Secret Copyright Law Reported

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

One, if you still have a copy then nothing was taken.

And two, most of the people here who argue that infringement isn't theft think infringement is wrong. The only reason we continue to argue the point is that it isn't stealing. It's wrong, but it's a different kind of wrong.

Doesn't matter. If it's mine and I don't give permission to take it, it's theft.

Period.

The problem is people think different law (and apparently ethics) should apply dependent on the nature of the property.

The concept of theft and the ethics and morality of the action has no bearing on the physical nature of the property in question.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nope. The permission is granted by MR and the creators/publishers to download.

You have to read what I said, not what you want it to be.

It's just that earlier you seemed to be dismissing legalities ("The legalities are details. It's the concept that matters. The ethics, the morality.") - but now it seems the legalities mean we don't need Kafka's permission to take his work.

Is humming a tune theft in your view?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Nope, I'm just expressing my utter distaste for fearmongering.


IANAL, but as I understand it, the law explicitly says you are wrong.

See "Fair Use" and parody.

And remember, "take" isn't the same as "copy" no matter how much some people would like us to think so.

Again you're just fiddling with words and trying to justify something that is wrong.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

It's just that earlier you seemed to be dismissing legalities ("The legalities are details. It's the concept that matters. The ethics, the morality.") - but now it seems the legalities mean we don't need Kafka's permission to take his work.

Is humming a tune theft in your view?

Is reading out loud from a book theft?

Is Kafka around to grant permission?

Yes I'm talking about Concepts. What is right. Ethics. Morality.

[Moejoe]

Look, I'm a thief*



*Moejoe did not get permission from KennyC to post this picture by KennyC

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Is reading out loud from a book theft?

Not to me, but I suspect you'd think it was.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Look, I'm a thief*



*Moejoe did not get permission from KennyC to post this picture by KennyC

Yes you are. But we already knew that didn't we.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes you are. But we already knew that didn't we.

Are you sure about that one? I just checked the data embedded in the file and it seems that I took the picture in December of 2006 on my CANON EOS-1DS III and I edited the image in Photoshop CS3. Apparently, copyright is so stringent and usefu in the modern age, that it MUST be my copyright on this image. Maybe it's you who are the thief!!! How dare you take my copyrighted images and put them on your website!!! How very much dare you!!!




WHOAAHHHH - Looks like I was wrong. This picture was taken by Ted Theodore Logan in September of 1699

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The problem is people think different law (and apparently ethics) should apply dependent on the nature of the property.

Not should apply. Does apply. Intellectual property is treated differently to physical property.

BTW, you quoted (i.e. copied) an earlier message of mine without my permission. By your own logic, that makes you a thief because I didn't give you permission to do that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

Not should apply. Does apply. Intellectual property is treated differently to physical property.

BTW, you quoted (i.e. copied) an earlier message of mine without my permission. By your own logic, that makes you a thief because I didn't give you permission to do that.

No should. You clearly are not following.

By posting your message on a public forum that explicitly allows quoting of the messages you have given your permission.

If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

[6charlong]

Here’s the issue I’m concerned with. Franz Kafka was a citizen of Bohemia, part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His work was published in Germany and around the world. Bohemia became part of Czechoslovakia, Germany, then Czechoslovakia again, and now the Czech Republic. Kafka died in 1924. Finally, the Mobileread servers, where we download his work, are located in Canada and I live in the US.

I want to respect Kafka’s rights--well, his heirs and assign’s rights, really--but do I have a right to download his work from Mobileread? I feel certain that Canadians have a right to download it, but I honestly don’t know for certain if I do because Canadian copyright laws are different than US copyright laws, because every country has its own version of fair use.

The “leaked” information about this treaty has no details about what other countries are at the table. Will the US law accept Canada’s idea of a fair copyright? Or will Canada accept the US idea? It occurs to me that the two Senators who made the leak may be trying to kill the treaty before it can be negotiated, politics being what they are and treaty negotiations are seldom done in public.

The final issue, I think, is how important is it for me to know whether I’m entitled to download one of Kafka’s works. It’s hard for me to see how I could possibly be expected to obey a law if I don’t know how to apply it, so my own answer to that is that I need to know, somehow, what is legal and what it not. As this thread shows, there is no universal agreement about what is fair and what isn’t. None of this was a problem before the Internet connected all of us, but now that it has, how do we proceed?

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Doesn't matter what you say, doesn't matter how logical you are, how obvious your point is, what the actual reailty is, they're still going to think that copying a file is the equivalent of stealing a baby from the cot of a starving mother .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXR4T8xVFdw

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

The final issue, I think, is how important is it for me to know whether I’m entitled to download one of Kafka’s works. It’s hard for me to see how I could possibly be expected to obey a law if I don’t know how to apply it, so my own answer to that is that I need to know, somehow, what is legal and what it not. As this thread shows, there is no universal agreement about what is fair and what isn’t. None of this was a problem before the Internet connected all of us, but now that it has, how do we proceed?

If you're talking about the English translation of "The Trial" that's here at MR, then it is a copyrighted, but freely redistributable work, and can be freely downloaded regardless of where you live.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Is reading out loud from a book theft?

According to Entertainment Industry Orwellian Thugs (the EIOT), it is:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...14293724.shtml

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

Here’s the issue I’m concerned with. Franz Kafka was a citizen of Bohemia, part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. His work was published in Germany and around the world. Bohemia became part of Czechoslovakia, Germany, then Czechoslovakia again, and now the Czech Republic. Kafka died in 1924. Finally, the Mobileread servers, where we download his work, are located in Canada and I live in the US.

I want to respect Kafka’s rights-....

The final issue, I think, is how important is it for me to know whether I’m entitled to download one of Kafka’s works. It’s hard for me to see how I could possibly be expected to obey a law if I don’t know how to apply it, so my own answer to that is that I need to know, somehow, what is legal and what it not. As this thread shows, there is no universal agreement about what is fair and what isn’t. None of this was a problem before the Internet connected all of us, but now that it has, how do we proceed?

It does get complicated doesn't it? At least we are kinda back on topic. We have very few shared global laws or even ethics or morals. Any country could potentially pass laws that allow their citizens to take your property. Would that be legal? Would it be ethical? moral?

I think/hope that part of what is being discussed in these "Secret" meetings is ways to come up with a more global agreement of how to manage intellectual property rights. Of course that may not be at the heart of it at all.