In Switzerland Downloading Copyrighted Materials for personal Use is Legal

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Just humoring Steve....

Yeah, yeah...

(Can't talk now. I'm busy making Yerba Mate tea.)

[KNI]

My public library always has a "free" set of shelves with free books donated by others. They are mostly paperbacks and often have some good titles.

(Often they are books of a few years ago, very worthwhile reads, and not available as e-books because the publisher can't be bothered to go to the trouble.)

If I take one of these and read it, and then pass it on, am I not violating the copyright so jealously guarded by the publisher? How is it different from being an e-book?

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I'm busy making Yerba Mate tea.

Where do you get it? My country is one of the largest producers of Yerba Mate... I was not aware you drank it in the USA.

Yes, I know, this is completely

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Pablo

Where do you get it? My country is one of the largest producers of Yerba Mate... I was not aware you drank it in the USA.

Yes, I know, this is completely

It isn't widespread, but there is a growing culture of people who aren't fans of coffee, but enjoy good teas. My girlfriend and I use quite a bit of different teas (mostly loose leaf), and there are several stores in our area we buy from.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

It isn't widespread, but there is a growing culture of people who aren't fans of coffee, but enjoy good teas. My girlfriend and I use quite a bit of different teas (mostly loose leaf), and there are several stores in our area we buy from.

leaf drinkers as opposed to grain drinkers. But yeah, love mate...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by KNI

If I take one of these and read it, and then pass it on, am I not violating the copyright so jealously guarded by the publisher?

No, because you're not making an additional copy of the book. That's what the word "copyright" means - it gives you the right to determine who can copy the book.

How is it different from being an e-book?

When you give someone a copy of an eBook, you are creating additional copies which did not previously exist. Hence copyright law does come into play.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Pablo

Where do you get it? My country is one of the largest producers of Yerba Mate... I was not aware you drank it in the USA.

It's not a big seller here yet. It's available at a few natural foods markets here, like Whole Foods and Mom's Organic Market. Or you can buy it online, as I do, from Guayaki.com.

They have a mate chocolatte flavor that beats any weak Swiss swill...

[Ninjalawyer]

HarryT's argument isn't that every illegal download is wrong because it's a lost sale, his argument is effectively that he doesn't want someone getting an unearned benefit.

It's irrelevant to people who support heavy-handed copyright enforcement that that enforcement is ineffectual and costs orders of magnitude more than the "disease"; it's offensive to them on a gut level for someone to receive works they didn't pay for, the arguments they present are merely window dressing.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

HarryT's argument isn't that every illegal download is wrong because it's a lost sale, his argument is effectively that he doesn't want someone getting an unearned benefit.

It's irrelevant to people who support heavy-handed copyright enforcement that that enforcement is ineffectual and costs orders of magnitude more than the "disease"; it's offensive to them on a gut level for someone to receive works they didn't pay for, the arguments they present are merely window dressing.

I have no stake in this, but why should it be acceptable for someone to take it for free, even if he or she never would have paid for it? That is the worst form of greed. The authors are not greedy, they are fine if those people just stay away from their works. Financially the end result for them is the same, they get nothing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

HarryT's argument isn't that every illegal download is wrong because it's a lost sale, his argument is effectively that he doesn't want someone getting an unearned benefit.

It's irrelevant to people who support heavy-handed copyright enforcement that that enforcement is ineffectual and costs orders of magnitude more than the "disease"; it's offensive to them on a gut level for someone to receive works they didn't pay for, the arguments they present are merely window dressing.

I would really appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth; if I wanted to say what you (erroneously) attribute to me, then I'll say it myself.

[Beryll Snyder]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, because you're not making an additional copy of the book. That's what the word "copyright" means - it gives you the right to determine who can copy the book.

==That can't possibly be right, because copyright laws were made to prevent unlawful use of content. ==


When you give someone a copy of an eBook, you are creating additional copies which did not previously exist. Hence copyright law does come use into play.

The situation seems to be at least a little bit more complicated.
If I take something from someone, I have that thing and someone else is missing it.
In the case of digital copies the situation is completey different.

You could make the case that you lose actually something, namely income.
But that happens only, if the user would have paid you in the first place.
Demand at the price of $ 0 is certainly higher than at a higher price.
So I think it would be pretty difficult to proof empirically the amount - if any -loss you might have suffered from "stolen" digital copies.

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is a sad day for those who make their living from IP. The Swiss government is essentially saying "we don't give a damn that our citizens are stealing from you". Very disappointing.

Quite surprisingly to myself I totally agree with you.
Theoretically, I'm all about "global village" and hate DRM and such as much as anyone else.
But I find the original argument seriously flawed.
First of all: Where's the proof, that downloading content really doesn't impact the over all spent?
A friend of mine recently bought his very first ebook reader, a Kindle.
His argument: "It's only € 100. If I only read 10 downloaded books, I already have my ROI". Yes, he still will keep spending his money. He will buy food. He will pay his rent. He even might go to the cinema more often. But he definitely won't buy the book he downloaded before. And most likely, he won't buy too many books anymore in general. Probably just the ones you hardly find as a download.

My personal argumentation would be entirely different. I still would argue about the specific product. For example book A or music album B.
I'd say: If I bought book A as a paper book for example, I should be free to download the ebook. But this specific one, not just some random one.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Beryll Snyder

The situation seems to be at least a little bit more complicated.
If I take something from someone, I have that thing and someone else is missing it.
In the case of digital copies the situation is completey different.

You could make the case that you lose actually something, namely income.
But that happens only, if the user would have paid you in the first place.
Demand at the price of $ 0 is certainly higher than at a higher price.
So I think it would be pretty difficult to proof empirically the amount - if any -loss you might have suffered from "stolen" digital copies.

So if you have a kid over to mow your lawn and afterwards you give him a pat on the back and say "hey, I would never have asked you to do it if I had to pay you for it" that is ok? After all, you have taken nothing from him, he still has everything he had before.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

First of all: Where's the proof, that downloading content really doesn't impact the over all spent?

A foreign government wouldn't have to show you proof. But they might have to show it to the entertainment industry officials if they would ask for it. Since they didn't ask for it, it's probably true.

Originally Posted by mgmueller

A friend of mine recently bought his very first ebook reader, a Kindle.
His argument: "It's only € 100. If I only read 10 downloaded books, I already have my ROI". Yes, he still will keep spending his money. He will buy food. He will pay his rent. He even might go to the cinema more often. But he definitely won't buy the book he downloaded before. And most likely, he won't buy too many books anymore in general. Probably just the ones you hardly find as a download.

How were his reading habits before the kindle, and what makes you think that he will stop buying books?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So if you have a kid over to mow your lawn and afterwards you give him a pat on the back and say "hey, I would never have asked you to do it if I had to pay you for it" that is ok? After all, you have taken nothing from him, he still has everything he had before.

Except the time and effort.

A better analogy would be with street performers. Not everyone that enjoys the performance gives money.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I have no stake in this, but why should it be acceptable for someone to take it for free, even if he or she never would have paid for it? That is the worst form of greed. The authors are not greedy, they are fine if those people just stay away from their works. Financially the end result for them is the same, they get nothing.

I only have a crippled donkey in the race myself, but this is the part I don't really understand. Obviously I would rather they bought it, but if for whatever reason that isn't going to happen I would still rather they read it for free than didn't read it at all.