If we get into the habit of referring in any negative way to this sort of thing we are abdicating our rights as consumers to the publishers and copyright holders.

If "media shifting" or creating a backup falls under "fair use / fair dealing" in your country, then it CAN NOT be considered "unauthorized", as you ARE authorized to do so specifically because the "fair use / fair dealing" portions of your country's copyright laws say so!

True, but it varies from country to country as far as details and what is legal and what is not. Some here think nothing of making a copy of an ebook for 1000 of their closest friends though and this is what rankles me. I'm fine with whatever you want to for your personal use but draw the line at making copies for others -- that is the core meaning of copyright.

It is also about obtaining illegal copies without paying for them which is theft in my book.

[DawnFalcon]

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 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.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It is also about obtaining illegal copies without paying for them which is theft in my book.

I thought that was deft in your book! Snarfing a copy is not theft - and local noodling even less so.

[kennyc]

It's an old saw, even Shakespeare knew the truth

"Theft by an other name, would still smell rotton."

[DawnFalcon]

Well yes. Under your own reasoning your attempt to steal the public domain by calling unauthorised copying theft and hence eliminating fair use/dealing is, well, theft. Hence, you're calling yourself rotten.

Logic ++

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

[...]

As Mike L pointed out, the laws involving copyright are written as they should be, media-independent.

[...]

As usual, Steve, you made a good point.
AFAIK, alas, media-indipendency fo the law is not so well performed in the real world.

In a media-independent world, when I buy a book, I buy the content of it. I buy access to the ideas within it, and the Law should enforce my right to access them whenever I want, independently from the medium chosen to bring that content to me.
In such an ideal world, I pay for the book a fair price (free market decides it). And from there on, I only pay additional fees for the raw materials and the work needed to make other copies of it (if they're for my personal use). If I make the copy by myself, e.g. by reading aloud in the memory of my phone to listen to the book while commuting, I should not pay again. If a professional printer makes me a hardcover copy, I should pay him for his work and for the material he uses. But I already paid the author, the editor and the publisher with the first copy, so I owe nothing to them.
In this world of Utopia, copyright laws have been written to ensure content creation, and to provide artists with means.
Author are paid, like every other individual working for the content creation and distribution, readers have their book on every device they want, and they can even choose the page size or the font to display it with.
In the end everybody is happy, with the obvious exception of greedy people, being they authors who want to be overpaid or downloaders who want to read without compensate the one who writes....

In the real world, copyright laws and their enforcement have little to do with content creation and its incentivation, compensating authors and similar utopian amenities: the intent of the Law is to make me pay more than once for the same content.
And, by all means, it can be called robbery, fraud or theft.