I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Format shifting has been illegal before, and was legally considered piracy/copyright violation. It remains a grey area now, with exceptions granted for some formats and not others. Naturally, all of this depends on jurisdiction.

Yes, I know that. Ralph posted a hypothetical, and asked if he'd pirated the book. Despite the legality of "format shifting," I stand by my answer. In the scenario he posited, he didn't violate the intent of copyright law. I don't believe he would be chased as a pirate, in that circumstance. If he was asking "is there any offense here that could be pressed?," then format-shifting is the obvious answer. I think I covered that in my comment about dimbulbs and the unauthorized copying of the book, no?

@pwalker--you stated:

There is a reason that copyright violation is civil rather than criminal.

That's inaccurate. There are felony copyright infringement laws, criminal cases. Copyright infringement is NOT only a civil crime. Granted, it's not an everyday occurrence, but it absolutely exists. Most jurisdictions would decline to prosecute it, because typically, it's some schmuck that pirated a book and the damages can't be proven, but you best betcha that infringement most certainly can be a felony if provable.

Hitch

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hitch

but you best betcha that infringement most certainly can be a felony if provable.

Only if done commercially, or at least on a commercially significant scale. At least in the US and the UK.

[peaceridge]

What if the original book had not been shredded, but donated to a library?

I am responding to Hitch's post about scanning and then shredding.

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Format shifting has been illegal before, and was legally considered piracy/copyright violation. It remains a grey area now, with exceptions granted for some formats and not others. Naturally, all of this depends on jurisdiction.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by peaceridge

What if the original book had not been shredded, but donated to a library?

I am responding to Hitch's post about scanning and then shredding.

Format shifting a book you've bought for your own use is one thing. Format shifting and then giving a copy (either paper or electronic) to someone else is plainly copyright infringement. Two (or more) people now have copies of the book where previously only one person had it.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by peaceridge

What if the original book had not been shredded, but donated to a library?

If you donate a book to a library around here it will be sold in the annual fundraiser, not added to the collection.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by jhowell

If you donate a book to a library around here it will be sold in the annual fundraiser, not added to the collection.

I think most libraries I have been a member of do the same thing.
Apache

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Only if done commercially, or at least on a commercially significant scale. At least in the US and the UK.

Yes--I never said otherwise. I was simply correcting the misapprehension that copyright is ONLY a civil penalty. It's not. And I think you can assume fairly safely that regardless of volume, or "commercially significant scale," if it were a famous-enough author, the criminal penalties would be applied.

Originally Posted by peaceridge

What if the original book had not been shredded, but donated to a library?

I am responding to Hitch's post about scanning and then shredding.

As HarryT states, that's clearly and patently infringement. Where once one copy existed, now multiple copies do.

Hitch

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Hitch

As HarryT states, that's clearly and patently infringement. Where once one copy existed, now multiple copies do.

Hitch

The problem is the destroying of the original paper book. If you keep both, your self made copy and the original paper book it is fairly obvious it is okay. Morally and quite possibly legally under fair use or similiar. But what happens legally when you destroy the paper book? The ownership of said physical copy is the "license" that allows usage. If ownership changes you are supposed to get rid of your copies. Ownership does change by destroying.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

The problem is the destroying of the original paper book. If you keep both, your self made copy and the original paper book it is fairly obvious it is okay. Morally and quite possibly legally under fair use or similiar. But what happens legally when you destroy the paper book? The ownership of said physical copy is the "license" that allows usage. If ownership changes you are supposed to get rid of your copies. Ownership does change by destroying.

1. the chance of this ever getting prosecuted are pretty much zilch.
2. given (1), the owner/copyer/destroyer of the book knows they've acted morally, assuming they aren't handing out the book.
3. If I were personally to do this, I would consider destroying the book but keeping the cover.

I actually have a similar scenario myself - I have some old cassette tapes I'm converting to MP3 - they either don't exist on CD or aren't worth buying new copies. I'm keeping the insert and getting rid of the cassette. That saves me the storage space of the cassette and a small stack of inserts is negligible to store. I have no moral qualms with such a format shift and I won't be passing on copies to anyone else.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by GlennD

1. the chance of this ever getting prosecuted are pretty much zilch.
2. given (1), the owner/copyer/destroyer of the book knows they've acted morally, assuming they aren't handing out the book.
3. If I were personally to do this, I would consider destroying the book but keeping the cover.

I actually have a similar scenario myself - I have some old cassette tapes I'm converting to MP3 - they either don't exist on CD or aren't worth buying new copies. I'm keeping the insert and getting rid of the cassette. That saves me the storage space of the cassette and a small stack of inserts is negligible to store. I have no moral qualms with such a format shift and I won't be passing on copies to anyone else.

Sounds like a good answer. Likely never going to be prosecuted, just like removing DRM on ebooks is likely never getting prosecuted.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, I know that. Ralph posted a hypothetical, and asked if he'd pirated the book. Despite the legality of "format shifting," I stand by my answer. In the scenario he posited, he didn't violate the intent of copyright law. I don't believe he would be chased as a pirate, in that circumstance. If he was asking "is there any offense here that could be pressed?," then format-shifting is the obvious answer. I think I covered that in my comment about dimbulbs and the unauthorized copying of the book, no?

@pwalker--you stated:



That's inaccurate. There are felony copyright infringement laws, criminal cases. Copyright infringement is NOT only a civil crime. Granted, it's not an everyday occurrence, but it absolutely exists. Most jurisdictions would decline to prosecute it, because typically, it's some schmuck that pirated a book and the damages can't be proven, but you best betcha that infringement most certainly can be a felony if provable.

Hitch

In the real world, there are few absolutes. Sure, there are criminal copyright cases, involving massive pirating for profit, but as you say it's rare and the exception doesn't invalidate my point, which is that copyright is mostly a civil matter requiring the copyright holder to take positive action to sue.

Copyright law in the US is a lot like anti-trust, i.e. a lot depends on the individual judge and jury. There is a lot of murky territory in both bodies of law in the US.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Hitch

........... And I think you can assume fairly safely that regardless of volume, or "commercially significant scale," if it were a famous-enough author, the criminal penalties would be applied. ......... Hitch

This is not the case in any jurisdiction I am aware of. There is quite simply no criminal offence committed unless the infringements are "commercial".

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by darryl

This is not the case in any jurisdiction I am aware of. There is quite simply no criminal offence committed unless the infringements are "commercial".

Under the Canadian Copyright Act, section 42(1), there are quite a few criminal offences listed. Though most deal with the sales or rental of copyrighted materials, there are some provisions such "distributes infringing copies of a work"..." as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright". This was used a while back to shut down several online distribution sites and charge the operators of the system despite there being no commercial element (sales or rentals). Admittedly, the operators of at least one site promptly moved their servers to a site in eastern Europe and didn't miss a beat.

[darryl]

@DNSB. "Commercial" is used very widely here because there are so many jurisdictions and so many offences. Even ad and affiliate revenue for websites is usually enough, even if they distribute for free. And yes, there are some offences in some countries which may arguably apply to simple distributing. But simply making a copy for your own personal use does not seem to be covered by any offence that I have come across in any jurisdiction.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by darryl

@DNSB. "Commercial" is used very widely here because there are so many jurisdictions and so many offences. Even ad and affiliate revenue for websites is usually enough, even if they distribute for free. And yes, there are some offences in some countries which may arguably apply to simple distributing. But simply making a copy for your own personal use does not seem to be covered by any offence that I have come across in any jurisdiction.

I'm pretty sure that nobody was making the argument that making a single copy was a criminally prosecutable offense. My post was naught but to correct the misapprehension that copyright infringement is always or only civil; it's not.

And yes--commercial distribution of any quantity, pretty much qualifies as criminal. In the USA, Congress first criminalized copyright infringement in 1897. (That was for plays and music, not books, fwiw.) In 1907, I think it was, they broadened it to all types of infringement, but for criminality, it must be wilful and "for profit." (Not for personal use.) The fine was $25K, and up to a year in the slammer. To this day, if you prosecute this, you don't actually even need to demonstrate that any profit was attained; only that the intent was there. Criminal penalties were increased in 1974; in '82, felony criminality was added. In 1984, the prison terms were increased. (FYI, the "number of copies" that was the indicia for criminality and felony was 100 copies. That was later changed to value, versus the number of copies.)

The DMCA added three new areas of criminal acts. Circumventing DRM; selling devices intended to circumvent DRM, and selling devices that are intended to "bypass a copyright owner's normal copyright rights." (don't ask).

Those, BTW, aren't actually considered copyright infringement; they are separate and apart from normal infringement.

I would add that post-Napster, a variety of additional governmental departments and "task forces" have been set up, with the very specific goal of increased criminal prosecutions for infringement--not for major infringements only. Offered only FWIW.

Hitch