E-book customer sharing with anti-piracy group BREIN faces political backlash

[Edward_R]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't expect Safeway to provide free or low cost food for the needy, and they are possibly wealthier than the publishers. Be nice if they did of course, but soon they would probably be out of business.

Helen

Actually both Safeway and QFC where I live donate food to our local Food Bank almost every day.

[BelleZora]

Originally Posted by Edward_R

Actually both Safeway and QFC where I live donate food to our local Food Bank almost every day.

They also have voluntary employee donation programs which they match. Maybe OT, but just keeping it real.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Edward_R

Actually both Safeway and QFC where I live donate food to our local Food Bank almost every day.

They almost do in a way where I live, damaged goods are placed in bags for customers to buy and then they are sent to the food bank. I think Safeway benefits from this as much as the food bank as they get some money for the damaged goods. And there are bins for customers to donate food which they buy from Safeway. Perhaps Safeway donates some themselves, but I have never head of it.

Helen

[BadBilly]

Originally Posted by Mivo

There is a good chance that he is hurting no one.

Hypothetical losses are irrelevant, and the only question that matters is whether he would have paid for the book that he downloaded if he could not have downloaded it. If not, then no one lost anything.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure it is true for some people, just as I'm sure that that most people who park illegally and get a parking ticket sometimes (perhaps even often) do indeed park legally, but if you're given a parking ticket, is it a valid excuse to say "but I sometimes park my car legally"?

The fact that a person buys content legally does not make it acceptable for that same person to also pirate content, any more than parking your car legally makes it acceptable to also park it illegally. You get punished for the laws you break; you can't "balance" your law-breaking against the laws you obey.

You are deliberately misrepresenting Mivo's original point with a specious analogy. Mivo's original point was that many of those who may make unauthorized copies of e-books would not have purchased the e-book. There is no financial harm to the author or publisher because each received exactly the same amount of money they would have had the user not copied the book: zero dollars/pounds/euros/ etc. While the copyright was infringed, there was no harm done. That is the key: no harm done. No moral violation. No person or company was deprived of anything.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by BadBilly

You are deliberately misrepresenting Mivo's original point with a specious analogy. Mivo's original point was that many of those who may make unauthorized copies of e-books would not have purchased the e-book. There is no financial harm to the author or publisher because each received exactly the same amount of money they would have had the user not copied the book: zero dollars/pounds/euros/ etc. While the copyright was infringed, there was no harm done. That is the key: no harm done. No moral violation. No person or company was deprived of anything.

The downloader has taken something they have no right to take --- they have enriched themselves with the fruit of other people's work. That is the moral violation. Just as if an employer doesn't pay a worker --- "I have taken nothing from them, just their time". And if the downloader actually reads the book then they have done actual harm equal to the lost purchase price.

The easy choice is: "you don't want to pay the price, then just read something else". The "wouldn't have purchased the book anyway" is just a red herring, and doesn't really matter. You could use that for anything.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The downloader has taken something they have no right to take --- they have enriched themselves with the fruit of other people's work. That is the moral violation.

But that's just the issue at stake here. In many jurisdictions, including the one in the Netherlands where BREIN is situated, the downloader actually has the right to take that 'something'. According to the existing (modern!) laws, they are acting fully legal.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Soldim

But that's just the issue at stake here. In many jurisdictions, including the one in the Netherlands where BREIN is situated, the downloader actually has the right to take that 'something'. According to the existing (modern!) laws, they are acting fully legal.

If it is legal, then why are people worried? That means BREIN can't touch them. Besides, those surcharges on media, do authors, publishers get a cut of those proceeds? If so, how much? That whole scheme is just giving more power to politicians who get more money to distribute. And those who don't copy anything are paying for those who do.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by Soldim

But that's just the issue at stake here. In many jurisdictions, including the one in the Netherlands where BREIN is situated, the downloader actually has the right to take that 'something'. According to the existing (modern!) laws, they are acting fully legal.

Well, they have the right for audio and video (media). Not for anything else like software. What is an e-book? Is it software? The Dutch law implies that by not putting the low tax on like on media/art, but the higher tax.
It is not that clear for e-books.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If it is legal, then why are people worried? That means BREIN can't touch them. Besides, those surcharges on media, do authors, publishers get a cut of those proceeds? If so, how much? That whole scheme is just giving more power to politicians who get more money to distribute. And those who don't copy anything are paying for those who do.

Although downloading of media (perhaps with the exception of e-books) is allowed, uploading is not. That is why uploaders can be prosecuted, although BREIN has not dared yet. So far they have restricted themselves to lawsuits against ISP's for blocking sites and several take-down notices to hosts of torrent sites. And of course a lot of take down notices for newsgroups.
Usually it does not come down to an actual lawsuit, since most site hosters lack the funds for legal support.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If it is legal, then why are people worried? That means BREIN can't touch them. Besides, those surcharges on media, do authors, publishers get a cut of those proceeds? If so, how much? That whole scheme is just giving more power to politicians who get more money to distribute. And those who don't copy anything are paying for those who do.

If it is legal? There is no question about it. At this point in time it is legal to download ebooks in the Netherlands. Don't worry about it, people still buy books even if it is legal to download them.

What people are worried about is that BREIN together with the company that provides the watermarks for ebooks have decided that the contracts that the ebook sellers sign have to stipulate that the ebook sellers have to provide BREIN with information on the customers who bought the ebooks with the watermarks that are found on the web, since uploading is illegal. This way ebook sellers are forced to give information on their customers to a third party because the majority of Dutch books have watermarks so they can't refuse to sign the contract.

If you read the OP you will see that there is a discussion within the Dutch legal system on whether having the ebook sellers submit personal data on customers to third parties is legal or illegal.

What the readers are worried about is that simply finding a watermarked book on the web doesn't mean that it was uploaded by the one who bought it because someone could have made copies of the book without them knowing it.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If it is legal? There is no question about it.

Actually there is, because it appears that e-books falls under software instead of media. Hence the difference in VAT rate. Free downloading of software for which there is no license is prohibited.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Actually there is, because it appears that e-books falls under software instead of media. Hence the difference in VAT rate. Free downloading of software for which there is no license is prohibited.

Isn't the same VAT for music and films as well as ebooks?

[Toxaris]

No. Books have the low tariff, ebooks the high.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

No. Books have the low tariff, ebooks the high.

Music and films have high VAT as well, but are still not considered software -- even purchased fully digital. Hence, having higher VAT rate doesn't make an ebook necessarily software.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Actually there is, because it appears that e-books falls under software instead of media. Hence the difference in VAT rate.

Hmm, that should be easy to challenge, though someone probably needs to do it. E-book files aren't executable, but require a "player" to use them (either hard- or software), which should put them in the same category as songs and movies.

Is this defined somewhere?

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If it is legal, then why are people worried? That means BREIN can't touch them.

BREIN has a long history of questionable tactics. I personally wouldn't want to have any business with them, and I also wouldn't want them to get my private information for whatever reason. If there is a problem, the proper local authorities should get involved - not some private, industry-backed group who seems to fancy itself as some sort of law enforcement adjunct.