Websites seized/closed for Copyright

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

This site has lots of ebooks for download that are copyright in the UK (and probably other countries). Our new law that says it can be removed from the internet because of that copyright violation says nothing about leaving behind any non-copyright material.

MobileRead is not based in the United States, and hence is outside the juresdiction of US law.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

MobileRead is not based in the United States, and hence is outside the juresdiction of US law.

But isn't the "point of sale" the user's computer? (even if the price is free )

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But isn't the "point of sale" the user's computer? (even if the price is free )

Certainly it is. But if you, in the United States, choose to download a book from MR that is not in the US public domain, then it's you that's breaking US copyright law, not MR. That's why we have a banner on all the book download pages saying:

This work is in the Canadian public domain OR the copyright holder has given specific permission for distribution. It may still be under copyright in some countries. If you live outside Canada, check your country's copyright laws. If the book is under copyright in your country, do not download or redistribute this work.

ie, it's your responsibility to check before downloading.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly it is. But if you, in the United States, choose to download a book from MR that is not in the US public domain, then it's you that's breaking US copyright law, not MR. That's why we have a banner on all the book download pages saying:



ie, it's your responsibility to check before downloading.

Okay, you want to be serious about this, let's be serious. My point is that Pirate sites could say the same thing. Would they then be absolved or all culpability? I think not.

Like the trucks that have signs saying "Stay back, not responsible for broken windshields" -- it's total B.S. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Okay, you want to be serious about this, let's be serious. My point is that Pirate sites could say the same thing. Would they then be absolved or all culpability? I think not.

The important question is whether it's legal for the site to host the files it is hosting. Does doing so comply with copyright law in the country in which the server is located? All of MR's books are legally hosted, hence MR is "in the clear" even if someone downloads a book which it's not legal for them to download where they are.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The important question is whether it's legal for the site to host the files it is hosting. Does doing so comply with copyright law in the country in which the server is located? All of MR's books are legally hosted, hence MR is "in the clear" even if someone downloads a book which it's not legal for them to download where they are.

That's not really true Harry. The book may be out of copyright in one country but not another and that makes it a violation of copyright to that country. You are trying to push the onus on the user instead of complying with the law. If what you are claiming is true then any ol' pirate site could put up a disclaimer and be in the clear as well.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That's not really true Harry. The book may be out of copyright in one country but not another and that makes it a violation of copyright to that country. You are trying to push the onus on the user instead of complying with the law.

We are not "trying to push the onus on the user"; that's what the legal situation really is. If you download something from a web site, it is your personal responsibility to ensure that what you are downloading is legal in your location. The web site's responsibility is to ensure that the files it's hosting are legal in its location.

If what you are claiming is true then any ol' pirate site could put up a disclaimer and be in the clear as well.

The web site will be breaking the law if it is hosting files that are in breach of copyright law in its (ie the web server's) location. That will be the basis of any "take down" of the site.

Believe me, we are VERY well aware of all the legalities of this stuff when it comes to our book library.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...


The web site will be breaking the law if it is hosting files that are in breach of copyright law in its (ie the web server's) location. That will be the basis of any "take down" of the site.

Believe me, we are VERY well aware of all the legalities of this stuff when it comes to our book library.

No different Harry. No different. As I explained. It very likely will come to a head at some point.

[HarryT]

I'm sorry, Kenny, but if you're saying that you believe that MR has a legal responsibility not to permit a user to download files which are not in the public domain in the user's location, then I'm afraid that's simply untrue.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, Kenny, but if you're saying that you believe that MR has a legal responsibility not to permit a user to download files which are not in the public domain in the user's location, then I'm afraid that's simply untrue.

That's what you are saying Harry. I'm saying you are wrong, in the same manner as a file sharing site/pirate site would be. The legality of it remains to be seen as it has not been taken to court yet.

[HarryT]

I am saying that copyright law imposes no such duty on a web site such as MR. The Canadian Copyright Act (which applies to MR, located in Canada) is here. I'd appreciate it if you'd be good enough to point out which part of the Act imposes the duty that you say that we have.

[LCF]

Fighting piracy is not a bad thing. As long as the whole operation is not just a smoke screen. I've seen something similar in another country where downloading a movie/song/software from a torrent site is more or less SOP. After years of "yeah, we are gonna do something about it" the government closed.... a (n online) library! Just to clarify, there are almost no audio books there, and the only way to get hold of a book (if you are unable to read on paper <blindness or similar>) was this library. The whole operation was meant to show how the government takes care of fighting piracy. Instead it aroused a lot of negative feedback.

Which brings me back to the point - if the closed sites war major players - bravo to the U.S. organization which closed them.If not, it's just another smoke screen.

LCF over.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by LCF

Fighting piracy is not a bad thing. As long as the whole operation is not just a smoke screen. I've seen something similar in another country where downloading a movie/song/software from a torrent site is more or less SOP. After years of "yeah, we are gonna do something about it" the government closed.... a (n online) library! Just to clarify, there are almost no audio books there, and the only way to get hold of a book (if you are unable to read on paper <blindness or similar>) was this library. The whole operation was meant to show how the government takes care of fighting piracy. Instead it aroused a lot of negative feedback.

I'm pretty sure that I remember the case you're talking about (it was in Eastern Europe - Bulgaria?), and if my recollection is correct, it was not an "online library" but simply a web site illegally hosting material without the copyright holders' consent.

[Kali Yuga]

For those of you with short memories, I'm fairly confident the Napster rulings would likely apply to the single torrent tracker caught in this case. Napster did not host the infringing files itself, but it did point to them. If they were willing or able to block infringing files they could have continued; unable to do so, they shut down.

Bittorrent and similar distributed protocols may alter the infrastructure involved and make enforcement difficult, but does not alter the fundamental dynamics and legal responsibilities. Ergo a site that linked to legal torrents would have no problems; but one that links overwhelmingly to infringing torrents, and is unable and/or unwilling to block the infringing content, is almost certainly going to be subject to the similar actions.

Originally Posted by MR. Pockets

As far as some of the sites are concerned, some of the sites (Torrent-Finder.com being the major one) weren't hosting illegal files, just providing links to or being a search engine for the files.

It's my understanding that Torrent Finder was the only file sharing site caught in this dragnet. The rest of the sites sell counterfeit goods, and the ICE press release only discusses counterfeits.

I have no idea how or why they got swept up in this, but it is always possible that the site has some sort of link to the counterfeiter(s).

Originally Posted by Mr. Pockets

So, it could be argued that the government didn't have the authority to do what it did. Also, is the ICE the right department to do it?

It seems pretty clear that they have the authority, and would almost certainly arrest the counterfeiters and close their shops if they were physically located in the US.

Since almost all of the sites are counterfeiters, Customs is the right department.

[LCF]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm pretty sure that I remember the case you're talking about (it was in Eastern Europe - Bulgaria?), and if my recollection is correct, it was not an "online library" but simply a web site illegally hosting material without the copyright holders' consent.

Yes, all above right except of the "illegally" part. The law allows sharing (no limitations) without profit and copy right holders permission, exactly for the purpose of serving people unable to read. The moral side o fit, if you download a book you can buy and read is something else. AFAIK there is still no court decision, the lib is fully operational and this probably means the current law allows it (considering the different lawyer power behind publishing houses and the website).
My point was elsewhere though...