Question about legalities

[Format C:]

AFAIK, in Italy it's forbidden to make digital copies of analog contents, but not to make analog to analog copies.
Being also forbidden to photocopy books, I think it's legal to handwrite them.

But if the infamous "Urbani" bill has not been amended, it's illegal to scan a book. Even for personal use.

The trend is to make illegal to read it twice.......................

[Greg Anos]

This is a most frustrating area of law, in part because it is a most frustrating area of moral definition.

Fair use exists, but proving it was fair use could be difficult.

For example. I am in the US, so US law applies (I hope). I rip a legally purchased CD that is in my possesion. So far legal, with case law to back me up now. If I then sell, or otherwise dispose of the original CD by, say shredding, or lose it in a fire, did I suddenly become a criminal? No answer.

Another example, I buy a legal copy of an e-book. 10 years later, how can I prove I bought it and not "pirated" it? Especially if "pirated" copies of the purchased e-book (bit identical) are in existance? No answer.

Third example, I scan a copyrighted book into an e-book. I use a paperback that I tear apart to facilitate the scanning. Do I have to keep the loose pages to provide proof I own a physical copy of the book? No answer.

That's the problem today. Most of the digital copyright questions end up in No Answer.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I hold you up at knife-point and take a book from you. I then stuff the price of the book in your pocket and walk away. Obviously this should be legal, because the end result is just the same as if I just bought the book from you in the first place. Right?

Not if I didn't want to sell it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Wearing my techie hat I agree with you. But when I start thinking like a 'troublemaker' I see examples like this:

I hold you up at knife-point and take a book from you. I then stuff the price of the book in your pocket and walk away. Obviously this should be legal, because the end result is just the same as if I just bought the book from you in the first place. Right?

Xenophon

Only if you are a sovereign government, then it's called eminant domain....

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Shaggy,
I think it is probably a matter of enforcement. If 90% of book downloaders only downloaded books that they already owned, it would be very difficult to sift through all the downloaders and determine who was legitimately downloading said books and who was doing it illegally.

How is that my problem? You don't make something illegal just because it's easier to catch the people that really are breaking the law.

Another argument might be that since the person who uploads the copyrighted work is doing so without permission and therefore illegally, that by downloading said work, you are participating in the original crime of uploading the work.

I don't think that's how the law works. Whether or not downloading is illegal is a separate offense from the copyright infringement of distribution (uploading).

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This is a most frustrating area of law, in part because it is a most frustrating area of moral definition.

Fair use exists, but proving it was fair use could be difficult.

For example. I am in the US, so US law applies (I hope). I rip a legally purchased CD that is in my possesion. So far legal, with case law to back me up now. If I then sell, or otherwise dispose of the original CD by, say shred, or lose it in a fire, did I suddenly become a criminal? No answer.

Another example, I buy a legal copy of an e-book. 10 years later, how can I prove I bought it and not "pirated" it? Especially if "pirated" copies of the purchased e-book (bit identical) are in existance? No answer.

Third example, I scan a copyrighted book into an e-book. I use a paperback that I tear apart to facilitate the scanning. Do I have to keep the loose pages to provide proof I own a physical copy of the book? No answer.

That's the problem today. Most of the digital copyright questions end up in No Answer.

In the first example, you're a thief as long as you don't destroy every single copy you made.

In the second example, if you don't keep for the rest of your life a receipt with the book, you're treated as a thief (so long with presumption of innocence).

In the third case, you're also a vandal, not only a thief. You have to keep the PB with the electronic copy. If you tear pages apart, you can't. So you're not allowed to rip and scan a book, unless you own another integral copy of it.



Those are the answers IFPI would give you.
IMHO, you'd have to pay separately for the paper and for the content. You'd have unlimited lifetime access for the content, no matter the device you want. You'll pay for the CD, the bandwith, the paper and ink, the loud reader and sound engineer for each copy.
But to pay authors and publishers per copy is an obsolete nonsense.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Format C:

In the first example, you're a thief as long as you don't destroy every single copy you made.

In the second example, if you don't keep for the rest of your life a receipt with the book, you're treated as a thief (so long with presumption of innocence).

In the third case, you're also a vandal, not only a thief. You have to keep the PB with the electronic copy. If you tear pages apart, you can't. So you're not allowed to rip and scan a book, unless you own another integral copy of it.

None of the above make you a "thief".

[Lemurion]

The law (especially statute as opposed to common law) has never been about what's right, but only about what's legal.

As the law stands, unauthorized downloads are not legal. Period, end of sentence. Now many MR members and even some authors do not have a significant problem with a person downloading an electronic version of a book they physically own if there is no legal electronic version available. It's illegal but not everyone considers it wrong.

This is because the person is making a good faith effort to pay, rather than attempting to get something for nothing. However it would be a grave mistake to assume this opinion is universal.

The law is what it is and we have to either live with it or work to change it.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As the law stands, unauthorized downloads are not legal. Period, end of sentence. Now many MR members and even some authors do not have a significant problem with a person downloading an electronic version of a book they physically own if there is no legal electronic version available. It's illegal but not everyone considers it wrong.

Which is why I specifically used the example of a pbook owner scanning and digitizing a work for own personal use (the well-known format shifting).

It would also shift the focus from "you have an illegal ebook" to "how do you prove I downloaded this illegally and didn't scan it myself"?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Which is why I specifically used the example of a pbook owner scanning and digitizing a work for own personal use (the well-known format shifting).

It would also shift the focus from "you have an illegal ebook" to "how do you prove I downloaded this illegally and didn't scan it myself"?

Exactly. That was my point too.

[axel77]

To summerize: It is very difficult to determine if a download was illegal or not. As said, downloading mp3 of CDs you own is legal, or it as least not clearly illegal.

Since this area is so grey, this is the reason why the RIAA concentrates on uploaders. Since there is nothing that makes an upload legal unless you somehow spefically checked the one you make a mp3 for has bought the CD. That is why the RIAA connects to your shareware software downloads stuff, and then claims at the court, that they had no right to download it from you, so you must have commited an illegal act

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

How is that my problem? You don't make something illegal just because it's easier to catch the people that really are breaking the law.

Anyone who downloads a copyrighted book is breaking the law. The question is how do you define the law. Here the idea is to define the law so that it can be enforced. The argument essentially is that since the 90% who already owns copies of the work receive minimal harm from not downloading said work, then it is more important to protect the copyright holders so that authors will continue to have incentive to produce works.

I don't think that's how the law works. Whether or not downloading is illegal is a separate offense from the copyright infringement of distribution (uploading).

Why shouldn't the law work that way? I know it is absolutely illegal to knowingly purchase and/or possess stolen property. Why should it not also be illegal to knowingly download that which you know was illegally uploaded?

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Anyone who downloads a copyrighted book is breaking the law.

That's the whole debate though. Should it be breaking the law if you already own the book? I can make my own copy with a scanner, but I can't make the exact same copy with a modem. How would anyone know the difference, and why should they care?

Why shouldn't the law work that way? I know it is absolutely illegal to knowingly purchase and/or possess stolen property.

Sure, it's illegal, but you're not guilty of the original theft. It's a separate issue from the original crime. Stealing property is a crime, and possession of stolen property is a crime, but it's not the same crime.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Anyone who downloads a copyrighted book is breaking the law. The question is how do you define the law. Here the idea is to define the law so that it can be enforced. The argument essentially is that since the 90% who already owns copies of the work receive minimal harm from not downloading said work, then it is more important to protect the copyright holders so that authors will continue to have incentive to produce works.

Simply, no, its not that simple.

Imagine following story. I and a friend of my own a legally bought paper copy of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, we both own an eReader device, I have a scanner he not. He tells me, he is going on a trip, and he wants to minimize his luggage, so he'd rather read the hitchhikers with his eReader. I scan it for him, and send him the pdf file per eMail.

Now where is the illegal part of that story? I consider thats pretty fair use all the way through from my feeling of morality. We both gave our tribute to Douglas Adams or his heirs and his publishers by buying the paper book, the paper is heavy we want to read it electronically, I use my scanner for a friend, because he has none.

Why shouldn't the law work that way? I know it is absolutely illegal to knowingly purchase and/or possess stolen property. Why should it not also be illegal to knowingly download that which you know was illegally uploaded?

Say somebody steals *my* 1000$ bike, I see him with my bike at the street, trying to sell it for 5 dollars. I'm sure he is gone when I call the police, so I just decide to let it be, and give him the 5 dollars to get my bike. I know it is stolen, and he still is a criminal, but its my right not to accuse if I don't have the muse to do so (its not idealistic to get people away with such, but its no necissity).

Now was it illegal to buy a stolen bike? If I owned it actually already?

I hope you get what this analogy wants to tell.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by axel77

^^^^^

Well said!