Countrys where it is legal to download?

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

John,

I believe that what Shaggy was saying was that you asked what countries it's legal to download copyrighted books in. You didn't qualify it by saying "without the permission of the copyright holder". It is indeed legal to download copyrighted ebooks in every country if you have the copyright holder's permission to do so.

Thanks for the clarification. Since people are replying, I think they know what I mean?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

Thanks for the clarification. Since people are replying, I think they know what I mean?

Yes, I think that most of us knew damn well what you meant.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I think that most of us knew damn well what you meant.

I knew exactly what he meant, that's not the point. Many people think that downloading material without permission is illegal, but is that true?

As I said previously, pick a random link on the internet and click on it. There's a high probability that you just downloaded something copyrighted. Are you in violation of the law? Was the site you just downloaded from authorized by the copyright holder? Do you even know who the copyright holder is?

Secondly, when a customer buys an ebook from Amazon, who has to obtain permission from the Publisher? Amazon or the customer?

Most people get so tied up in the P2P/torrent scenario, and the connotations that go along with it, that they completely forget that this is a MUCH larger issue than the obvious cases.

[Falcao]

I would not ask in which country it is legal to download a copyrighted ebook, but instead in which country one can download a copyrighted ebook unpunished.

One example, Mexico. We have copyright laws. But this doesn't prevent that they sell pirated movies in streets at broad light (last time I checked it was 4 DVDs for about US $7). And of course one can download from Internet ebooks, music and whatnot without being bothered by big media.

This situation is despite (or maybe because) of American pressure. Just last June, in a rare display of sanity, the Mexican Senate rejected ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement).

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I don't contact the copyright holder and ask them for permission before I click on every website. Do you?

Look on most pages.
There is a copyright statement placed by the page owner (some with limitations on what you can do with your copy).

In all cases, the owner has provided viewing access as their right

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by theducks

Look on most pages.
There is a copyright statement placed by the page owner (some with limitations on what you can do with your copy).

In all cases, the owner has provided viewing access as their right

Sure, but that's precisely what Shaggy is arguing, if I understood him correctly. That the person who creates a web page is responsible for obtaining copyright permissions, not the one who is clicking on the web link. Before the page loads up, you have no way of knowing if it does or does not contain a copyrighted photo from Reuters, for example. Nor do you know if there will be a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, assuring you that everything is legal and kosher. The web page might turn out to be a part of Darknet, which exists to circumvent the copyright.

A better example, closer to our primary interest on this board: US citizen stumbles upon a book enthusiast forum hosted in Canada. One of the users has left a "see chapter 2" link as a reference in discussion. Once you click on that link, it turns out that you just downloaded a html format of the full-blown copy of the work that is in public domain in Canada, but not in US. There you go, an US citizen just violated the copyright by creating an unauthorized copy of the work protected by the copyright law of US.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Sure, but that's precisely what Shaggy is arguing, if I understood him correctly. That the person who creates a web page is responsible for obtaining copyright permissions, not the one who is clicking on the web link. Before the page loads up, you have no way of knowing if it does or does not contain a copyrighted photo from Reuters, for example. Nor do you know if there will be a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, assuring you that everything is legal and kosher.

I'am afraid you and Shaggy are making it more difficult than neccessary. You don't need to know beforehand if the site you're visiting contains copyrighted photos from Reuter, for example. You're only responsibility is what you're doing with this photo. If you just look at it, it's fine, if you use it on your own website or distribute it in any other way, that's wrong. But no one will bring you to court because your browser cache folder contains copyrighted photos.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Billi

I'am afraid you and Shaggy are making it more difficult than neccessary. You don't need to know beforehand if the site you're visiting contains copyrighted photos from Reuter, for example. You're only responsibility is what you're doing with this photo. If you just look at it, it's fine, if you use it on your own website or distribute it in any other way, that's wrong. But no one will bring you to court because your browser cache folder contains copyrighted photos.

I can not speak in Shaggy's name, but my argument is in favour of what is the current practice in Canada, where legal system is going after the uploaders, ignores/does_not_prosecute the (purely passive, ftp, rapidshare, newsgroups) downloaders.

And the argument is that because of the nature of Internet, it is not practical to prosecute those who download copyrighted material. One has to prove that downloader's intent to violate the copyright law, that he knew what he was doing, that he was aware that the work was copyrighted, etc. etc. etc.

The one who uploads copyright protected material is in clean violation of the law, there are no COMPLICATIONS.

[HarryT]

I don't know what the situation in Canada is, but in the UK there's no need whatsoever to prove that a person "intended" to break the law. There's an old saying here: "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Ie you break the law equally whether you deliberately set out to do so, or you do so in total ignorance.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know what the situation in Canada is, but in the UK there's no need whatsoever to prove that a person "intended" to break the law. There's an old saying here: "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Ie you break the law equally whether you deliberately set out to do so, or you do so in total ignorance.

I am NOT arguing that downloading copyrighted material is moral or legal, Harry. I am arguing that it is easier, cleaner and more effective to fight piracy at the source, NOT at the destination. That's all. Considering how widespread the practice is (we would not discuss it, if it wasn't), I believe that it is more important to figure out what works, not what is right.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Many people think that downloading material without permission is illegal, but is that true?

Yes it is.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by carld

Yes it is.

Sometimes it is, would be a better answer.

It's still legal here to download copyrighted material in the Netherlands.

[MoodRing]

In Germany it is illgeal to download, they have very strict liscensing laws there.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Billi

I'am afraid you and Shaggy are making it more difficult than neccessary. You don't need to know beforehand if the site you're visiting contains copyrighted photos from Reuter, for example. You're only responsibility is what you're doing with this photo. If you just look at it, it's fine, if you use it on your own website or distribute it in any other way, that's wrong. But no one will bring you to court because your browser cache folder contains copyrighted photos.

Yes, that's my point. Downloading is not copyright infringement.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know what the situation in Canada is, but in the UK there's no need whatsoever to prove that a person "intended" to break the law.

It's the same in the US, intent does not matter with regards to whether infringement occurred.

That's why, if downloading is illegal, accidentally and/or unknowingly clicking on a link that contains unauthorized material would also be illegal. That would make it practically impossible to use the internet without committing infringement.