Funny I don't feel like a criminal

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

So dmaul - where is the point drawn? Giving it to one person? 2? 3? 10?

Legally, criminal copyright infringement starts when 10 or more copies are distributed. (In the US.) (Possibly or $2500 value.) But most of the prosecutions are civil; criminal is mostly restricted to going after rival publishers and bootleggers-for-profit, rather than the psychotic definition of "avoiding payment" as being the same as "for profit."

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

As long as it's clear and up front consumers aren't losing any rights.

That's the catch, isn't it. Retailers (either software or eBooks) like to present it to the customer as being a sale because that increases the value a customer sees and the price they can charge. They want you to believe you are buying the product when you hand over your money. Then, they also want to be able to bind you to terms via a licensing agreement.

The courts have essentially said "you can't have it both ways". You need to make it clear at the time of sale that this is a limited license and the customer does not own the product, or else your "license" terms will not hold. None of the eBook retailers I've seen do this. Terms in the fine print of an agreement claiming this is a license do not count, as far as the courts are concerned. If the shop makes the customer think they are buying the product, that is what counts. It's not illegal for them to put such terms in there, but they won't hold up.

Retailers can not make you think you own the product when you hand over your money, and then try to claim that you don't really own it afterwards because of the fine print of something you clicked on when you signed up for an account. This is what they are trying to do though.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by TGS

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?

If someone steals something for you and gets caught and convicted in criminal court, you don't get your money back etc. right? Just if the cops recover your property etc.

You have to take them to civil court and sue to try to get your money back.

This would be the same way. Having a criminal penalty for illegally uploading doesn't take away the copyright holder's right to sue for damages.

It's just an extra step to put a more serious penalty/label in effect to deter people from uploading copyrighted material.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The courts have essentially said "you can't have it both ways". You need to make it clear at the time of sale that this is a limited license and the customer does not own the product, or else your "license" terms will not hold. None of the eBook retailers I've seen do this. Terms in the fine print of an agreement claiming this is a license do not count, as far as the courts are concerned. If the shop makes the customer think they are buying the product, that is what counts. It's not illegal for them to put such terms in there, but they won't hold up.

Retailers can not make you think you own the product when you hand over your money, and then try to claim that you don't really own it afterwards because of the fine print of something you clicked on when you signed up for an account. This is what they are trying to do though.

Agreed.

The current situation is e-books are a small niche, so the issue hasn't gotten before courts yet. When

it does, they'll probably put the same restrictions they have on software--that if they want to do it that way, they have to be upfront that you're buying a license to read the book on machines tied to your account. Not buying the file to own. That or they just scrap DRM as a result of the ruling.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

it does, they'll probably put the same restrictions they have on software--that if they want to do it that way, they have to be upfront that you're buying a license to read the book on machines tied to your account. Not buying the file to own. That or they just scrap DRM as a result of the ruling.

It's too much of a tangled mess for them to pull that off, at this rate.

One of the requirements for "license" rather than "sale" is an expected return date or condition--if you get to keep it permanently, it's a sale, and usage restrictions don't apply. So ebook sellers would need to specify a date that your books expire ("five years from purchase," if they want to be generous), or maybe a condition for expiration ("when we release the new firmware, which doesn't happen more than once a year" or "when we renew the contract with that publisher"--not "when we feel like it."). You can't license something for indefinite use and yank it back whenever you feel like it, and you can't just say "it's a license so I can change my mind about how you get to use it anytime I want."

DRM'd library books are licensed; they stop working after 2 weeks. DRM'd kindlebooks are sold; they're supposed to work forever.

And after several years of selling ebooks like products, not licenses, they'll have a hard time convincing customers to "license" books that they used to buy. Especially if they try to pull, "last month, those were sales; now we're implementing limited licenses for the same price."

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

This would be the same way. Having a criminal penalty for illegally uploading doesn't take away the copyright holder's right to sue for damages.

Uploading is already illegal, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. If the uploading is big enough to get the governments attention, then it is already criminal. The "smaller" stuff is civil and is up to the right's holder to pursue.

If all you want is to make the smaller stuff criminal as well, the only thing that really does is put the government in the position of working to protect a private business's interests, rather than societies interests. I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's too much of a tangled mess for them to pull that off, at this rate.

Agreed. I think DRM just gets dropped eventually like it did with MP3s.

I do worry about all content going to some pay for access model in the future when we have super broad band everywhere, and they no long sell movies, music, books etc. You just pay for access to services that have all the content available where ever you go. But we're a long ways from that being remotely possible in any case.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

If all you want is to make the smaller stuff criminal as well, the only thing that really does is put the government in the position of working to protect a private business's interests, rather than societies interests. I'm not sure what the point of that would be.

Shoplifting is small stuff most of the time. It's illegal and people get charged with a crime for it. Thar's really protecting private businesses interests. Society isn't much harmed if people steal Snicker's bars etc.

Yeah the crime/harm is a bit more probably since the store lost a physical item, but it's still small stuff. And in the future if some content is only available digitally, and illegal download becomes the only way to "steal" something.

So yeah, I think they should go after the smaller uploaders who are getting files to 10, 20, 30 people (whatever cut off they want to use) and not only go after the extreme cases.

It's in societies interest to protect businesses so stores don't go under from theft, online stores don't go under as everyone is getting is free, so content creators don't lose incentive to put out new material when they're losing a ton of sales to piracy etc.

I see just as much societal incentive to enforce laws on illegal uploading etc. as I do most other minor misdemeanor crimes personally.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

....Society isn't much harmed if people steal Snicker's bars etc.
.....

I would disagree if it is widespread and common.

[darylbrayman]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Hopefully the fines would make the agency largely self sufficient.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

It's in societies interest to protect businesses so stores don't go under from theft, online stores don't go under as everyone is getting is free, so content creators don't lose incentive to put out new material when they're losing a ton of sales to piracy etc.

I'm not sure the content industry is really in any danger of "going under" due to piracy. The MPAA/RIAA likes to tell everyone that piracy is killing them, but they're still making record profits every year.

If you want to convince the public that it's in their best interest to protect those businesses, you'd probably need to show that they're actually in danger first. Otherwise, all you're really doing is helping to increase their profit margin (which is what most modern copyright/DMCA laws are really about).

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm not sure the content industry is really in any danger of "going under" due to piracy. The MPAA/RIAA likes to tell everyone that piracy is killing them, but they're still making record profits every year.

If you want to convince the public that it's in their best interest to protect those businesses, you'd probably need to show that they're actually in danger first. Otherwise, all you're really doing is helping to increase their profit margin (which is what most modern copyright/DMCA laws are really about).

But again a convenience store probably isn't going to go under from people shoplifting either, as the majority of shop lifters are never caught and punished. Expected loss from theft is built into prices and operating costs.

So I don't think the loss has to be a threat to the business to justify enforcing the law about loss/theft. Otherwise we'd just tell retail stores to hire security and deal with shoplifters in civil court and not treat them as misdemeanor criminal offenses.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Otherwise, all you're really doing is helping to increase their profit margin (which is what most modern copyright/DMCA laws are really about).

This is accurate in my opinion.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

So I don't think the loss has to be a threat to the business to justify enforcing the law about loss/theft.

Is there a loss? This gets into the always fun realm of pick your favorite report based on some source with an agenda. According to some the industry is loosing ungodly amounts of money due to piracy. According to others piracy is not a lost sale. According to yet others, piracy increases sales. This is why using the term "theft" is always misleading (and why it's used intentionally by those who want to mislead). There is no loss unless there is a lost sale. Using terms like "theft" certainly make it sound like there is always a lost sale, and I'm sure the industry is trying to spin it that way, but it's far from a universally accurate statement.

Before we get into a system where the public is funding an agency to protect these businesses from "loss", shouldn't we determine that there is actually something to protect them from? Otherwise you're in danger of getting swindled by them in order to pay for a system that does nothing but increase their profits, not protect them from anything damaging.

[dmaul1114]

If you don't consider it a loss--then we're going to have a very screwed up systems of laws when we move to having ONLY digital versions of content in the future.

I mean, again it's the same as shoplifting--minus the loss of a tangible, physical product. Would the person who shoplifted a Snickers bar have bought it if there was a camera etc. and they didn't feel they could get away with it? Of course the loss of the candy bar is a clear lost sale as no one else can buy--so their is a difference of course.

But I think all the arguments about piracy increasing sales etc. are just bunk the most part, and are mainly just coming from people who pirate stuff to rationalize/justify their actions. Some people pirate a song to check out a new band etc. and then run out and buy the band's albums, concert tickets etc. But that's not the real issue with piracy. The problem with piracy are those that just pirate everything and never pay for anything.

I think anyone that's been in college from 2000 or so on probably knows/knew plenty of people who downloaded hundreds or thousands of songs, downloaded movies etc. and never bought CDs, never went to the theater etc. Would they have bought ALL those CDs if piracy wasn't so easy? No, but most probably would have bought some of them, so some sales were lost. Just hard to quantify it exactly in terms of how many.

Loss/harm isn't as easy to quantify as it is with physical items where the store has lost an item that someone would have bought (or they could have returned etc.) eventually. So I just say treat each download as a lost sale in terms of the harm done, as the end result is a person has material they didn't pay for.

It's pretty dangerous to assume there's no loss/harm when digital products are downloaded illegally etc. as that sets a very dangerous precedent for protecting individuals and companies product as we move into a fully digital era in many industries.

Go that route, and I can pretty much guarantee my fear above of all digital content being streaming services only when internet capacity allows for becoming reality as that will be the only way companies can protect their product.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

If you don't consider it a loss--then we're going to have a very screwed up systems of laws when we move to having ONLY digital versions of content in the future.

I mean, again it's the same as shoplifting--minus the loss of a tangible, physical product. .....

This is exactly my point when I say it is theft.

Thank you.