Confessions of a Book Pirate

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by thename

Actually, all of what you just stated is--by most definitions that the stores and publishers have embraced--technically piracy as by converting or backing up copies of a Kindle book you are violating the license you agreed to by purchasing said item:



A reader doing exactly as you--the author of said work--suggest is in violation of the DMCA and, therefore, pirating your work and implicitly infringing on your copyright and intellectual property.

This, in my view, is as bad as--if not worse--than DRM restrictions and is yet another reason Smashwords is one of the few stores which receives my business.

Actually I am not suggesting violating anything--I think the "personal use" part does allow for a backup copy and also converting it FOR PERSONAL USE. The kindle lines about using it on that device only has to also accommodate the Kindle for PC and other like devices.

Believe me, I'm not trying to violate any copyrights and I do want to protect my intellectual property. I want my work to be accessible and affordable and would love it if books I buy were the same.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And everybody who has ever watched a DVD with more than one other person is also breaking the law. That's a public performance you criminals!! An unauthorised exhibition!! How is Robert De Niro going to afford the purchase of another luxury hotel with you dirty thieves not paying for extra copies for all those other free loading naughty people to watch, huh, huh!? Did you think about that when you were stealing from Mr. DeNiro, I bet you didn't, did you? Shame, shame. If you don't buy the DVD's then how are Hollwyood's finest and brightest stars supposed to afford cocaine and hookers? Ask yourself that, naughty person, the next time you lend your friend a DVD!

Except that this claim isn't an accurate interpretation of the law. In fact, by presenting it as if it is, it *might* be construed as legal advice which, in many jurisdictions, would make *them* liable for prosecution-for practicing law without a license. (Don't have enough details to be sure though-for example, if the warning was written by a lawyer, whose copyright would be owned by the company per contract, then that might avoid such prosecution-if anybody was silly enough to file it.)

In any case, you need to be aware that it's actually a court's determination of what the law says that determines whether or not a given act is legal-not a company's interpretation.

[thename]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Actually I am not suggesting violating anything--I think the "personal use" part does allow for a backup copy and also converting it FOR PERSONAL USE. The kindle lines about using it on that device only has to also accommodate the Kindle for PC and other like devices.

I think you're missing the "solely" part of

solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.

I find it hard to construct any reading of this sentence that allows storing/reading the file on any device Amazon has not explicitly authorized e.g., a Linux box/Sony Reader/nook/etc.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Believe me, I'm not trying to violate any copyrights and I do want to protect my intellectual property. I want my work to be accessible and affordable and would love it if books I buy were the same.

I didn't mean to suggest you are. I was trying to point out that your views are rendered moot (re: backing up the DRM-free file shouldn't be a violation of your copyright) by the license agreement Amazon has pushed.

We all want accessible, reasonably priced works that don't restrict our own rights while respecting the rights of the author. We've seen the music business end up in this boat after years of ridiculous litigation and back-biting (can you imagine how nice it would have been if we could've been buying $.99 DRM-free tracks from our dorm rooms in the late-90's; the DMCA would never have gotten off the ground): they offer a reasonably priced product that the public can use and the vast majority of people pay for their music.

I think Coker has the right idea as does Doctorow. Widespread piracy is a byproduct of a broken system. It will never be completely eradicated but I can't imagine the copying of books won't always be done by some fringe group or other.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And everybody who has ever watched a DVD with more than one other person is also breaking the law. That's a public performance you criminals!! An unauthorised exhibition!!

[SNIP]

Actually, that particular issue has been through the courts in the U.S., back when VCRs and video tapes were new. Having some friends over to your house to watch a movie does not constitute a public performance. Not even when you take up a collection to cover the cost of renting the (then) very expensive VCR and television with a composite-video-in jack (rather than the then-usual connect-up-to-the-antenna-and-tune-to-channel-3 approach).

But outside your home, or if you advertise to strangers, or if you do it to make a profit, or a bunch of other things I don't remember... then you are straying in the direction of a public performance. And public performances require licensing (and maybe payment, depending on license terms).

Similarly, singing "Happy Birthday" with your friends and family for friends/family does not constitute a public performance. Even if you are in a bar or restaurant at the time. On the other hand, if the restaurant's staff (waiters, musicians, whatever) sing that very same song, it becomes a public performance that you are paying for (with some fraction of your final bill).

In between cases have been in the courts much more recently. ASCAP and BMI recently granted a royalty-free license to (at least) the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of America for round-the-campfire use of whatever songs they like. The issue was in court, and press gave ASCAP and BMI such a black eye that they decided it was better to grant the license than to look like jack-booted thugs. Not to mention the risk that they might lose, and set another fair-use precedent.

Xenophon
(As usual: I am not a lawyer, and this is NOT legal advice! If you require legal advice on which you may rely, consult a real lawyer rather than some guy on the Internet.)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Actually, that particular issue has been through the courts in the U.S., back when VCRs and video tapes were new. Having some friends over to your house to watch a movie does not constitute a public performance. Not even when you take up a collection to cover the cost of renting the (then) very expensive VCR and television with a composite-video-in jack (rather than the then-usual connect-up-to-the-antenna-and-tune-to-channel-3 approach).

But outside your home, or if you advertise to strangers, or if you do it to make a profit, or a bunch of other things I don't remember... then you are straying in the direction of a public performance. And public performances require licensing (and maybe payment, depending on license terms).

Similarly, singing "Happy Birthday" with your friends and family for friends/family does not constitute a public performance. Even if you are in a bar or restaurant at the time. On the other hand, if the restaurant's staff (waiters, musicians, whatever) sing that very same song, it becomes a public performance that you are paying for (with some fraction of your final bill).

In between cases have been in the courts much more recently. ASCAP and BMI recently granted a royalty-free license to (at least) the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of America for round-the-campfire use of whatever songs they like. The issue was in court, and press gave ASCAP and BMI such a black eye that they decided it was better to grant the license than to look like jack-booted thugs. Not to mention the risk that they might lose, and set another fair-use precedent.

Xenophon

Thanks for that well-stated explanation.

[llreader]

I'm not sure a group of people singing Happy Birthday in public isn't a public performance. Is singing Christmas carols at your neighbor's door a public performance? There have been similar rulings in which sheet music could not be used for non-profit musical performances due to copyright issues.

In any case, my point is that in many ways copyright laws, and the laws that have sprung up around it (like the DMCA), have become so abusive and pervasive that they have encouraged widespread flaunting of the laws.

Here in Spain RIAA-type organizations are demanding fees from hairdressers for playing music in their businesses, to the point where they are now asking their customers to bring in their own CDs to listen to because they can afford to pay for music (hairdressers don't make loads of money).

In another thread I commented about this - I am owner of some copyrighted works, some of which I give away, some I would like to sell. I expect them to be widely pirated (if they are even worth reading) because the social contract that copyright is based on has been violated so badly that it has become abusive. The public domain doesn't get anything back, and hasn't for nearly a century, and the restrictions become tighter and tighter (taxes on recordable media, for example) without anything given in return.

I would like to see fair copyright laws, that respect the efforts of creative people but also the public domain and the interests of society as a whole. In the absence of just rules, breaking the rules is perfectly understandable. Most people are now trying to figure out how to find a middle path.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by llreader

...

Here in Spain RIAA-type organizations are demanding fees from hairdressers for playing music in their businesses, ....

What? In addition to the fees paid by the radio stations (assuming this is broadcast radio they are playing)? (and assuming the radio stations pay these fees as in the U.S.)

or the payment from the publisher for publishing the cd?

[llreader]

Radio. The Sociedad General de Autores de España (SGAE) has set a fee of 6 Euros per month for beauty salons under 50 m2 and 12 euros for salons up to 100 m2. To play the radio.

In Spain we pay a tax on hard drives, flash memory, etc. to pay for piracy, but it is still illegal to copy, How does that make sense? And the money goes to this organization, no one know how they divvy it up (and how much the keep for themselves).

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espan...pepunac_13/Tes

Abuse, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by kennyc

What? In addition to the fees paid by the radio stations (assuming this is broadcast radio they are playing)? (and assuming the radio stations pay these fees as in the U.S.)

or the payment from the publisher for publishing the cd?

[llreader]

The prices on recorders, digital and analogue, are here (Spanish, but you can muddle through):

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_p....ADa_del_canon

There are taxes on cell phones, DVD recorders, CD recorders, MP3 and MP4 players (like the iPod), photocopiers, flash memory, scanners and hard drives.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Except that this claim isn't an accurate interpretation of the law. In fact, by presenting it as if it is, it *might* be construed as legal advice which, in many jurisdictions, would make *them* liable for prosecution-for practicing law without a license. (Don't have enough details to be sure though-for example, if the warning was written by a lawyer, whose copyright would be owned by the company per contract, then that might avoid such prosecution-if anybody was silly enough to file it.)

In any case, you need to be aware that it's actually a court's determination of what the law says that determines whether or not a given act is legal-not a company's interpretation.

Of course it's not an accurate interpretation of the law! Have you had your sense of humor removed or something? It was an obvious exaggeration, I mean, come on, how old are you? Do I have to PM you and everybody else who doesn't understand a joke before I tell one now?

This also is not an accurate example of actual copyright enforcement



Oh, and Robert DeNiro wasn't harmed in the making of my joke either. He can still afford luxury hotels and most of Hollywood can still afford hookers and cocaine, except for Gary Busey.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by llreader

I'm not sure a group of people singing Happy Birthday in public isn't a public performance.

I think you can be sure. http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

Now if you sing it in the middle of a play, that's subject to copyright. If you're in the middle of the mall and a bunch of your friends belt it out, that is not subject to copyright or ASCAP/BMI fees.

Originally Posted by llreader

In any case, my point is that in many ways copyright laws, and the laws that have sprung up around it (like the DMCA), have become so abusive and pervasive that they have encouraged widespread flaunting of the laws.

So instead of pointing out an actual issue, you go with an urban legend? Got it.

Of course, it's also worth pointing out that abuse of copyright was ubiquitous and popular long before the DMCA was drawn up; and a tremendous amount of pirated material falls within what most people regard as a reasonable copyright time frame (e.g. a fixed 30 year period). Similarly, the availability of affordable DRM-free music tracks from multiple retailers and free streaming services ought to have satisfied the "principled pirates," but does not appear to have reduced piracy rates.

By the way, while I concur that an unjust law should be fought, that proces does not typically result in materially rewarding those engaging in civil disobedience. It's also largely ineffectual, since cranking up a file via bittorrent does not automatically send an email to the rights-holder to indicate "this is an act of protest." I.e. there is no way for a publisher to distinguish between a garden-variety pirate and a principled one.

Oh, and as to the hair salons -- €72 a year is your idea of a massive injustice and dastardly exploitation that will put hair salons across Spain out of business? Seriously?

And let's face it, for every person who claims to have a viable "reason" to pirate content, there are 10,000 people who just have convenient excuses, or don't think there is anything wrong with piracy, or don't even care to rationalize their behavior.

Much in the same way that even an extortionately high price for a book does not excuse shoplifting, falling back on the alleged injustices in order to rationalize piracy isn't terribly persuasive.

[llreader]

Really? So the Boy Scouts get sued for singing around the campfire, and your bowling team is exempt because... why exactly? Maybe they won't go after you right now, but I don't see the difference in principle. They are trying to set a legal precedent, and granting an exemption to two organizations helps their case. I don't think the law is settled on this, but are you sure that your club/team/whatever doesn't have to pay to sing songs under copyright? The legal case with the scouts indicates that they will charge you if they can.

As far as the hair salon thing goes, you think this is fair because you don't consider the price to be high. So glad you could set things straight. I didn't say they were going out of business, don't put words in my mouth, friend. You think it is fair to pay to play the radio in a business, as long as the price doesn't bother you personally? That is a good system. Let me be clear - charging to play the radio is just bananas. It would piss me off if I had a business as well.

People certainly are going to pirate because it is convenient. People bought billions of songs from iTunes because it was convenient as well. And because the price was right. Music company executives have stated, on the record, that they think you should pay for the MP3 that you ripped from your CD to put in your iPod, and pay again if you copy the CD to play in your car, even if no one else listens to it. And that is not urban legend.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by llreader

Music company executives have stated, on the record, that they think you should pay for the MP3 that you ripped from your CD to put in your iPod, and pay again if you copy the CD to play in your car, even if no one else listens to it. And that is not urban legend.

If that is true, that is the most insane thing I have heard in a long time. When I purchase a CD, I will listen to it when/where/how I like, period. I would not even consider paying for the same song over and over to have it on multiple devices, not even a slight chance. If they passed a law that says I did have to pay over and over for the same song, and I circumvented it, there would not be the slightest feelings of guilt on my part. I would certainly not be a criminal, even if they claimed I was.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by llreader

In Spain we pay a tax on hard drives, flash memory, etc. to pay for piracy, but it is still illegal to copy, How does that make sense?

Unfortunately, you are not paying for piracy. You are paying for private copies made for backup purposes or media-shifting (for example, when you rip your original CD to play it in your MPx).

Some time ago they tried to pass a similar law in Argentina.

I find it difficult to understand why anybody should pay multiple times for the same content. As usual, those willing to pay are the most abused.

That´s why I don´t feel sorry for the money they lose as a result of piracy. They are getting what they deserve.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

If that is true, that is the most insane thing I have heard in a long time.

From the Washington Post, Dec 2007--Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use:

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

and

At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

The RIAA's website says, "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law, and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

The RIAA doesn't believe in fair use; it thinks all copies must be licensed or they're against the law.