Pocket Premium for 5$ a month - is it worth it?

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by gabby98

IMO yes, and better - but from a mobile device, pocket works better (for me)...I still wouldn't pay $5 per mo though

I guess that makes sense for tablets, where you might be surfing the web from the device. The Kobo eReaders now have Pocket. For the most part I expect Pocket or Evernote Clearly to be collecting and formatting material from the web while browsing on a PC, keeping it in their cloud, where it would be readable on your device, after syncing. Once on my PC I can save the material as pdf or html, which I can read on devices that do not have Pocket or Evernote implemented on them.

Luck;
Ken

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Once on my PC I can save the material as pdf or html, which I can read on devices that do not have Pocket or Evernote implemented on them.

That could perhaps be a rather dubious activity under copyright law. It's one thing to save a website for offline reading on the device that you accessed it online; it's quite another to start making copies of that copyrighted material on other devices without the permission of the copyright holder. The fact that something is available online doesn't necessarily mean that you can just arbitrarily copy it; you need to check whether or not the material is copyrighted.

[Ken Maltby]

Hmm... I am sure some legal minds could make that interpretation. There are those who would find any form of "format shifting" as a violation of the law. How about copies sent to your cloud? Then the copies from the cloud to your devices? Isn't that what these services are doing, already? Not to mention the copies of web pages my browser makes so I can read what's on the site, in the first place. In fact isn't making a copy so you can read it, part of the whole point of a web site? Do web sites care what devices they get read on?

Luck;
Ken

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Hmm... I am sure some legal minds could make that interpretation. There are those who would find any form of "format shifting" as a violation of the law. How about copies sent to your cloud? Then the copies from the cloud to your devices? Isn't that what these services are doing, already? Not to mention the copies of web pages my browser makes so I can read what's on the site, in the first place. In fact isn't making a copy so you can read it, part of the whole point of a web site? Do web sites care what devices they get read on?

Luck;
Ken

I would personally make a clear distinction between the downloading of pages by a web browser (which is a download necessary to the operation of the web browser), and the conversion of a web site into an eBook, which then has an existence entirely separate from that of the web site. The latter activity seems awfully like copyright infringement to me.

I'm not alone in this view, by the way. Caltech actively issues takedown notices to anyone who create ebooks versions of their web site which has the Feynman lectures on it (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu).

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would personally make a clear distinction between the downloading of pages by a web browser (which is a download necessary to the operation of the web browser), and the conversion of a web site into an eBook, which then has an existence entirely separate from that of the web site. The latter activity seems awfully like copyright infringement to me.

I'm not alone in this view, by the way. Caltech actively issues takedown notices to anyone who create ebooks versions of their web site which has the Feynman lectures on it (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu).

Hmm...I think that if there were really a legal question about this, then the "Send to Kindle" extension for Firefox couldn't exist.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmm...I think that if there were really a legal question about this, then the "Send to Kindle" extension for Firefox couldn't exist.

Shari

Perfectly legitimate for public domain content.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would personally make a clear distinction between the downloading of pages by a web browser (which is a download necessary to the operation of the web browser), and the conversion of a web site into an eBook, which then has an existence entirely separate from that of the web site. The latter activity seems awfully like copyright infringement to me.

I'm not alone in this view, by the way. Caltech actively issues takedown notices to anyone who create ebooks versions of their web site which has the Feynman lectures on it (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu).

If someone has such up someplace, where they could be taken down from, then they are doing more than format shifting, and the science guild has every right to protect their substantial commercial interest in the material. Being outraged that a site might be read on an ereader instead of on a PC, is different from dealing with unauthorized public distribution of material you are trying to profit from.

Luck;
Ken

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perfectly legitimate for public domain content.

Hmm...but that's not what the extension is for. It's to send articles and website content directly to your Kindle from the browser. I can use it to send this page, if I want to...

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

If someone has such up someplace, where they could be taken down from, then they are doing more than format shifting, and the science guild has every right to protect their substantial commercial interest in the material. Being outraged that a site might be read on an ereader instead of on a PC, is different from dealing with unauthorized public distribution of material you are trying to profit from.

Luck;
Ken

And of course, the reality of the situation is that nobody gives a damn what you do if it's for personal use only.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That could perhaps be a rather dubious activity under copyright law. It's one thing to save a website for offline reading on the device that you accessed it online; it's quite another to start making copies of that copyrighted material on other devices without the permission of the copyright holder. The fact that something is available online doesn't necessarily mean that you can just arbitrarily copy it; you need to check whether or not the material is copyrighted.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would personally make a clear distinction between the downloading of pages by a web browser (which is a download necessary to the operation of the web browser), and the conversion of a web site into an eBook, which then has an existence entirely separate from that of the web site. The latter activity seems awfully like copyright infringement to me.

I'm not alone in this view, by the way. Caltech actively issues takedown notices to anyone who create ebooks versions of their web site which has the Feynman lectures on it (http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu).

Do you mean to say I am breaking the law if I print out a webpage -- unless I have specifically been given permission to do so?

As Ken said, if someone is publicly distributing copyrighted works, that is clearly illegal.

Just as clearly, the fact that they are available for my use online gives me permission to print out that page for my own personal use, on whatever medium I care to use... being as they were made available to me and all and I got them from the legal source.

DRM exists because there is no law saying I cannot do so.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Do you mean to say I am breaking the law if I print out a webpage -- unless I have specificlly been given permission to do so?

You would technically be so in England. Format-shifting copyrighted material is illegal here (but it's a law that's never been enforced, to the best of my knowledge). You're breaking the law here if you buy a CD, and rip it as MP3 files, for example.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You would technically be so in England. Format-shifting copyrighted material is illegal here (but it's a law that's never been enforced, to the best of my knowledge). You're breaking the law here if you buy a CD, and rip it as MP3 files, for example.

Interesting. So...if I'm involved in a lawsuit with a British company, it would be against the law for them to present a printout of my website as evidence in the case? Is it also against the law to take a screenshot of a web page?

Shari

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by shalym

Interesting. So...if I'm involved in a lawsuit with a British company, it would be against the law for them to present a printout of my website as evidence in the case? Is it also against the law to take a screenshot of a web page?

Shari

I am sure an expert will be with you shortly but IIRC there is an exception for legal evidence. Plus a screen shot would not be a format shift until edited.

[Jessica Lares]

In Safari you can Export to PDF. So it is very much a moot point. You're basically saying that printing anything online is also against copyright law, something I have been doing since 1995/6. I even have Printopia which lets me print to things like Evernote, Dropbox, etc.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

I am sure an expert will be with you shortly but IIRC there is an exception for legal evidence. Plus a screen shot would not be a format shift until edited.

As far as I can see, there is no exception listed for legal evidence purposes.

https://www.gov.uk/exceptions-to-copyright

How is a screen shot NOT a format shift? If I take a screen shot of this page right now, it transforms the web page into an image. Even if I don't edit the image, I've still shifted the format from html to an image.

Shari