Dotcom raid illegal

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The moral issue is using the book in a way not authorized by the author

In the US, libraries obtain pBooks with no regards to the author's authorization.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Reading a whole current book is indeed like massive plagarism.

You must have a different definition of "plagiarism" than I do.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I agree morally the two can fall into a similar area. However, libraries operate within the law, they purchase books for lending with the agreement of the publishers under terms publishers accept.

Not for pBooks they don't. In the US a library can obtain a pBook, and there's nothing that the publisher or author can do about it. There are no agreements/terms involved. A librarian can walk over to their local bookstore, buy a copy off the shelf just like you or I do, and then loan it out through the library. There's nothing special they need with regards to permissions/terms from the rights holder.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A library can lend any paper book, that's correct; they can only lend an e-book if the publisher has signed up to the lending programme.

Only because that's the way it's worked so far. The fact that the library limits itself to that model is currently voluntary.

We won't know if that's the only way it can work until a library decides to do it without the publisher's permission and gets sued. As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by JoeD

My point though was that when Harry said

He was referring to taking stuff without permission.

When you borrow a pBook from the library, the author neither gets paid or asked for permission.

So if that's why someone is against "piracy", then they must be against libraries too?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by John F

Has this actually been determined (library ebook lending, again, in the U.S.). I was under the impression that so far the libraries haven't really pushed the issue?

As far as I know it hasn't been pushed. My understanding is that this is something that librarians are worried about, but so far have not pushed the issue.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Definitely. An author or publisher has to specifically sign up with Overdrive (the library eBook service) and that's purely voluntary. If a book isn't on the Overdrive system, the library can't get it.

You're confusing "the way it works now" with "the only way it can work".

Besides, Overdrive is certainly the most used system in place, but it's not the only one.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You don't need anyone's permission to lend a paper book. You do need permission to "lend" an ebook because "lending" actually means "creating another copy" in the case of an ebook, hence copyright law gets involved in the matter.

But that's just a technicality. Assuming the library has DRM in place to control the number of simultaneous copies, the end result is the same. There are also ways around that restriction (load the eBook on a physical device, and then lend the physical device).

Besides, US courts have already ruled that additional digital copies created during instances of normal use don't count (otherwise it'd be impossible to even read an eBook without committing copyright infringement). I wonder if a judge would think library lending counts as "normal use"?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Besides, US courts have already ruled that additional digital copies created during instances of normal use don't count. I wonder if library lending counts as "normal use"?

I'm not sure what particular ruling you are referring to, but it is is far more likely that it was referring to transient copies created by the process of accessing/using the file, such as loading a file from disk to memory. It is, in most situations, impossible to actually use a file without making a copy of it, whether entire or partial.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I'm not sure what particular ruling you are referring to, but it is is far more likely that it was referring to transient copies created by the process of accessing/using the file, such as loading a file from disk to memory. It is, in most situations, impossible to actually use a file without making a copy of it, whether entire or partial.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Couldn't you think of library eBooks as transient (via DRM) copies created by the process of lending the book?

[Giggleton]

Well, it's getting a bit more interesting, but I think the whole idea of copies just keeps us locked to the physical. Yes we can regulate the amount of users using a book at specific times, but why should we??

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well, it's getting a bit more interesting, but I think the whole idea of copies just keeps us locked to the physical. Yes we can regulate the amount of users using a book at specific times, but why should we??

Artificial scarcity in order to support the old business model. Rather than adapting, the industry is trying to fight a legal battle against technology. Having laws based on concepts like "copies", that have little meaning with regards to digital data, is not a long term solution. However, the dinosaur isn't going to just lay down quietly and die. It's going to make a big mess before the inevitable end.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

When you borrow a pBook from the library, the author neither gets paid or asked for permission.

So if that's why someone is against "piracy", then they must be against libraries too?

If you read my later clarification, you'll see I was discussing the way ebooks work. Although I also mentioned, I wasn't actually aware that paper books worked differently and libraries do not pay a royalty fee for each loan of a paper book. I had incorrectly assumed they operated the same way as they did with ebooks.

That said, it does not change my point. Libraries are still operating within the law. The law (as you/others have made me aware) allows them to loan paper books without agreement/fee, so they do. It does not however allow them to loan ebooks without a agreement/fee, so they either don't loan them, or they make the agreement. Pirates do not abide by that.

That is imo what harry was referring to with his comment about not paying is stealing. Perhaps he did literally mean "payment" but I very much doubt that, otherwise he'd be against people downloading free ebooks from Amazon.

Now if people wish to debate whether ebooks should be treated like paperbooks when it comes to libraries loaning them, that's another matter and likely an interesting one For software, the law has apparently come down in favour of them been treated the same.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Couldn't you think of library eBooks as transient (via DRM) copies created by the process of lending the book?

Um, no
The transient copies are a technical requirement to achieve the primary purpose, which is reading/viewing the content.
For library lending, the copy is the primary purpose.
The library still have their copy, and now the user has a copy as well.

[Giggleton]

I have a bunch of library books due today that I am still in the process of learning from. If only there was a way to let me read these books indefinitely while still allowing others to read them as well...