Fair Use?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by TGS

I've often argued that unauthorized downloading is not stealing - it's not even piracy.

No kidding. There's actually no such thing as "authorized" downloading.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

There were portable CD players before MP3 players. MP3 players were devloped so more tunes could be placed on a single device. If anything, the MP3 industry developed in spite of piracy. And, if anything, piracy will hinder the e-book industry, not enable it.

The music industry tried to suppress mp3 players:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...suit_with_RIAA

Can you guess where most of thier profits come from now?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Just because you aren't taking a physical object doesn't mean you aren't stealing. If you don't compensate someone for what you are taking, in this case the author's creation, you are stealing! There is nothing to decide when it comes to the morality of stealing!

Using that logic, every time you buy a second hand paperback you are stealing because the author is not compensated.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Can you guess where most of thier profits come from now?

Extortion?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Using that logic, every time you buy a second hand paperback you are stealing because the author is not compensated.

Or go to the library... that's where all the criminals hangout.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No kidding. There's actually no such thing as "authorized" downloading.

No, I know, (not least because you've told me not a few times), I just wanted a kind of shorthand for "that thing that some people do as a result of which they get a copy of an ebook that they haven't paid for and which some other people get all hot and bothered about". So it seemed easier to say "unauthorized downloading" than to say all that.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

You all just don't get it. Even if the cost is lower, incalcuable or intangible, it is still stealing. For every e-book downloaded illegally, that is one e-book the author and publishers haven't been paid for. And saying the publishers are a bunch of greedy bastards (something I'll pretty much agree with) doesn't exonerate stealing from them.

Just because something is just a file doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It doesn't matter if it is printed on a bunch of bound paper or is a few well directed electrons recording a string of 1s and 0s, the actual product is the content and it is the content is what has value. Being easy to replicate doesn't make something valueless.

Copyright infringement is stealing. Infringement means accessing something you do not have the right or permission to access. Trying to parallel that to jaywalking and murder is ludicrous unless you were going for comparing the severity of the offense. Again, because you don't see the value of something doesn't exonerate you. It still doesn't matter if something if something you take actually doesn't have value (not likely or you wouldn't want it), if you you take something that doesn't belong to you, you are a thief. And just because you are getting away with it doesn't make it right.

Even if a bus is half empty, if you ride without paying, you stole that ride. It's not fair to the other passengers who did pay (and frankly, if I see you trying to steal a ride on a bus I WILL rat you out!). If all passengers rode without paying, there would be no more busses since someone has to pay for running the bus. The pirates can't create their illicit e-books unless someone writes the book and someone else makes it available (i.e. publishers). They can't do what they do unless they can make a profit. If they do not collect enough to make that profit because people are stealing part of that product (and the product is the intellectual content, not the actual book or file that is used to deliver the content), they will have to raise their prices. People who have the decency, integrity, and backbone to be honest now have to bear the burden of those who selfishly don't give the north end of a south bound furry rodent about no one other than themselves.

Even if no one is hurt by your stealing (and someone always is, whether you have the brains to realize it or not), it is still wrong. It has been a standard of society since Oog the caveman swiped something from his buddy Ugh, Ugh didn't like it and express it with a club on OOg's noggin. When people lose that standard, then society breaks down. If you think that is ridiculous, crack open your (legally owned) history books.

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Copyright infringement is stealing. Infringement means accessing something you do not have the right or permission to access. Trying to parallel that to jaywalking and murder is ludicrous unless you were going for comparing the severity of the offense. Again, because you don't see the value of something doesn't exonerate you. It still doesn't matter if something if something you take actually doesn't have value (not likely or you wouldn't want it), if you you take something that doesn't belong to you, you are a thief. And just because you are getting away with it doesn't make it right.

It isn't stealing, but it is Copyright infringement. If I steal a book from you, you no longer have possession of the book, I do. If I copy it - we both now possess the book. Both are illegal, but not the same crime.

By your logic, if I lend my books to a friend, that person is stealing from the author and I guess I would be an accomplice.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You all just don't get it. Even if the cost is lower, incalcuable or intangible, it is still stealing. For every e-book downloaded illegally, that is one e-book the author and publishers haven't been paid for. And saying the publishers are a bunch of greedy bastards (something I'll pretty much agree with) doesn't exonerate stealing from them.

Just because something is just a file doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It doesn't matter if it is printed on a bunch of bound paper or is a few well directed electrons recording a string of 1s and 0s, the actual product is the content and it is the content is what has value. Being easy to replicate doesn't make something valueless.

Copyright infringement is stealing. Infringement means accessing something you do not have the right or permission to access. Trying to parallel that to jaywalking and murder is ludicrous unless you were going for comparing the severity of the offense. Again, because you don't see the value of something doesn't exonerate you. It still doesn't matter if something if something you take actually doesn't have value (not likely or you wouldn't want it), if you you take something that doesn't belong to you, you are a thief. And just because you are getting away with it doesn't make it right.

Even if a bus is half empty, if you ride without paying, you stole that ride. It's not fair to the other passengers who did pay (and frankly, if I see you trying to steal a ride on a bus I WILL rat you out!). If all passengers rode without paying, there would be no more busses since someone has to pay for running the bus. The pirates can't create their illicit e-books unless someone writes the book and someone else makes it available (i.e. publishers). They can't do what they do unless they can make a profit. If they do not collect enough to make that profit because people are stealing part of that product (and the product is the intellectual content, not the actual book or file that is used to deliver the content), they will have to raise their prices. People who have the decency, integrity, and backbone to be honest now have to bear the burden of those who selfishly don't give the north end of a south bound furry rodent about no one other than themselves.

Even if no one is hurt by your stealing (and someone always is, whether you have the brains to realize it or not), it is still wrong. It has been a standard of society since Oog the caveman swiped something from his buddy Ugh, Ugh didn't like it and express it with a club on OOg's noggin. When people lose that standard, then society breaks down. If you think that is ridiculous, crack open your (legally owned) history books.

I'll make this simple, calling something stealing and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. It didn't make Bush a fascist it doesn't make Obama a communist and it doesn't make infringement stealing. Stealing deprives someone of the use of something. When you copy the thing still exists. To copy without permission is not legal I don't see anyone saying that it is. It can however be moral but you decide that for yourself.

I think the worst part of all this isn't the 'turfers on forums or even people ignorant of the workings and motivations behind copyright, it sure wasn't taught to me in my basic schooling. The real problem, dare I say crime, is when its the writers who talk about stealing. People's who's buisness is words using the wrong one. Larceny is not embezzlement is not infringement is not fraud is not trespassing is not counterfeiting is not bootlegging....

We have these words for a reason. For the love of the gods, learn what they mean.

Now between Ugh and Ogg, I think you're confused. Ugh has a lovely new club with a leather wrapped handle. Uhg said wow that's a cool idea it must give a much better grip, I'm going to make a club just like that. Ogg clubbed him because he felt he had an intellectual property right to leather leather grips. That's the "stealing" you're talking about and that's what the copyright cartel is doing these days.

Now the original post was on downloading an ebook of something you have in dead tree form. My reasoning is thus..

You in most places have the right to scan it yourself. Since the end result is the same if you scan or download I don't see a problem with letting someone else do the scanning for you.

The publishers have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. The refuse to sell ebooks and yet claim to sell ebooks. The offer a license and call it a sale and then take away the rights that go along with a purchase namely doing whatever you want with it. If what i have is a license I'm entitled to a copy, if my copy becomes damaged then I'm entitled to a new one, after all I payed a license fee. Now I can't just take a book from a store, I may deserve a copy but not that one. However downloading it, no one loses, I've already paid my license when I bought the dead tree book.

I know what you're thinking, I didn't pay for the format shift right? That's what they want you to think this is why they want perpetual copyright and DRM, its not so much people not buying it the first time around but with DRM they can count on making you re-buy the same book every few years the way record companies got people to buy the white album on LP 8track cassette and cd. We've entered an era, especially with books where a copy won't wear out. Music and movies they'll play with new formats, and trying to fit more and more into what they sell to get you to buy again. Books can be format shifted without loss or at worst minor repairable loss. Drm is their only chance to make you pay over and over for the same content.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Using that logic, every time you buy a second hand paperback you are stealing because the author is not compensated.

Are you serious or are you just baiting me?

When you buy a second hand book, ownership of the book is transferred from the previous owner to you. Nothing illegal or unethical has occurred unless the previous owner retained a copy of the book. In that case, if you were unaware the previous owner had retained a copy, then the previous owner is the thief. If you were aware of it, then you become an accessory to the crime (yes, stealing is a crime).

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Are you serious or are you just baiting me?

When you buy a second hand book, ownership of the book is transferred from the previous owner to you. Nothing illegal or unethical has occurred unless the previous owner retained a copy of the book. In that case, if you were unaware the previous owner had retained a copy, then the previous owner is the thief. If you were aware of it, then you become an accessory to the crime (yes, stealing is a crime).

I don't think calling copyright infringement "stealing" is productive. It's inaccurate and provocative and it sidetracks the discussion. It's a crime all on its own and doesn't need to be equated to stealing to make it bad. You might as well call libel "stealing" because it robs someone of their good reputation. Riding on the bus without paying is probably trespassing or violation of some specific local public transit bylaw - but you won't be charged with theft.

I think that's why you feel like you're being baited. You're insisting that copyright infringement is stealing, but "stealing" has a very specific legal definition that simply doesn't include copyright infringement. I suspect that what you mean is simply that copyright infringement is illegal and is not victimless. I'd be willing to stipulate to that just so the discussion can get back on track.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I'll make this simple, calling something stealing and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. It didn't make Bush a fascist it doesn't make Obama a communist and it doesn't make infringement stealing. Stealing deprives someone of the use of something. When you copy the thing still exists. To copy without permission is not legal I don't see anyone saying that it is. It can however be moral but you decide that for yourself.

I think the worst part of all this isn't the 'turfers on forums or even people ignorant of the workings and motivations behind copyright, it sure wasn't taught to me in my basic schooling. The real problem, dare I say crime, is when its the writers who talk about stealing. People's who's buisness is words using the wrong one. Larceny is not embezzlement is not infringement is not fraud is not trespassing is not counterfeiting is not bootlegging....

We have these words for a reason. For the love of the gods, learn what they mean.

Now between Ugh and Ogg, I think you're confused. Ugh has a lovely new club with a leather wrapped handle. Uhg said wow that's a cool idea it must give a much better grip, I'm going to make a club just like that. Ogg clubbed him because he felt he had an intellectual property right to leather leather grips. That's the "stealing" you're talking about and that's what the copyright cartel is doing these days.

Now the original post was on downloading an ebook of something you have in dead tree form. My reasoning is thus..

You in most places have the right to scan it yourself. Since the end result is the same if you scan or download I don't see a problem with letting someone else do the scanning for you.

The publishers have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. The refuse to sell ebooks and yet claim to sell ebooks. The offer a license and call it a sale and then take away the rights that go along with a purchase namely doing whatever you want with it. If what i have is a license I'm entitled to a copy, if my copy becomes damaged then I'm entitled to a new one, after all I payed a license fee. Now I can't just take a book from a store, I may deserve a copy but not that one. However downloading it, no one loses, I've already paid my license when I bought the dead tree book.

I know what you're thinking, I didn't pay for the format shift right? That's what they want you to think this is why they want perpetual copyright and DRM, its not so much people not buying it the first time around but with DRM they can count on making you re-buy the same book every few years the way record companies got people to buy the white album on LP 8track cassette and cd. We've entered an era, especially with books where a copy won't wear out. Music and movies they'll play with new formats, and trying to fit more and more into what they sell to get you to buy again. Books can be format shifted without loss or at worst minor repairable loss. Drm is their only chance to make you pay over and over for the same content.

A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html


What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Question: Why are copyright holders concerned about piracy?

Answer: Free speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution but so are property rights. Copyright law provides incentives for creating. One of the incentives for creating software, music, literature and other works is being able to reap the financial benefits as the creator. Illegitimate distribution of copies may prevent the copyright holder from benefiting from the sale of legitimate copies of the product. The theory is that significantly fewer people would buy copies from the copyright holder if other copies were available cheaper or for free.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID143

steal   /stil/ Show Spelled [steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

I know bloody well what the words mean. Obviously you do not.

The dictionary definition of steal is to take something that isn't yours. Copyright infringement is taking the product of someone without permission. If you don't have permission to take it, it isn't yours. If you take something that isn't yours, you are stealing. Maybe the concept is too simple for you to grasp? Or are you just trying to rationalize your own thefts?

This isn't about DRM and defeating it so you can freely use what you own. This about taking something you don't already own. Backing up or replacing (including media shift) a paper book with a digital copy is legal. Getting a copy from someone who legally owns a copy and is making the copy for you to replace a damaged or destroyed copy you legally owned is probably legal (it's a gray area legally but since the copy you are replacing was legal I seriously doubt it would be a problem; I replaced a CD a friend had damaged in a car break in based on that since I knew she had owned a legal copy--I had given it to her). Getting that backup or replacement copy from a pirate is very questionable since the pirate doesn't have the right to reproduce and distribute that product, assuming the pirate even owns a copy of the book.

Btw, the passages I copied from various websites were done legally under fair use which permits me to make a copy of part of a work for educational purposes.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

Do you have a point? Did anyone say it was lawful to distribute copies without permission?

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Question: Why are copyright holders concerned about piracy?

Answer: Free speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution but so are property rights. Copyright law provides incentives for creating. One of the incentives for creating software, music, literature and other works is being able to reap the financial benefits as the creator. Illegitimate distribution of copies may prevent the copyright holder from benefiting from the sale of legitimate copies of the product. The theory is that significantly fewer people would buy copies from the copyright holder if other copies were available cheaper or for free.

I see the word infringement I see the word copy, I don't see the word steal[/quote]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID143

steal   /stil/ Show Spelled [steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

I know bloody well what the words mean. Obviously you do not.

The dictionary definition of steal is to take something that isn't yours. Copyright infringement is taking the product of someone without permission. If you don't have permission to take it, it isn't yours. If you take something that isn't yours, you are stealing. Maybe the concept is too simple for you to grasp? Or are you just trying to rationalize your own thefts?[/quote]

I don't see the word copy listed there.

Accusing me of theft like that is probably against the posting guidelines and possibly libelous.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

This isn't about DRM and defeating it so you can freely use what you own. This about taking something you don't already own. Backing up or replacing (including media shift) a paper book with a digital copy is legal. Getting a copy from someone who legally owns a copy and is making the copy for you to replace a damaged or destroyed copy you legally owned is probably legal (it's a gray area legally but since the copy you are replacing was legal I seriously doubt it would be a problem; I replaced a CD a friend had damaged in a car break in based on that since I knew she had owned a legal copy--I had given it to her). Getting that backup or replacement copy from a pirate is very questionable since the pirate doesn't have the right to reproduce and distribute that product, assuming the pirate even owns a copy of the book.

That turns out not to be the case, this thread is exactly about freely using what you've paid for. The question was about downloading a copy of a book you've already bought. That would be instead of doing the scanning yourself which one might not have the equipment for or one may not want to risk damage to the book in the scanning process. We've settled on it is not legal the question was is it moral. Everyone has to decide that for themselves but I happen to have no problem with it.

Some people do, they say you paid for paper and are only entitled to paper till it is destroyed and then you must buy again. Bit those are the same people who say you're only entitled to use something so long as the drm servers are working and only on a single device. Those are the people who lobby for longer copyright. Those are the people who lobby for laws that prevent stripping DRM. Those are the people who consider selling a used copy as akin to picking their pockets.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Btw, the passages I copied from various websites were done legally under fair use which permits me to make a copy of part of a work for educational purposes.

It was certainly fair use but I don't think astroturfing counts as educational.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

And pray tell who is the entity I'm supposedly astroturfing for? I would like to get paid.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

And pray tell who is the entity I'm supposedly astroturfing for? I would like to get paid.

Hmm well you're pretty much parroting for publishers of books music and video. Why don't you tell us what your financial interest is in coming here and calling people thieves when they disagree on the morality (not the legality) of downloading a book you already own a copy of.

You're the one who came in out of nowhere on the attack.