Question about legalities - Page 5

jasoraso · 09-25-2008, 06:50 PM

From what I understand the company may or may not grant those rights, but that doesn't alway prevail. Even if those rights aren't granted, US law still permits format conversion, for example in handicap cases. In the case of a paperback, even though the rights to make a copy aren't granted, the copyright acknowledges that the law may provide otherwise. In addition, just the same as software licenses may contain restrictions in the EULA, the nature of those restrictions is often interpreted differently once in the court system than the writer of the EULA intended.

UKHaiku · 09-25-2008, 07:59 PM

Speaking personally, I concern myself more with ethics than legality - simply because I refuse to abrogate responsibility for my actions to anyone else - be it judiciary, democracy or anything/one else...

While I can understand people's concerns about legalities, we should not allow those concerns to drive our every action. (Of course, I say that as someone with a very firm ethical foundation).

Examples of actions which might not be wrong, but might be illegal (some of which have been mentioned) could include:

format-shifting
downloading unavailable works (in whatever media)
downloading/making electronic copies of works you own physically
downloading/making copies of work that is available in the 'public domain' (e.g. downloading a divx of a tv episode of something viewable on a free to air channel)

While the above examples might, in some circumstances, be illegal, they are not, generally speaking 'wrong' - in the sense that they do not (a) seek to profit the recipient or (b) defraud the owner of something to which they are reasonably entitled... (And I know we can debate reasonable for a while

)

(For note - in the second example, it starts to be wrong (IMO) if it becomes available and you don't seek to pay for a legitimate copy).

making copies (in whatever way) for evaluation purposes is also a pretty grey area - probably the best way to determine right/wrong is it it stops you acquiring a legitimate copy if you like it... (This one's contentious I admit - but there's some real rubbish out there, and "try before you buy" is an established approach for many things...).

I'll admit I'm slightly unorthodox in my views, but I'm also happy to debate the ethics of them....

Tanellthyon · 09-25-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UKHaiku

Speaking personally, [insert the rest here]

Actually, I feel that way myself, about almost everything you said. Just that I don't think it's worth the price of a lawsuit for something simple as a book or CD

Especially if I already own it. That's the worst part of it all.

PsyDocJoanne · 09-25-2008, 08:45 PM

^^^^^ That's exactly how I feel.

Redcard · 09-25-2008, 09:04 PM

Again, I reiterate, the question was about legality, not ethics.

I agree that format shifting/space shifting should be allowed. However, the court has been going a different direction and might continue to go that direction. I personally handle this by writing my congresscritters and keeping them up to date with what I feel.

Lemurion · 09-25-2008, 11:35 PM

Last I heard, in Canada downloading music is or at least was legal because of the recordable CD levy. The judge apparently stated that cashing the levy check was tacit permission.

Needless to say that's due to a peculiarity of Canadian law and not generally applicable.

In the meantime we're dealing with a copyright system that was designed to do one thing but is being used for something else under radically different conditions than those it was created to deal with.

The original idea was that copyright was intrinsically bad, a lesser evil imposed on society as an incentive to creators to continue to create. Copyright law was an artifice to keep works from their natural state in the public domain. Now the purpose of copyright is to assert ownership, and treat the private domain as the natural state. These laws also came into being when each copy of a book was relatively expensive to produce, as opposed to today's world where an e-book can be duplicated with a simple CTRL-C, CTRL-V.

Things are changing and the law hasn't caught up yet.

Eventually it will. In the meantime, we are going to have an interesting time dealing with it.

axel77 · 09-26-2008, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UKHaiku

I'll admit I'm slightly unorthodox in my views, but I'm also happy to debate the ethics of them....

Well actually IMHO its extremly in accordance to theories of ethics.

"""Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will""" - Immanuel Kant

Now you can spawn a whole discussion if blindly following laws whatevery they are should be a maxim and Kant himself wrote some words about that issue (as private vs. public use of rationality). I for one am confident that following laws, just becase its the law, is not maxim I want as universal law, as for example an ethical soldier living under an evil dictatorship should realize what they do is wrong and act contrary to their orders.

NightGeometry · 09-26-2008, 06:47 AM

I am not a lawyer, not in the US, and have not read up on this for awhile.

From my understanding, in the UK at least, receiving copyrighted materials is not in breach of any law. Making and distributing is in breach of copyright law though. So, over here at least, ripping a CD to MP3 is actually in breach of law, but grabbing an MP3 is not. Which is just insane, and as far as I remember there is much discussion as to how the law is to be changed to, possibly, reverse the position.

I assume the case is similar in the US, as all RIAA law suits, as far as I am aware, are based on demonstrating that the accused has made available content.

The case for DVD-rippers is slightly different. This is a matter of breach of license of the DVD association (sorry, don't know their official name). The company that got sued actually won, the license as was didn't prohibit what they were doing. Needless to say the licensing agreement was changed very soon afterwards.

So, if the above is correct, and applies in the US as it does here, then technically scanning a book is breach, but getting a copy isn't. If you were to use a torrent to get the book, then you would in most cases also be distributing though, and thus in breach again. Fair use *may* help, but this is a legal defense, my understanding is that it goes to court, and you effectively plead guilty relying on a 'but' to save you. I'd not be up for that to be honest.

As many have said, it's about as grey as it gets at the moment - whether technically legal or not you expose yourself to risk of being taken to court, and in that situation being right and proven so may be little comfort given the cost and time involved.

As per the start of this rant, not a lawyer, not in the US, not really read up on this for a few years. So even if this was true for me, when i read up on it, it may not be for you now. If in doubt, don't ask for opinions, read up on copyright law, or hire a lawyer (obviously both of those still come down to opinion and interpretation until a relevant court for you gives an indication one way or the other).

As to the user who claimed that iTunes and WMP send info to Apple / MS - care to back that up with any background info?

Redcard · 09-26-2008, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightGeometry

As to the user who claimed that iTunes and WMP send info to Apple / MS - care to back that up with any background info?

Sure.

Stick a CD in your drive.

Watch as the CD is identified.

How do you think it did that?

It did that by sending a hash encrypted "key" into a database that tells your software what that disk was. But, do you think MS just throws away that data?

Look at ITunes 8, and the "Genius" playlist.

How do you think it knows what you're listening to to compare it to others? How do you think it knows what they listen to?

It reports you. It reports you constantly. And they do this in the name of "customer service", they claim they won't do anything naughty with the data.. but if you're named in a civil action, "they" won't have any control over what gets subpeonaed.

Now, these features CAN be turned off, but I'd wager your normal everyday American thinks they're cool.

wayrad · 09-26-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcard

Sure.

Stick a CD in your drive.

Watch as the CD is identified.

How do you think it did that?

I always figured the info was on the CD. Otherwise, my computer has been showing an amazing ability to contact the outside world without my activating my dialup connection.

nekokami · 09-26-2008, 09:51 AM

I'm pretty sure some of that info is on the CD-- as far as I know, car stereos usually don't have internet connections.

That does not, however, mean that MS isn't tracking what you're listening to. Only that knowing the CD title and track titles isn't enough proof.

Shaggy · 09-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanellthyon

Actually, I feel that way myself, about almost everything you said. Just that I don't think it's worth the price of a lawsuit for something simple as a book or CD

Especially if I already own it. That's the worst part of it all.

Just something else to think about... I don't think anybody is filing lawsuits against downloaders. It's the uploaders (aka the ones distributing copies) that they are going after.

NightGeometry · 09-26-2008, 11:24 AM

The CD info is from the Gracenote CD database, neither Apple nor MS. You should have okay'd them to do that when you accepted the terms and conditions.

jasoraso · 09-26-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Just something else to think about... I don't think anybody is filing lawsuits against downloaders. It's the uploaders (aka the ones distributing copies) that they are going after.

Actually, read this other timely thread (or maybe you've already seen it since it is right next to this one in the thread list?):
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29729

The RIAA DID go after a downloader - someone who downloaded a mere 24 songs, they won a verdict and judgment; which was subsequently overturned - turns out the judge decided $222,000 for 24 songs was a LITTLE excessive.

Redcard · 09-26-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasoraso

Actually, read this other timely thread (or maybe you've already seen it since it is right next to this one in the thread list?):
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29729

The RIAA DID go after a downloader - someone who downloaded a mere 24 songs, they won a verdict and judgment; which was subsequently overturned - turns out the judge decided $222,000 for 24 songs was a LITTLE excessive.

Well.. no.

The judge found out he gave faulty jury instructions, declared a mistrial, and now we're all going to get to do it again.

Whee. :P

09-26-2008, 06:47 AM	#68
NightGeometry Zealot Posts: 139 Karma: 1057240 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brighton, England Device: Sony PRS-T1, Kindle 3G, Kindle DX	I am not a lawyer, not in the US, and have not read up on this for awhile. From my understanding, in the UK at least, receiving copyrighted materials is not in breach of any law. Making and distributing is in breach of copyright law though. So, over here at least, ripping a CD to MP3 is actually in breach of law, but grabbing an MP3 is not. Which is just insane, and as far as I remember there is much discussion as to how the law is to be changed to, possibly, reverse the position. I assume the case is similar in the US, as all RIAA law suits, as far as I am aware, are based on demonstrating that the accused has made available content. The case for DVD-rippers is slightly different. This is a matter of breach of license of the DVD association (sorry, don't know their official name). The company that got sued actually won, the license as was didn't prohibit what they were doing. Needless to say the licensing agreement was changed very soon afterwards. So, if the above is correct, and applies in the US as it does here, then technically scanning a book is breach, but getting a copy isn't. If you were to use a torrent to get the book, then you would in most cases also be distributing though, and thus in breach again. Fair use may help, but this is a legal defense, my understanding is that it goes to court, and you effectively plead guilty relying on a 'but' to save you. I'd not be up for that to be honest. As many have said, it's about as grey as it gets at the moment - whether technically legal or not you expose yourself to risk of being taken to court, and in that situation being right and proven so may be little comfort given the cost and time involved. As per the start of this rant, not a lawyer, not in the US, not really read up on this for a few years. So even if this was true for me, when i read up on it, it may not be for you now. If in doubt, don't ask for opinions, read up on copyright law, or hire a lawyer (obviously both of those still come down to opinion and interpretation until a relevant court for you gives an indication one way or the other). As to the user who claimed that iTunes and WMP send info to Apple / MS - care to back that up with any background info? Last edited by NightGeometry; 09-26-2008 at 06:50 AM. Reason: stupid spelling

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
3G or not 3G, that is the question!	zeb	Amazon Kindle	8	09-01-2010 08:18 AM
Classic Few Nook Question and Question on Nook 3G vs WiFi	blackonblack	Barnes & Noble NOOK	4	07-02-2010 02:07 AM
Looking for another reader question and PRS-600 question	lilpretender	Which one should I buy?	9	10-24-2009 04:02 AM
Question Vis-a-Vis anti-DRM legalities	Neil	Kindle Formats	13	09-16-2009 11:11 AM
The Legalities of Conversion	hacker	Workshop	23	10-27-2007 11:41 AM

09-25-2008, 06:50 PM	#61
jasoraso Addict Posts: 228 Karma: 1212418 Join Date: Sep 2008 Device: Nook Touch, Nook Color (rooted) and Samsung Galaxy Nexus	From what I understand the company may or may not grant those rights, but that doesn't alway prevail. Even if those rights aren't granted, US law still permits format conversion, for example in handicap cases. In the case of a paperback, even though the rights to make a copy aren't granted, the copyright acknowledges that the law may provide otherwise. In addition, just the same as software licenses may contain restrictions in the EULA, the nature of those restrictions is often interpreted differently once in the court system than the writer of the EULA intended.

09-25-2008, 07:59 PM	#62
UKHaiku Enthusiast Posts: 48 Karma: 104 Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Device: Sony Reader - PRS-505	Speaking personally, I concern myself more with ethics than legality - simply because I refuse to abrogate responsibility for my actions to anyone else - be it judiciary, democracy or anything/one else... While I can understand people's concerns about legalities, we should not allow those concerns to drive our every action. (Of course, I say that as someone with a very firm ethical foundation). Examples of actions which might not be wrong, but might be illegal (some of which have been mentioned) could include: format-shifting downloading unavailable works (in whatever media) downloading/making electronic copies of works you own physically downloading/making copies of work that is available in the 'public domain' (e.g. downloading a divx of a tv episode of something viewable on a free to air channel) While the above examples might, in some circumstances, be illegal, they are not, generally speaking 'wrong' - in the sense that they do not (a) seek to profit the recipient or (b) defraud the owner of something to which they are reasonably entitled... (And I know we can debate reasonable for a while ) (For note - in the second example, it starts to be wrong (IMO) if it becomes available and you don't seek to pay for a legitimate copy). making copies (in whatever way) for evaluation purposes is also a pretty grey area - probably the best way to determine right/wrong is it it stops you acquiring a legitimate copy if you like it... (This one's contentious I admit - but there's some real rubbish out there, and "try before you buy" is an established approach for many things...). I'll admit I'm slightly unorthodox in my views, but I'm also happy to debate the ethics of them....

09-25-2008, 08:45 PM	#64
PsyDocJoanne Loves her 505 and her Z4! Posts: 157 Karma: 631 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Weston, FL Device: Sony PRS-505	^^^^^ That's exactly how I feel.

09-25-2008, 09:04 PM	#65
Redcard Addict Posts: 235 Karma: 1202269 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: Kindle	Again, I reiterate, the question was about legality, not ethics. I agree that format shifting/space shifting should be allowed. However, the court has been going a different direction and might continue to go that direction. I personally handle this by writing my congresscritters and keeping them up to date with what I feel.

09-25-2008, 11:35 PM	#66
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	Last I heard, in Canada downloading music is or at least was legal because of the recordable CD levy. The judge apparently stated that cashing the levy check was tacit permission. Needless to say that's due to a peculiarity of Canadian law and not generally applicable. In the meantime we're dealing with a copyright system that was designed to do one thing but is being used for something else under radically different conditions than those it was created to deal with. The original idea was that copyright was intrinsically bad, a lesser evil imposed on society as an incentive to creators to continue to create. Copyright law was an artifice to keep works from their natural state in the public domain. Now the purpose of copyright is to assert ownership, and treat the private domain as the natural state. These laws also came into being when each copy of a book was relatively expensive to produce, as opposed to today's world where an e-book can be duplicated with a simple CTRL-C, CTRL-V. Things are changing and the law hasn't caught up yet. Eventually it will. In the meantime, we are going to have an interesting time dealing with it.

09-26-2008, 09:51 AM	#71
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	I'm pretty sure some of that info is on the CD-- as far as I know, car stereos usually don't have internet connections. That does not, however, mean that MS isn't tracking what you're listening to. Only that knowing the CD title and track titles isn't enough proof.

09-26-2008, 11:24 AM	#73
NightGeometry Zealot Posts: 139 Karma: 1057240 Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Brighton, England Device: Sony PRS-T1, Kindle 3G, Kindle DX	The CD info is from the Gracenote CD database, neither Apple nor MS. You should have okay'd them to do that when you accepted the terms and conditions.