What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[itisbomb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because there is all the difference in the world between borrowing, buying, or giving away an existing copy of a book, and creating an additional copy of a book and distributing that additionalal copy without the permission of the copyright holder.

Well, the copyright holder would not permit you to make an additional copy because he/she would not want to loss any potential sale. Don't forget that in a wonderful world of free market, everyone (according to Adam Smith) acts out of self-love. The copyright holder will be no difference. Actually the self-love motive especially applies so in this case since the copyright holder has a monopoly power - call me cynical.

But regarding lending of digital books with or without making a backup copy, if you look at the end result, the two practices are not as different as you think. In the end two persons enjoy the same book and the author does not get extra payment. The end result is exactly the same. But while one practice is regarded as copyright infringement, the other is not. Robert seems to grasp its irony and idiocracy. I think he trys to argue against equating copyright infringement with immorality.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by itisbomb

But regarding lending of digital books with or without making a backup copy, if you look at the end result, the two practices are not as different as you think. In the end two persons enjoy the same book and the author does not get extra payment. The end result is exactly the same. But while one practice is regarded as copyright infringement, the other is not. Robert seems to grasp its irony and idiocracy. I think he trys to argue against equating copyright infringement with immorality.

Accepting, for the sake of discussion, the validity of your argument, that then raises the question of where you draw the line.

If giving your friend a copy of an ebook is OK, is giving a copy to 10,000 of your closest friends on the Internet also OK? If it's not, what makes giving it to one person OK, but 10,000 people not OK? What is the maximum number that would be considered acceptable?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If giving your friend a copy of an ebook is OK, is giving a copy to 10,000 of your closest friends on the Internet also OK? If it's not, what makes giving it to one person OK, but 10,000 people not OK? What is the maximum number that would be considered acceptable?

I'll tell you if you can tell me how many grains of sand it takes to make a pile of sand, as opposed to a set of individual sand grains.

One is clearly fine. 10,000 is clearly wrong. I'd be willing to say that even 100 is clearly wrong.

But equally clearly, there's isn't a X between 1 and 100 when X is fine and X+1 is wrong.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'll tell you if you can tell me how many grains of sand it takes to make a pile of sand, as opposed to a set of individual sand grains.

One is clearly fine. 10,000 is clearly wrong. I'd be willing to say that even 100 is clearly wrong.

But equally clearly, there's isn't a X between 1 and 100 when X is fine and X+1 is wrong.

This is where I struggle. To you, 1 is "clearly fine" but 100 is "clearly wrong". I can't make that distinction: to me, if giving 100 people copies of a book is wrong, then so is giving one copy. I guess that this is a situation in which we all have to make our own judgement.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Accepting, for the sake of discussion, the validity of your argument, that then raises the question of where you draw the line.

If giving your friend a copy of an ebook is OK, is giving a copy to 10,000 of your closest friends on the Internet also OK? If it's not, what makes giving it to one person OK, but 10,000 people not OK? What is the maximum number that would be considered acceptable?

It doesn't matter. The very fact that it would be possible for someone to (hypothetically) responsibly loan ebooks (in a manner commensurate with physical book loaning) is reason enough to not universally apply the "piracy" label to those who (hypothetically) might choose to do so.

The "line" is up to the authorities to draw--and they need to do so in a way that doesn't assume all readers are out to bankrupt their favorite authors. It's not like they're actually prosecuting an ebook loan between friends now—with the zero tolerance rule in effect—so I suspect they'll be able to come up with something just as efficient as they have now that would legally permit a friend to "lend" a friend an ebook.

As far as I'm concerned, the line could easily be drawn at uploading or emailing (and no, that doesn't mean they can't go after the pirate who builds an elaborate flash-drive, snail-mail, illicit ebook network).

[itisbomb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Accepting, for the sake of discussion, the validity of your argument, that then raises the question of where you draw the line.

If giving your friend a copy of an ebook is OK, is giving a copy to 10,000 of your closest friends on the Internet also OK? If it's not, what makes giving it to one person OK, but 10,000 people not OK? What is the maximum number that would be considered acceptable?

I think we as a whole are too different and not smart enough to come to a concensus on where exactly the line should be drawn. That's why we inventing an ambiguous word of "fair use".

Your "fair use" is clearly different from others'. You have your own set of value. Others have theirs. And I don't think any particular definition of "fair use" is absolutely correct. This concept is too subjective to be defined to everybody's satisfaction.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is where I struggle. To you, 1 is "clearly fine" but 100 is "clearly wrong". I can't make that distinction: to me, if giving 100 people copies of a book is wrong, then so is giving one copy. I guess that this is a situation in which we all have to make our own judgement.

Perhaps I can explain the distinction like this:

For a physical book, you have no problem with loaning a book you've bought and read to a friend. That's fine by you. Even if you go on to loan the book to 100 of your friends, one at a time, that's fine. I submit that this isn't because no copy is being made, but that because the number of simultaneous reads per purchase is never more than one.


Looking at it this way (number of simultaneous reads per purchase), giving a copy of an ebook that you have bought and read to one other person is fine. The number of simultaneous copies being read will never be more than one.

Giving a copy of an ebook that you have bought and read to 100 people is not fine. The number of simultaneous copies being read will almost certainly be more than one.


Any help?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not talking about what I do or don't believe. I'm talking about whether or not lending someone a physical object (a printed book) can be equated to giving someone a copy of a digital one. I would respectfully submit that they are two very different acts, and that giving someone a copy of a digital item is what has conventionally been described as "piracy".

Unfortunately that too is what you believe -- and the opinion of many is, you are wrong.

It is all about the end result. If I keep a backup of all my ebooks, and lend someone else a copy of the ebook while scrupulously not reading it myself, it is no different than lending the ebook and deleting my copy (inexplicably, you seem to be okay with this) ... except that my capacity for redundant backup is greater.

No one is buying the book once and distributing to the masses, or even to a handful of people -- it is a loan to person I trust, done with my own personal standard of honesty that you feel is unworthy.

Furthermore, Amazon grants me the right to share my library with one other person in an unconditional manner, and both of us can additionally share with anyone logged into our accounts (family ) -- is that a copyright violation? Oh wait, I don't evn have to break DRM because the vendor systems enable it!

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is where I struggle. To you, 1 is "clearly fine" but 100 is "clearly wrong". I can't make that distinction: to me, if giving 100 people copies of a book is wrong, then so is giving one copy. I guess that this is a situation in which we all have to make our own judgement.

Oh, are we allowed to do that now? I thought you already passed verdict that I am a criminal...

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would respectfully submit that they are two very different acts, and that giving someone a copy of a digital item is what has conventionally been described as "piracy".

Gosh, and I, as a non native English speaker I always thought that piracy is the act of taking something from someone

Leaving the joke apart, yes, unauthorised copy is what apparently is commonly named piracy.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

One of the problems is that some copyright holders who are trying to come up with new and innovative ways to increase their cash flow will label anything that might not match their business model as piracy. Thus, Disney's CEO claims that not watching commercials is stealing from Disney and some copy right holders claim you need to buy a separate copy for each and every device that you use.

Actually, the movie business (and the music, too, for preceding historically the movies) is different. Listening to music meant (before the invention of "music conserves") to go each time to the summer garden and listen to the singer, and pay for the consumption (maybe a tip in the open hat) EACH time. Wanted to see a movie, you paid EACH time a ticket. That business model came back as VOD or PPV (video-on-demand, pay-per-view).

In other words, the consumers got a freedom the studios, as initial promoters!!!, like now to have it reverted back. In your case, Disney sold the Mickey Mouse in all possible forms, from theatre-tickets to Bluray and Ultraviolet, not counting the other things, like T-shirts, etc. They also lobbied the Congress to prolong the ancillary rights duration.

But audio and video industry is quite different from the book, although both sides are important as the content is concerned not the medium. One doesn't buy the round policarbonate disc with a hole in the middle as such, but for the music/movie it stores. One does not buy a book for the paper to start a fire or for the toilet (there have been case for both, but it's not the mainstream ) but for reading it. Once listened/viewed/read, these items loose a part of their appeal, modern movies are watched only once (they are wonderful ), modern music would also be listened once (and never again, but the FM radio keep sending them in ether per contracts they have), and a book is stored in the garage. Sometimes, they may be read/listened/watched again, but from the next generation.

[eschwartz]

consummation = point at which something is finalized.
I think you meant consumption.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Unfortunately that too is what you believe -- and the opinion of many is, you are wrong.

He's right.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It is all about the end result. If I keep a backup of all my ebooks, and lend someone else a copy of the ebook while scrupulously not reading it myself, it is no different than lending the ebook and deleting my copy (inexplicably, you seem to be okay with this) ... except that my capacity for redundant backup is greater.
No one is buying the book once and distributing to the masses, or even to a handful of people -- it is a loan to person I trust, done with my own personal standard of honesty that you feel is unworthy.

This is not what the law said, although I believe you're of a good faith.
By giving someone else a book, you deprive the publishers from selling his copy to that person (he is a potential customer, since he wanted to read that book), and consequently you infringed her ancillary right of distribution.

Under certain jurisdictions, it is possible (legally) to sell your copy to a third party, provided you destroyed all the copies you have. By "sell" can be understand also give away, lend, whatever action that keeps the number of owners to 1.00000 .

Originally Posted by eschwartz

No one is buying the book once and distributing to the masses, or even to a handful of people

At least the plurality of torrents with movies, CDs, and recently even PDFs and eBooks makes your assertion rather weak, so to say.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Furthermore, Amazon grants me the right to share my library with one other person in an unconditional manner, and both of us can additionally share with anyone logged into our accounts (family ) -- is that a copyright violation? Oh wait, I don't even have to break DRM because the vendor systems enable it!

Do not confound the options you have with the law requirements.
I assume you may get once in a while a slap from your wife, or vice-versa, an action that repeated with a different person in public may get you or the other one into police custody on the spot .

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by itisbomb

Well, the copyright holder would not permit you to make an additional copy because he/she would not want to loss any potential sale. Don't forget that in a wonderful world of free market, everyone (according to Adam Smith) acts out of self-love. The copyright holder will be no difference. Actually the self-love motive especially applies so in this case since the copyright holder has a monopoly power - call me cynical.

But regarding lending of digital books with or without making a backup copy, if you look at the end result, the two practices are not as different as you think. In the end two persons enjoy the same book and the author does not get extra payment. The end result is exactly the same. But while one practice is regarded as copyright infringement, the other is not. Robert seems to grasp its irony and idiocracy. I think he trys to argue against equating copyright infringement with immorality.

Well, it depends on what happens next.
If the one that got the copy keeps it for further readings, yes, it's an infringement. If both persons read the same book again it's an infringement. Because both situations involve the loss of a potential customer.

But if you give the eReader (with the books) to a third party, you act like lending him/her a paper book. No infringement.

Think of a metro ticket (monthly abo, transmissible). Only a person may use the public transportation at a given time.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

He's right.

This is not what the law said, although I believe you're of a good faith.
By giving someone else a book, you deprive the publishers from selling his copy to that person (he is a potential customer, since he wanted to read that book), and consequently you infringed her ancillary right of distribution.

Under certain jurisdictions, it is possible (legally) to sell your copy to a third party, provided you destroyed all the copies you have. By "sell" can be understand also give away, lend, whatever action that keeps the number of owners to 1.00000 .

I appear to have been under the delusion that we were talking about right and wrong, not the entirely separate point of legality. It seemed a fair assumption at the time, especially since not even he gives a single darn about the actual law.

Thank you for correcting me of this misapprehension.

At least the plurality of torrents with movies, CDs, and recently even PDFs and eBooks makes your assertion rather weak, so to say.

Perhaps I should not have expected people to figure out from context that I was strictly referring to the subset of people that are violating HarryT's proclamations. I apologize for not being clearer.

Do not confound the options you have with the law requirements.
I assume you may get once in a while a slap from your wife, or vice-versa, an action that repeated with a different person in public may get you or the other one into police custody on the spot .

Thanks for the warning, but you see, I haven't actually done any such thing.
Amazon specifically gives me all those rights, hence my mentioning them in the first place.

[Ghitulescu]

The laws are not always ethic. But the laws are made to be at least observed, if not obeyed.