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

[BadBilly]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

That's a fair restatement of Mivo's point. But wouldn't that also be true for the information that BREIN is seeking. BREIN wouldn't be taking a tangible object, just a copy. I'm sure that BREIN could truthfully claim "We never would have paid you for it."

Since the statement is so ridiculous, I'll assume you were joking...except it's not funny, so maybe I should reply.

The objection to BREIN trying to force retailers to provide client information is that it is a violation of privacy, not that they're not willing to pay to acquire it. Furthermore, neither Mivo nor I argued that a copyright infringement that does no harm (because the copier was not going to buy the book under any circumstances) wasn't an infringement. Just as paying for information that violates privacy laws doesn't mean it is not an infringement on those laws.

[BadBilly]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Those are cases where a majority has voted to take away rights from a minority (the content creators and sellers). Is that highly civilized?

Ah! Here is the problem. You have copyright law backwards in your mind. Society has granted creators limited control over the works to reward and encourage creation. Before copyright law, anybody was free to copy anything as they wished. Any rights creators have are because they were given to them. They did not start out with complete control and have that whittled away over the years.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by BadBilly

Ah! Here is the problem. You have copyright law backwards in your mind. Society has granted creators limited control over the works to reward and encourage creation. Before copyright law, anybody was free to copy anything as they wished. Any rights creators have are because they were given to them. They did not start out with complete control and have that whittled away over the years.

That is the American version of copyright law, not the much older origins of copyright elsewhere. (Originally copying was difficult to impossible, so there was no reason for copyright to exist.) Somebody creates something, he or she is free to do with it as he or she pleases. That is one of the basic premises of any society that accepts the principle of private property. All rights are rights granted to you by society (before there were rules and laws you could only protect your rights yourself), so if society decides tomorrow your house is not yours anymore you would be fine with it?

And once such rights have been granted they should be enforced by society.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by BadBilly

Ah! Here is the problem. You have copyright law backwards in your mind. Society has granted creators limited control over the works to reward and encourage creation. Before copyright law, anybody was free to copy anything as they wished. Any rights creators have are because they were given to them. They did not start out with complete control and have that whittled away over the years.

Before the printing press it was not cheap to make a copy. Before the internet it was not free. So while at one time it was legal to copy it wasn't actually free.

Copyright was meant to balance things out and encourage creation. Legal or not, I do not think I have a right to take something for nothing against the rights holders will. Those that feel otherwise, that is thier choice.

On a far larger scale, the government of China can and does legally coopt an entire village despite protesters setting themselves on fire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/wo...anted=all&_r=0
Legal or not, I question whether it is at all ethical or right in either case.

[samy2]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

You are right, the VAT on cd's and dvd's is also the high tarif. However, e-books are considered software. That remains, so it is still not allowed to download unless offered freely by the publisher/writer.

Not in every country. In the most states in europe - Netherlands also i think - there is a difference between software and computer programs. So there's just illegal to share copies of computer programs, not software at all. And in some countries there is something like "fixed price for books" and also for ebooks.

Even the European Court of Justice decided about if its legal to resell used computer programs. In the news is often spoken about "used software" but actual the Court just spoke about computer programs.

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by samy2

Even the European Court of Justice decided about if its legal to resell used computer programs. In the news is often spoken about "used software" but actual the Court just spoke about computer programs.

I think you may be referring to the Oracle versus UsedSoft lawsuit from last year. The European Court of Justice determined that downloaded software could be resold just like software on physical media can, thus shredding the distinction between software and license sales.

Verdict: Legal protection of computer programs – Marketing of used licences for computer programs downloaded from the internet

Press release: An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used’ licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet

Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy — tangible or intangible — and at the same time concludes, in return [for] payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.

Therefore, even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.

The verdict applies to the whole of the software industry operating within the EU.

I understand eBook != software, but I am curious, based on the same reasoning, as to the possibility of applying the same verdict to eBooks.

[samy2]

And this is important:

It follows from the foregoing that the answer to Questions 1 and 3 is that Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.

The mixed software and computer program a litlle bit in the text, but in the important parts the just spoke about "computer programs".

In Germany a Court recently decieded the that this is only for "computer programs" and Ebooks are not computer programs

You said:

Originally Posted by doctorow

I think you may be referring to the Oracle versus UsedSoft lawsuit from last year. The European Court of Justice determined that downloaded software

The court is saying:

It follows from the foregoing that the answer to Questions 1 and 3 is that Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder ....

So if the court speaks of software the meaning is computer program, not picture files , not ebook files, not music files...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Before the printing press it was not cheap to make a copy. Before the internet it was not free. So while at one time it was legal to copy it wasn't actually free.

Copyright was meant to balance things out and encourage creation. Legal or not, I do not think I have a right to take something for nothing against the rights holders will. Those that feel otherwise, that is thier choice.

On a far larger scale, the government of China can and does legally coopt an entire village despite protesters setting themselves on fire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/wo...anted=all&_r=0
Legal or not, I question whether it is at all ethical or right in either case.

In ancient times people created stories and and they were passed around freely. They existed virtually as copies in the minds of different people. A copy of the story was created when someone was listening to the story and it was created for free.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by doctorow

The verdict applies to the whole of the software industry operating within the EU.

Presumably in response to this, Valve (Steam) changed their User Agreement to a Subscriber Agreement, and customers now no longer purchase a license for a video game or a software title, but infinitely subscribe to it.

But yes, that's only for software, not for media, though if someone took a media-related case to a court, the outcome might be similar.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

In ancient times people created stories and and they were passed around freely. They existed virtually as copies in the minds of different people. A copy of the story was created when someone was listening to the story and it was created for free.

In ancient times the story tellers relied on the community to provide for them. If the story tellers starved there were no stories. Nothing has really changed.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

In ancient times the story tellers relied on the community to provide for them. If the story tellers starved there were no stories. Nothing has really changed.

Really, you think that storytellers didn't work the land and didn't go hunting or fishing, just told stories? If that would be true, at the first famine they would have all been left to die.