Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
The question of how to describe the act of obtaining a first digital copy of copyright material without the copyright holder's permission has frequently appeared on Mobileread.
I think there are three groups on Mobileread. Those who insist on describing it as theft. Those who are equally insistent that this is inaccurate, and that it is really copyright infringement. And the vast majority who wish that the first two groups whould just shut up  .
I'm mostly in the second camp, although sometimes I join the third. |
Like you, I'm in the second and third camp
Quote:
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?
<snip>
Similarly, it seems clear to me that there's a qualitative difference between going into a bookshop and taking a book without paying for it, and downloading a digital copy of the book from some dodgy server on the internet. Calling both theft doesn't reflect this difference. (As well as being technically incorrect — I did say I was mostly in the second camp).
|
Problem with today's laws is that they don't and
cannot cover all new media. So, companies try their best to scare you into compliance. (thou shalt not make copies of our books, or else!) So, they add those things into their EULA and hope that everybody will listen to it (or we'll sick our lawyers onto you!) No matter that that EULA goes against some basic rights.
Over here, you have a rule that you can make as many copies of a music piece (be it music cassette, LP, CD, DVD, MP3 and any other format) as long as you make the copy yourself and it is for your own use. (so, "format shifting" is allowed) (but what about DRM?). For books (paper!), it says you cannot reproduce it by putting it under a copy machine (or scanner), only parts of it can be reproduced. Naturally, this was never a problem as who wanted to scan an entire book and leave that in the house somewhere?? Software has another rule, you are allowed to make 1 copy of it (hey, and what about copy protection! another thing not anticipated...)
Enters the electronic book. Now, is this like an MP3? Or a piece of software? Or even like a pbook? They never thought about DRM on MP3 files, copy protections on software, why should they have thought about electronic books?
So, people are now unsure where that belongs. Is it strange they'll shove it under the MP3 rule? So, you can make as many copies of it, format shift if you need, as long as you don't redistribute and do it all yourself.
Now, about "stealing" that book. Let's for argument's sake say the original ebook was bought and then redistributed (not scanned from a "stolen" copy of a pbook....)
If you shoplift a pbook, you steal from the owner (the bookstore) as he has paid the publisher for that book. The author still gets his share (the publisher doesn't care whether the book owner sells or not) for that one book, even though the second reader never paid for it. But then, he could have bought it second hand and the author wouldn't have seen a cent from it either. But at least somebody would have profited from the exchange of possessions (or in the least, nobody "lost" anything).
If you download an ebook (which was originally bought by the one who is offering it online now), you don't steal from the original owner. He still has access to his book. The author still had his share (as the original owner paid for it and we'll just presume the publisher sends the author his share of the money, I've heard of cases where this didn't happen, but that's beside the point). The book still gets read by two persons, one of who never paid for it, that's true. But again, there is no "loss" of anything, except a
potential sale. So, there might be a loss or there might not be a loss... (I think in most of the cases there won't be a loss of sale, as most downloaders are hoarders anyway...)
Is it theft? No, I don't think that word is correct. Also, who is the wrong-doer at this point? The downloader or the one who offers the book online? I'd say the second. He was allowed to make a copy of it, but not to offer it to a third person.