What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think lying is nearly always morally wrong. I prefer to just infringe copyright and just download if I am going to do something immoral anyway. It feels more honest than lying.

Taking something without paying the author for it feels more honest than lying so you can pay them for it?

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One issue you might well have, of course, is Mexico's horrendous "life + 100 years" copyright term, which is the longest in the world. That means that an awful lot of books will still be protected by copyright in Mexico which are now in the public domain for pretty much everyone else.

This worries me. I would not be at all surprised if the US content providers will start pushing for life+100 in another year or so because "Mexico required it to get TPP ratified", just as the US is trying to force Canada to go to life+70.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by murg

You know, I'm a little annoyed at this concept that an electronic file is intangible...

No need to be annoyed as the Oxford English Dictionary agrees with you (as do I) in that things do not have to be physical, touchable, etc. in order to be tangible. For anything that can be grasped by the mind as being even though it does not physically exist (even an idea or proposal, for example, which exists in our brains' "RAM" in some non physical form) that thing can be figuratively described as "tangible".

We grasp in our mind that an ebook, audiobook or software application file exists and so those things may be figuratively described as being tangible (as is the EULA that may come with those things). If they could not be grasped by the mind as being they may be figuratively describable as being intangible.

Also, as copies of things that can be grasped by the mind exist (such as a shared idea or proposal which exists in several brains' "RAM" and may still be described as tangible) then the fact that ebooks can be copied does not detract from their being able to be described as tangible.

There are other words that can have meanings in a similar manner as tangible does, for example "material". Material may mean that something is a physical thing, but it may also mean that it is important e.g. an important fact, so does not necessarily mean that its subject has to exist in physical or touchable form. "Substance" is another.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

No need to be annoyed as the Oxford English Dictionary agrees with you (as do I) in that things do not have to be physical, touchable, etc. in order to be tangible. For anything that can be grasped by the mind as being even though it does not physically exist (even an idea or proposal, for example, which exists in our brains' "RAM" in some non physical form) that thing can be figuratively described as "tangible".

We grasp in our mind that an ebook, audiobook or software application file exists and so those things may be figuratively described as being tangible (as is the EULA that may come with those things). If they could not be grasped by the mind as being they may be figuratively describable as being intangible.

Also, as copies of things that can be grasped by the mind exist (such as a shared idea or proposal which exists in several brains' "RAM" and may still be described as tangible) then the fact that ebooks can be copied does not detract from their being able to be described as tangible.

There are other words that can have meanings in a similar manner as tangible does, for example "material". Material may mean that something is a physical thing, but it may also mean that it is important e.g. an important fact, so does not necessarily mean that its subject has to exist in physical or touchable form. "Substance" is another.

I think you have missed the "fig." appearing before this part of the Oxford Dictionary definition, which is simply not applicable in this context.

[pmcnz]

Here in New Zealand the government-owned NZ Post Office operates forwarding addresses in the USA, UK and China for private citizens.
I have used it to buy spare parts for power tools sold on Amazon.com where the seller only ships to domestic USA addresses. I could not get the spares any other way as they were not available in NZ.
My wife and I mainly use the above services for stuff that is not available in a small country like NZ.
The shipping rates that we are charged by the NZ post office means there are no savings but it gives us choices we would not otherwise have.
By the way, parallel importing is 100% legal in NZ - until the dreaded TPP gets signed.

[murg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Try grabbing an electron, quantity one, and reselling it.

I buy them by the truckload from the electricity company.

And physical books are chock full of electrons.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But, unlike a physical book, the copy of the book in the bookstore isn't the same one that arrives on your PC, and the one on your PC isn't the same one that ends up on your reader. It's the same "data", yes, but not the same physical representation. The magnetic field that stores the 1s and 0s on your disk is not physically transferred to your reading device; an entirely new copy of the data is made.

That's why you need to have a licence that specifies how you're permitted to copy it, because creating copies of it is the only way that you can read it.

When I buy a physical book from, let's say, Book Depository or Amazon, I don't pick a physical book and have it sent to me. If Schrodinger has taught us anything it's that the book doesn't exist until I open the box. At which point it substantiates and becomes a book.

The same happens with downloaded books. They don't exist until put into a physical form inside of the storage medium.

A licence is just an attempt by the publisher/seller to control the book after the sale. This control is already in place in the copyright laws.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

A licence is just an attempt by the publisher/seller to control the book after the sale. This control is already in place in the copyright laws.

Copyright law says "you can't copy it without the permission of the copyright holder". That would make the ebook unusable, because the very process of reading an ebook involves copying it. You copy it when you download it from the bookstore. The licence grants you rights above and beyond those granted by copyright law to actually allow you to read the book.

This is not an issue with physical books, because you aren't making additional copies of the book in the process or buying or reading it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

No need to be annoyed as the Oxford English Dictionary agrees with you (as do I) in that things do not have to be physical, touchable, etc. in order to be tangible. For anything that can be grasped by the mind as being even though it does not physically exist (even an idea or proposal, for example, which exists in our brains' "RAM" in some non physical form) that thing can be figuratively described as "tangible".

We grasp in our mind that an ebook, audiobook or software application file exists and so those things may be figuratively described as being tangible (as is the EULA that may come with those things). If they could not be grasped by the mind as being they may be figuratively describable as being intangible.

The key here, though, is the expression "figuratively described". It's a figure of speech; it's not actually true.

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In what way to you consider licences to be immoral? What moral precepts do they violate?

The "license" concept for e-books takes away some very basic rights from me -- most of all, the right to keep a book, regardless of future technical, commercial or political developments. In almost all cases, the necessary steps to ensure that I'll still be able to read an ebook in the future, and that I can share it with family and friends in the way that I can share a printed book -- all of it what I consider to be fair use -- explicitly violate the terms of the license. But if I cannot keep a book, if I cannot share it, if I cannot build my own library so that it can last, this ultimately undermines our whole understanding of literature. Morality, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and I should have tried to argue without claiming it to be on my side.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

The "license" concept for e-books takes away some very basic rights from me -- most of all, the right to keep a book, regardless of future technical, commercial or political developments. In almost all cases, the necessary steps to ensure that I'll still be able to read an ebook in the future, and that I can share it with family and friends in the way that I can share a printed book -- all of it what I consider to be fair use -- explicitly violate the terms of the license.

The fundamental issue, though, Robert, is that the pesky nuisance of copyright law gets involved, because pretty much everything you do with an ebook involves creating extra copies of it, which is not the case with a physical book.

The licence doesn't take away rights - it grants rights over and above those that the law gives you. Without the licence you couldn't do anything with the ebook, because you'd need to get the copyright holder's explicit permission before copying the book from your PC to your reading device, for example. The licence grants you that right (and others).

You talk about "sharing with family and friends", but the trouble with digital content is that "sharing" really means "making additional copies". You're not lending someone your copy of the book; you're creating an additional copy and giving that additional copy to your friend. Both you and your friend now have the book.

Digital content is not the same as a physical product and different rules have to apply.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright law says "you can't copy it without the permission of the copyright holder". That would make the ebook unusable, because the very process of reading an ebook involves copying it. You copy it when you download it from the bookstore. The licence grants you rights above and beyond those granted by copyright law to actually allow you to read the book.

I think that fair use comes in here. I disagree that I need the terms of a licence to make copies of the electronic books I've bought, if the copies are incidental to reading the book.

I suspect that eventually this will be codified explicitly in some new laws.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think that fair use comes in here. I disagree that I need the terms of a licence to make copies of the electronic books I've bought, if the copies are incidental to reading the book.

Unlike the US, English copyright law does not have a "fair use" defence. It has instead what's called "fair dealing", and fair dealing covers only three specifically-defined areas: non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or the reporting of current events. None of these apply to the situation of making copies of an ebook for the purpose of reading it. It really is the licence which grants you that right.

Fair Dealing in United Kingdom Law

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unlike the US, English copyright law does not have a "fair use" defence. It has instead what's called "fair dealing", and fair dealing covers only three specifically-defined areas: non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or the reporting of current events. None of these apply to the situation of making copies of an ebook for the purpose of reading it. It really is the licence which grants you that right.

Fair Dealing in United Kingdom Law

Then that must mean that format shifting isn't legal for any purpose, correct? I believe that in the US, one of the reasons that recording from live TV or radio was ruled as legal was because of fair use--fair use was also the argument that allowed re-recording a vinyl record album to cassette tape (or making a digital copy) and copying a CD to your computer.

Are those things not allowed in the UK? If they are allowed, then what is the legal basis for allowing it?

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Then that must mean that format shifting isn't legal for any purpose, correct? I believe that in the US, one of the reasons that recording from live TV or radio was ruled as legal was because of fair use--fair use was also the argument that allowed re-recording a vinyl record album to cassette tape (or making a digital copy) and copying a CD to your computer.

No, the law changed in the UK last year to allow format shifting. Remember that "fair use" (and "fair dealing") are defences against copyright infringement. If the law specifically allows it (as it does with format shifting), no defence is needed.