Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
semantics.
It's against the law, it's amoral, it's wrong.
End of story.
|
Semantics is the study of meaning. Meaning is important. Apparently, you intend the statement "semantics" to mean exactly the opposite, namely, "mere quibbling."
In addressing copyright law, and deciding what's "against the law," semantics are of the essence.
First of all, under the law, mere copying of a book which is copyrighted is NOT a copyright violation if, for example, you own the original of the book, and keep the photocopy for your own use.
Secondly, copying of portions of a book for certain specified uses does not violate copyright, even if the copies are given to other people.
Thirdly, copyright infringement in and of itself is not a criminal violation, but rather, a civil violation.
Finally, whether copyright infringement is criminal depends on some very strict definitions, including what is done with the copy that is made, and who is doing the act.
I take it that you believe that copyright violation is "wrong" if it violates either the criminal or civil aspects of the copyright law. I would agree with you, except for this:
People who have not actually read and understood copyright law have an overdetermined idea of when a civil violation actually has occurred. They also tend to confuse civil violations with criminal violations.
So they confuse legitimate copying with infringement, and infringement with criminal violation, and we are off to the races.
I think that what you are really trying to argue is that certain acts are immoral even if NOT prohibited by the copyright act. The copyright act does not prohibit me from accepting a photocopy of a book from you. It does not punish me, nor can I be sued for infringement, for the simple reason that mere possession is not infringement. Note that this would be the same result if you gave me a digital file of the book. YOU could be in violation, but not me.
But I gather that you would say that my possession of the copy (digital or otherwise) is itself immoral.
Am I right about what your position would be? Can you defend it without relying on copyright, because if that's all you are relying on, you lose.
EDIT: I just read your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
Where this whole discussion gets me going is when someone knowingly acquires a book illegally (i.e. without purchasing it through the normal channels). They fully well know that it is not right, that the author owns the rights and makes a living from selling the books. They KNOW they are doing wrong, yet they make up reasons and excuses to support their behavior. To me this is clearly morally wrong.
|
It's not illegal to acquire books without purchasing them through normal channels. It IS illegal to sell books without permission of the copyright owner. It may or may not be illegal to purchase books being sold without the permission of the copyright owner.
I think your fundamental argument - which is greater than a question of law - is embodied in the statement about the author's economic activities, for which he is entitled to be fairly compensated. That is a much deeper argument than an argument based on what copyright law says. It is an argument not about what copyright law is, but about what copyright law "should be."
Personally, and without regard for the practical accounting questions, I think that the European idea that the creator should get a slice of the pie for every sale and resale of the artistic creation, is the morally correct answer.