What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

My attempt at translation: "Copies may only be made for private use, for instance to be used with the CD player in the car, or to be given to persons with whom a close personal relationship exists, as with relatives or friends. No monetary gain may be sought from these copies."

So much for the law. The moral issue, as always, we all must decide for ourselves.

So I was right, other countries also have this thing allowing giving copies to close friends. Which is the most reasonable way to write this exception.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by doctorow

What are you talking about? I mentioned in the same post that public distribution (such as torrents) could be seen as a commercial purpose (since as soon as it is in the public, someone may use the content for commercial purposes). And I also specifically referred to musical recordings, as the Recording Act only concerns musical recordings but not your ebook collection.

Fair point regarding the music/ebook split, sorry.

So I am allowed to upload my music collection then...

I really don't see how you can possibly interpret that as a commercial purpose. Someone else taking your non-commercially distributed music library and distributing it commercially on their own behalf is NOT a case of YOU doing commercial distribution.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well. The meaning of general here was that it applied to everybody which I though was the case in the example given.

If the discussion applies to everyone, then by definition if your example only affects some country(ies?) with weird and crazy laws, in other words it is not a universal law, then by your own logic your case does not apply.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's precisely why I question the claim made in this thread that it's "generous" to "share" your ebooks with your friends. Sure, your friend probably does think you're being generous, but the problem is that it's not your property that you're so generously giving away - it's the author's. Both the law and - IMHO - ethical considerations should, to my mind, dictate that it's the author who has the right to determine who to give copies of his or her books away to, and nobody else.

What if I don't give it away, I only lend it?

AFAICT *most* people here do not equate "generous" with "giving free ebooks" but rather with "lending on the honor system".

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I really don't see how you can possibly interpret that as a commercial purpose. Someone else taking your non-commercially distributed music library and distributing it commercially on their own behalf is NOT a case of YOU doing commercial distribution.

It doesn't matter. It's not how I interpret the law. It's how the law was interpreted when Napster lost in district court (Napster tried to use the provision as its defense but failed).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If the discussion applies to everyone, then by definition if your example only affects some country(ies?) with weird and crazy laws, in other words it is not a universal law, then by your own logic your case does not apply.

What are you talking about? The case was giving a link to a site that distributed the work under a licence available to everybody (the work is public domain or have a licence that allow distribution).

[doctorow]

This discussion reminds me of the Diamond Rio. Back in the late 90s, RIAA sued Diamond to prevent them from selling their portable MP3 player (one of the first of its kind). They claimed that it violated the Audio Home Recording Act.

"We filed this lawsuit because unchecked piracy on the Internet threatens the development of a legitimate marketplace that consumers want." -- RIAA

Following their logic, consumers didn't want digital music players. Nor did they want MP3s. Ok, that was yesterday. Today all major labels sell unprotected MP3s (and other formats). Why didn't someone think of this back in the late 90s? Because the industry didn't respect or trust their customers.

The publishing industry is making the same mistakes. They don't approach current technologies in a way that balances the rights and needs of both consumers and authors. They continue barricading their content behind restrictive DRM and stiffling licensing schemes. I don't own the book, I just purchased the right to read its content. I cannot resell it because I don't have the license to do so. And so on. Their attempt to control customer actions and continue doing business as they always did will bring about their own downfall.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

What are you talking about? The case was giving a link to a site that distributed the work under a licence available to everybody (the work is public domain or have a licence that allow distribution).

The case is sharing your copy of a freebie book. It is a copyrighted, non-Creative Commons book that simply happens to cost $0.00 -- you do not have distribution rights just because your copy was gratis.
If it can still be purchased at that $0 price point, the friend can go get his/her own free copy. If not, they must pay money to attain their own copy. Either way, they too must go to the only authorized redistributor.

[darryl]

@RobertDDL. Thanks for posting these links. It appears that these provisions, including giving copies to close friends, are not uncommon in the civil law countries of the EEC. Presumably these provisions also do not extend to whole books?

I must say I'm surprised. I have posted a number of times that I considered particular things were unlikely (or likely) and have been proved wrong on a number of occasions. I think it's a function of my exposure to the ridiculous intellectual property laws in the large common law countries, and particularly the United States, and the enormous influence of lobbyists which have distorted the law against the interests of consumers. I am astonished that "rights holders" would permit such an exception to exist, and presume that it was a trade-off for the levy which, even more amazingly, extends to computers, at least in Sweden.

Having said this, I am not generally a fan of the EEC's approach to this type of issue. I think a levy is a terrible impost. On the other hand, I like the fact that the law recognises reality, which is that people are going to share music and movies with friends. But is it fair to allow this without a levy? Or, given the reality, would it really make any difference? A "sane" copyright law should reflect reality, and the reality is that books, music and movies are trivially easy to duplicate and distribute, and it is happening all of the time. Yet these industries remain viable. Attempts to encourage "voluntary compliance" by use of terror campaigns in the US, where young children have been sued for apparently downloading a few songs, has not worked. I wonder if recognising reality and allowing similar rights in, say, the US, would result in massive losses to the industries concerned. Though I am sure that we would be told it did irrespective of what actually resulted. If we are to have sane and enforceable laws perhaps rights-holders will need to abandon the idea that they must receive money from every single copy. This is not happening now despite laws which are unenforceable but classify ordinary people as criminals. I'm not stating my opinion yet, as I don't know that I have formed one. Simply food for discussion.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Let me ask Harry another question--shifting the focus to music, since I'm currently in the process of digitizing my LP collection, creating multiple archival and listening copies. I plan to get rid of the LPs, donating and/or selling them. In your ethical system, is this acceptable or not?

It depends on the performing year. Any musical arrangement rights lapse after 50 years. So anything before 2014 - 50 (remember, the copyright years are full years, so 2015 does not count) may be safely copied and kept. Unless your local law says something different (eg 95 years, or forbidding copying altogether).

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Have you ever bought a used LP or CD? If so, have you required proof that the seller has not made a copy of it?

You, as a buyer, don't need it. You are in the possession of the originals. It's the job of the seller to prove his copies are lawful.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What if I don't give it away, I only lend it?

AFAICT *most* people here do not equate "generous" with "giving free ebooks" but rather with "lending on the honor system".

I very much get the impression that people are talking here about giving away copies of their books, not merely lending them.

Lending seems fine to me, but only when done through a system, such as Amazon's, which enforces both a time limit and the inability of the lender to read the book while the borrower has it.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by doctorow

While various industry protagonists are lamenting the piracy effect of digital goods, I wonder, how is that any different from the good old analog days when everyone was happily making analog copies left and right? Remember how you could buy blank cassette tapes in bundles of 20, 50, or 100 for very little money? What other purchase did these serve for the normal consumer than to rip lots audio? Heck, I was sharing music with my teachers, and nobody thought anything wrong about it or considered it to be piracy. Nor was there anyone complaining.

The copyright terms were the same also back then.
The point is that the studios didn't care too much, and therefore people considered the lack of legal suits as the status of freedom. And apparently they do today, too .
The point was that analogue copies suffer from degrading quality. The studios started to move only when the recording devices and media reached a quality level that the copy was almost as good as the original. This happened for the first time around 1964, when taxes like RIAA and GEMA (for Germany) have been introduced for the recording gear. The next step occurred in 1990, when another tax was levied, this time off recordable media, and introduced the SCMS copy control (actually it's a copy prohibiting) system - and almost killed the DAT (and made CDR live on "life support"). Surely the older amongst us remember the "Taping home is killing music" slogan.
Levying a tax for copying but preventing it altogether (BD cannot be copied yet the tax levied is around 3,9€ apiece) is a con act.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is allowed ethically and legally to give copies (e.g. tape copies of LP) to your friends (in most countries). I really do not see that having given copied to your friends you would not be allowed or that it would be an ethical problem to later sell the LP (keeping no copies yourself).

And I do not really see how the situation with keeping copies yourself can be different ethically.

It's debatable.
First of all, define friend. Then define friends. Because while it's commonly accepted to watch a movie or listen a tune in the family, it's not the same if you invite the whole school or all the friends you may have (eg in facebook) - remember the giant parties of thousands of invitees? And if charges are applied (apart for the medium) you entering the business world...

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Some devices already permit this, of course. Eg with a Kindle you can share books between any devices registered to the same Amazon account, and also share books between family members using different accounts. As you rightly say, it's unrealistic to expect that books won't be shared between family members, and much better if (as Amazon have done) a legitimate method is provided for doing so.

This is not what the copyright says.
However, Amazon has bought the licences, and does this under its current conditions. That is a trap, of course, since anyone that breaks the contract automatically enters under the more restrictive copyright terms - in other words if breaking a contract is not unlawful, the breaking of a law is. Beware
Secondly, this may also be a marketing strategy. Amazon is almost a monopole, but some competition still exists. I wonder what will happen after the competition has been crushed. Examples are known from the past .