Archive.org

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Oh, that's helpful. Seems like a cop-out to me.

You've already said that it's "not your job" to check the legality of the books that you download, so why the hell do you care? It's "not your job".

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You've already said that it's "not your job" to check the legality of the books that you download, so why the hell do you care? It's "not your job".

Why the hell won't you answer the question? I'm not the only person reading this thread; why not enlighten all the others as to the procedures you think they need to follow before downloading? Just say what you specifically want them to do to. If you can.

[HarryT]

No, I'm not going to answer anything more from you.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Why the hell won't you answer the question? I'm not the only person reading this thread; why not enlighten all the others as to the procedures you think they need to follow before downloading? Just say what you specifically want them to do to. If you can.

Exactly. I am curious also.

I am now guessing that the procedure is so absurd that nobody will think it is reasonable.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. I am curious also.

I am now guessing that the procedure is so absurd that nobody will think it is reasonable.

I would like to know too.
I mean how is one supposed to make 100% sure something is public domain?
I need detailed instructions.

[HarryT]

The aim is not to be 100% sure that something is in the public domain, but to avoid the obviously illegal content. What I do myself is to do a quick check of the author's name in Wikipedia. If the author is still living, or has only recently died, there may be reason to doubt the legitimacy of the book, unless it's been released under a Creative Commons licence, or something similar. This is a very quick and easy check to make.

[eschwartz]

deleted

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The aim is not to be 100% sure that something is in the public domain, but to avoid the obviously illegal content. What I do myself is to do a quick check of the author's name in Wikipedia. If the author is still living, or has only recently died, there may be reason to doubt the legitimacy of the book, unless it's been released under a Creative Commons licence, or something similar. This is a very quick and easy check to make.

That is a very inaccurate yardstick you have there, HarryT.

The only thing that it tells you is a certain subset of cases where it is beyond all shadow of a doubt PD.

It doesn't take into account the one "unless" you included yourself, and it also doesn't take into account the numerous other ways that I am sure you are already aware of. By design. Because it is nothing more than "a quick check".

So unless you actually expect everyone who downloads from Archive.org to perform an extensive background check every single time "there may be reason to doubt the legitimacy of the book" (or, hey, the various other things they archive ), the fact that you have wasted your time looking up the author on Wikipedia is utterly pointless.
Alternatively, you can go around terrifying people away from downloading PD material that doesn't have a pedigree written in neon-green, strobing, 12-foot-high letters.


The concept of "obviously illegal content" is entirely subjective, and your austere judgmentalism frightens me. How fortunate for us all that you do not write the laws.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you saying that the law in whatever country it is that you live in allows you to download anything you find on any web site without having to concern yourself about whether or not it's in the public domain in your country? I find that quite remarkable...

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

...yes it does, except if it is for other than the person's private and domestic use (it specifically states that, hence my earlier post's use of "commercial") or, of course, it is not of criminal content e.g. child porn. To then distribute such material is not lawful.

I suspect that similar occurs in most countries in law, or in the practice of accepting reality if the law has not caught up with technology, instant worldwide communications, rapid transport around the world, etc. (the courts in most countries, including your own, would soon be completely bogged down with cases if that were not so...

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it does not. In most countries, downloading pirated material is not legal.

Your own UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says this about secondary infringement through importation:

Secondary infringement of copyright

22 Secondary infringement: importing infringing copy
The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner, imports into the United Kingdom, otherwise than for his private and domestic use, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.

23 Secondary infringement: possessing or dealing with infringing copy
The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner--
(a) possesses in the course of a business,
(b) sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,
(c) in the course of a business exhibits in public or distributes, or
(d) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.

If one relies on that Act then it makes it clear that importation in your own country for private and domestic use is permitted. That is the same situation that I outlined for my own (in my own country it makes it clear that this includes digital).

It may be that there is in the UK legislation that contradicts that for Copyright but I am afraid I have neither the need nor the incentive to do a search. But if there is such contradicting legislation it will be, as I have alluded to, unenforceable in any sensible way by way of search or proof.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That is a very inaccurate yardstick you have there, HarryT.

I don't give a damn what your opinion of it is, Schwartz.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Your own UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says this about secondary infringement through importation:

Secondary infringement of copyright

22 Secondary infringement: importing infringing copy
The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner, imports into the United Kingdom, otherwise than for his private and domestic use, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.

23 Secondary infringement: possessing or dealing with infringing copy
The copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner--
(a) possesses in the course of a business,
(b) sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,
(c) in the course of a business exhibits in public or distributes, or
(d) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.

If one relies on that Act then it makes it clear that importation in your own country for private and domestic use is permitted. That is the same situation that I outlined for my own (in my own country it makes it clear that this includes digital).

The law you quote is referring to activities such as importing pirated DVDs or fake goods into the country. It doesn't apply to Internet downloads. Downloading pirated material from the Internet has no exemption for non-commercial use.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The law you quote is referring to activities such as importing pirated DVDs or fake goods into the country. It doesn't apply to Internet downloads. Downloading pirated material from the Internet has no exemption for non-commercial use.

I would be interested in reading the legislation that contradicts that with respect to digital downloads - would you lead me to the Act and specific section?

[Catlady]

Seems like someone is getting awfully tetchy.

[HarryT]

It's bedtime now, but I'll find it for you tomorrow. Basically, though, "importing" refers specifically to the transport of physical goods; it doesn't cover downloading digital data. I'll try to dig out "chapter and verse" for you tomorrow.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it's the greed of the people who want something for nothing. The fact that something is easy to steal does not morally excuse the act of stealing it. And unfortunately the law as it stands gives virtually no help to people like me who are having their work stolen: it's far too expensive for an ordinary individual to take someone to court even if you can get proof that they've taken your work. We can sometimes do things - eg on one occasion I was able to get a student expelled from a Japanese university who was pirating my software and selling it on eBay - but such successes against the criminals are few and far between.

It's your own damn fault that people are stealing your software, HarryT.

You decided to not put sufficient protections in the software to prevent it from being capable of being copied and used without authorisation. Do you have a sufficiently powerful key system? Does the program call home to confirm it's licensing status? Do you need a dongle to operate the program? Does the program require a special DVD to operate? Are you issuing a new key every month?

You made the decision to forgo increased protection in the program in order to increase the potential for sales. Presumably this was a calculated and rational decision, in which you carefully weighed the additional cost and difficulty of sales against the lower cost and ease of sales. So basically, you should have priced the expected piracy into the price of your product. Every other business does.

Now, ordinarily I wouldn't use 'damn' in a post, but you've been using it a lot lately (in this thread as a matter of fact), so I figured it was ok.