Funny I don't feel like a criminal

[HarryT]

Given that every bookstore does it - including the big name ones like Amazon, who employ armies of lawyers - I really would be surprised if it were illegal, Shaggy. Why doesn't someone challenge them in court, if it is?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So all of the customers who (as far as they knew) innocently bought and downloaded the Orwell eBook from Amazon would be criminals. Amazon was distributing infringed material, are their customers criminals or just the distributor?

Shaggy, there's always going to be a gazillion exceptions to any rule. When it's on a legit site, the penalties are going to go to the site not the people who downloaded it from Amazon.

I mean if some company prints copies of a book they think is public domain or whatever and sells them in stores, etc. they are the one's that are going to get hit with penalties, not the customers who had no way to know they were buying bootlegged books etc.

Finding some exceptions doesn't preclude having laws. The same is true for every criminal law and that's why their is TON of discretion in the criminal justice system--no law is going to be perfect. Police only make arrests in about 50% of cases where the evidence would support an arrest, they often give warnings instead of tickets, prosecutors often drop cases etc.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Given that every bookstore does it - including the big name ones like Amazon, who employ armies of lawyers - I really would be surprised if it were illegal, Shaggy. Why doesn't someone challenge them in court, if it is?

Agreed, such contracts in the fine print are legal in the US at least.

At least until they get challenged in court and overturned. These big companies with huge teams of lawyers aren't going to put that stuff in the fine print without knowing they have a legal backing to do so.

It's a different issue on whether they should legally be able to do that etc., but they clearly are now.

And I'd think courts--at least in the US--would uphold it given the way software is licensed, that they've held up copy protection on DVDs/Blu Rays (which makes it illegal to crack the copy protection so you can't even legally make a back up) etc.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes; it's a matter of ethics, not law. If you cannot agree with the terms of a purchase than the "correct" thing to do - for me personally - is not to make the purchase. Other people are, of course, free to make up their own minds about such matters. This whole thread has been about "right" and "wrong", rather than "legal" and "illegal".

Most EULAs are unfair, and possibly illegal. I have no qualms about ignoring provisions that seem to me to be grossly unfair and one-sided.

So I modify the ebooks I download from Fictionwise for my own use, and do not feel that I'm doing anything wrong by doing so, even though Fictionwise has in its terms of use (under section 9, Ebooks):

Users may not modify, transmit, publish, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the content of these product(s), in whole or in part. By downloading Fictionwise eBooks, the User hereby acknowledges and agrees to these terms.

(emphases added)

[HarryT]

Interesting terms of use, those, don't you think? If you're not allowed to "display" the contents of an eBook, how can you read it?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Interesting terms of use, those, don't you think? If you're not allowed to "display" the contents of an eBook, how can you read it?

I suspect that this is some legal jargon, and really means "publicly display".

But for more amusement, notice that we're not permitted to transmit the ebooks. So no emailing them to your Kindle for wireless delivery. And no use of a Bluetooth connection to download them to your phone.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Shaggy, there's always going to be a gazillion exceptions to any rule. When it's on a legit site, the penalties are going to go to the site not the people who downloaded it from Amazon.

So what would be the legal definition of a legit site vs a non-legit site?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Given that every bookstore does it - including the big name ones like Amazon, who employ armies of lawyers - I really would be surprised if it were illegal, Shaggy. Why doesn't someone challenge them in court, if it is?

It's not illegal to put terms in a contract that you know you can't enforce. It just means those terms are null and void, while the rest of the contract remains good.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

And I'd think courts--at least in the US--would uphold it given the way software is licensed

Actually, courts have ruled on this for software, in favor of the consumer.

Doesn't matter what a contract or license says, it can't take away consumer's rights. It's not against the law to try and do so, but such terms have no teeth.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I mean if some company prints copies of a book they think is public domain or whatever and sells them in stores, etc. they are the one's that are going to get hit with penalties, not the customers who had no way to know they were buying bootlegged books etc.

How is a downloader supposed to know whether the host they are getting content from is authorized? Isn't this the exact same situation?

Pick a link at random from google and download the data to your hard drive. Did you just commit a criminal act? How would you even know?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I suspect that this is some legal jargon, and really means "publicly display".

I suspect it was just badly worded.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So what would be the legal definition of a legit site vs a non-legit site?

Originally Posted by Shaggy

How is a downloader supposed to know whether the host they are getting content from is authorized? Isn't this the exact same situation?

Pick a link at random from google and download the data to your hard drive. Did you just commit a criminal act? How would you even know?

Ok, fair enough. I agree that's very tricky and I'm willing to concede that it's going to be hard to go after the downloaders.

But I throw all my support behind making uploading copyrighted material a crime, and having a large, federal agency (or requiring each state to have their own agency) to enforce the laws. Again, with penalties not being absurd. Just MSRP +25% or something for each time the file they uploaded was downloaded etc.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Actually, courts have ruled on this for software, in favor of the consumer.

Doesn't matter what a contract or license says, it can't take away consumer's rights. It's not against the law to try and do so, but such terms have no teeth.

Yet there's still plenty of software I use that can be licensed to only 1 or 2 machines, or only my one account etc.

So I don't see e-books being licensed to one account being any different legally.

As long as it's clear and up front consumers aren't losing any rights. I don't like it, but that's just the way it is until the courts rule otherwise and say nothing can be sold as a license etc.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

<snip
But I throw all my support behind making uploading copyrighted material a crime, and having a large, federal agency (or requiring each state to have their own agency) to enforce the laws. </snip>

Throw your support wherever the hell you like, but please don't spend my tax money so freely on large federal agency. I would like for them to go somewhere useful ok? You can send RIAA and their lawyers your check if you so inclined. They must be starved..

[dmaul1114]

Hopefully the fines would make the agency largely self sufficient.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Hopefully the fines would make the agency largely self sufficient.

I thought "the problem" with illegally downloaded material was that it deprives someone - the author, the publisher, the copyright holder - of income. Wouldn't it be better to use any income generated from fines to compensate these "victims", rather than supporting government agencies?