Book publisher files mass BitTorrent lawsuit

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Depends on the jurisdiction. And on what precisely you mean by "theft." But a lot of courts seem to generally disagree:

"And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. " (Grokster, US Sct. 2005)

An apple is no different to an orange in that both are fruit. Doesn't make them the same. That copyright infringement is "no less an unlawful taking of property" than theft, does not mean it is the same as theft.

Originally Posted by Andrew H

"The fair use doctrine is not a license for corporate theft, empowering a court to ignore a copyright whenever it determines the underlying work contains material of possible public importance." (Harper & Row v. Nation, US Sct 1985).

Fair use doctrine is not a license for murder either. That doesn't mean murder and theft are the same under the law either.

Originally Posted by Andrew H

"A CATV that builds an antenna to pick up telecasts in Area B and then transmits it by cable to Area A is reproducing the copyrighted work, not pursuant to a license from the owner of the copyright, but by theft." (Teleprompter v. CBS, US Sct. 1974).

No, it is reproducinig the copyrighted work by copyright infringement. Use of the inaccurate term of theft by a judge(assuming that is a quote of the judge) does not change that fact.

Originally Posted by ANdrew H

"There is little doubt that the largest opportunity for copyright theft is through peer-to-peer (“P2P”) software." (In re Verizon Internet, US Dist. Ct. D.C., 2003).

There is no such offence or crime known as "copyright theft" as far as I am aware. If you could link to any such crime in any jurisdiction that may provide some back up to this quote. Otherwise it is simply another example of inaccurate terminology.

Originally Posted by Andrew H

"The matter before the court concerns the boundary between sharing and theft, personal use and the unauthorized world-wide distribution of copyrighted music and sound recordings." (A&M v. Napster, N.D. Calif., 2000).

Again, incorrect use of terminology. The matter before the court in that case was the boundary between sharing and copyright infringement. Otherwise Napster would have been taken to court over theft and not copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by Andrew H

There is a lot of legislation that made similar points, although I'll grant that the use of the word "theft" in the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004" may have been motivated in part because it helps spell "PIRATE".

I would argue that is the only reason the word is included.

Regardless of all of the above the fact remains, under the law there are two distinct offenses known as theft and copyright infringment. They are not the same and are not treated the same.

[greencat]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Hey gang! When you guys are all done here, I know this site where we can get free Harry Potter ebooks.

Now that made me laugh on this gloomy Monday morning.

I think most of these forays into lawyering are really just attempts to educate the population (and provoke discussions like this one) rather than serious attempts to stop piracy. The big numbers and dog sued for downloading porn are just (misguided?) attempts to get news coverage.

I can't see any way that piracy can be eliminated (especially with books as the files are tiny). Removing the inconvenience of DRM and high prices may help but it won't stop it completely. For some, any price is too high.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DustyDisks

The argument can also be looked at like this , your neighbor has a large garden and you wanted some of his corn that he grows. So he sold you some of it, and it was good.

Now, do you have the right to go to his garden again and take corn from him you have no intension of paying for, and you go and take it, in the dark of night?

The first is fair market value and the other is theft.

That is because in the second case the neighbor doesn't have that corn anymore. If he would still have the corn, it wouldn't be theft.

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Not just more expensive, but loaded with the annoyance of DRM, based on a claim that it is preventing the "sharing". Those who are actually stealing ebooks, are making it harder on all of us who are willing to buy ebooks.

Shouldn't you blame the uploaders?

[mr ploppy]

(DRM)

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry, but no you don't. You have an illegal stolen copy of someone's property.

But also one that won't self-destruct at some point in the future, so his point that the version without DRM is the better option is valid. And in some countries, downloading an unauthorised copy would be a much less serious crime than removing the DRM yourself.

[DustyDisks]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

That is because in the second case the neighbor doesn't have that corn anymore. If he would still have the corn, it wouldn't be theft.

Wrong!

Even if the buyer still had the corn they bought, if and when they go back and get more without paying for it , with out the permission of the owner, it is theft.

Original corn in hand or not!

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DustyDisks

Wrong!

Even if the buyer still had the corn they bought, if and when they go back and get more without paying for it , with out the permission of the owner, it is theft.

Original corn in hand or not!

Actually the neighbor that I was talking about would be the one with the large corn garden. If he still has his corn, then it wasn't stolen.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

That is because in the second case the neighbor doesn't have that corn anymore. If he would still have the corn, it wouldn't be theft.

He could grow some more corn for free, so it works better than the usual "would you download a car" type.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Shouldn't you blame the uploaders?

That would be the logical thing to do. I seem to remember the person who wrote the Harry Potter books chasing down someone who photograped one of them and put the photos on a website (through the camera's serial number or somesuch). While if it wasn't him it would be someone else who did it sooner or later, they would be the person ultimately responsible for all the unauthorised downloaders of not just that but also the ebook versions. High fines for doing something like that would probably put a lot of people off doing it.

[gsquared]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Actually the neighbor that I was talking about would be the one with the large corn garden. If he still has his corn, then it wasn't stolen.

Here in South Africa the law is clear - I would have thought that copyright law is much the same elsewhere. Clearly, from this thread, I am wrong.

Theft is the act of stealing, thus taking something from a person without that person’s permission, leaving the person without the specific work. With copyright infringement the copyright owner can still use the work and commercially benefit from it, but someone else is also using the work for which use the copyright owner is not compensated and not duly recognized. If I remove a book from the library and keep it, it is theft. If I take it, copy it and return it, it is not theft in our law, but copyright infringement.

[DustyDisks]

Originally Posted by gsquared

Here in South Africa the law is clear - I would have thought that copyright law is much the same elsewhere. Clearly, from this thread, I am wrong.

Theft is the act of stealing, thus taking something from a person without that person’s permission, leaving the person without the specific work. With copyright infringement the copyright owner can still use the work and commercially benefit from it, but someone else is also using the work for which use the copyright owner is not compensated and not duly recognized. If I remove a book from the library and keep it, it is theft. If I take it, copy it and return it, it is not theft in our law, but copyright infringement.

Which is illegal, so it is a crime. What ever you care to call it, theft or piracy, the fact remains it is illegal in much of the world.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

He could grow some more corn for free, so it works better than the usual "would you download a car" type.

You know the response to that:

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DustyDisks

Which is illegal, so it is a crime. What ever you care to call it, theft or piracy, the fact remains it is illegal in much of the world.

But it's legal term is not theft. If you choose to call it theft, there will always be someone to tell you that that it's not.

[gsquared]

Originally Posted by DustyDisks

Which is illegal, so it is a crime. snip

I am going to be pedantic here. Legal terms should be used in a semantically correct manner. Just me - no offense intended.
Illegal means contrary to the provisions of the law. It is therefore illegal not to pay my rent in accordance with a legal agreement with the landlord. The law states clearly that absent a legal excuse, you have to pay your rent. Not doing so is illegal. As in not in accordance with the law. Which is why you can be sued by the landlord. In a court of law. But it is not a crime. I will bet that this is the situation pretty much everywhere.
Our copyright act makes most infringements a crime. So that, in S.A., downloading from the dark side is both illegal and a crime. For which you can be jailed.

[DustyDisks]

Splitting hairs on how the act is defined, and the consequence perceived. It boils down what is right or wrong. And piracy by any name or act, is wrong.

The one that uploads the copy of the original real book bears the most blame.

They that download and use it, must answer the ethical/moral and legal questions that come from doing so with stolen/copied intellectual property.

With some the debate will never end.

Is it right or wrong?

Imho it is wrong.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by gsquared

Here in South Africa the law is clear - I would have thought that copyright law is much the same elsewhere. Clearly, from this thread, I am wrong.

Theft is the act of stealing, thus taking something from a person without that person’s permission, leaving the person without the specific work. With copyright infringement the copyright owner can still use the work and commercially benefit from it, but someone else is also using the work for which use the copyright owner is not compensated and not duly recognized. If I remove a book from the library and keep it, it is theft. If I take it, copy it and return it, it is not theft in our law, but copyright infringement.

In some jurisdictions in the US, theft is an unlawful taking of property that *permanently* deprives the owner of the property's value and use.

In other jurisdictions, including mine, theft is an unlawful taking of property that deprives the owner of any part of the property's value and use.

Copyright infringement is theft in my jurisdiction.

As is theft of cable services, as far as that goes. Is that not a crime in S.A.?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by gsquared

Here in South Africa the law is clear - I would have thought that copyright law is much the same elsewhere. Clearly, from this thread, I am wrong.

Theft is the act of stealing, thus taking something from a person without that person’s permission, leaving the person without the specific work. With copyright infringement the copyright owner can still use the work and commercially benefit from it, but someone else is also using the work for which use the copyright owner is not compensated and not duly recognized. If I remove a book from the library and keep it, it is theft. If I take it, copy it and return it, it is not theft in our law, but copyright infringement.

I think the closest would be "theft of service", like phone phreaking or using a cloned cable modem, bypassing an electric meter or similar. But even then it's a bit of a stretch. So "copyright infringement" or "unauthorised downloading" would fit a lot better. For uploading you could also call it "unauthorised publishing", but all the criminal cases in the UK so far have been brought using "conspiracy to defraud".