Funny I don't feel like a criminal

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Most EULAs are unfair, and possibly illegal. I have no qualms about ignoring provisions that seem to me to be grossly unfair and one-sided.

So I modify the ebooks I download from Fictionwise for my own use, and do not feel that I'm doing anything wrong by doing so, even though Fictionwise has in its terms of use (under section 9, Ebooks):

I'm breaking that EULA every single time I buy a book... As I will always remove DRM and reformat the books (I hate empty lines between paragraphs!)... Do I feel anything about that? Nope. Nothing, nada, zip...

The only thing I refuse to do is redistribute outside my house. Don't ask me for that book I just bought, because you can't have it. It will only go on my device and my husband's. I won't even give it to my mother (though, that point is theoretical only, as my mother doesn't read English and I do )

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Stream capturing may occur, but if you have to pay for the stream, and always have access to it, it won't be a major issue. Not many are going to capture all they want then cancel their subscription to never sign up again. They'll want new content and have to keep the subscription--and not point in capturing it if you have full access to stream the content everywhere you can go and log into your account etc.

No, what will happen is the same thing that happens now with piracy. Somebody will pay for the stream, capture it, and then share it with everyone else. All those other people won't be paying for the stream. It won't change anything.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

This has been discussed to death, and I probably shouldn't fall for the bait, but nothing has been taken.



I prefer to call it copyright infringement, which is what it actually is.

I'm not the one that poked the elephant. And yes it has been discussed and will continue to be discussed until things change. This a new age, with new requirements. The old tired laws, methods and definitions don't work. You can either move into the future or live in the past. All I can do is show you the water, I can't make you drink.

[llreader]

All questions of legality aside, I find your behavior shockingly immoral.

Dude, you bought a book by Michael Crichton? And then sent it to your MOM?!? That is a hanging matter.

Originally Posted by darylbrayman

Last week I purchased Michael Crichton's newest book, Pirate Latitudes. Excellent book by the way. I read the book. I removed the book from my reader. Then I stripped the DRM and emailed the book to my mother. I am now a criminal. I didn't post the book onto the darknet. There is only one copy floating around, it is currently in my mothers possession. Unlike a physical copy it will probably end there as not enough of our friends and family have ebook readers (I'm working on that). As the title say's "Funny, I don't feel like a criminal".

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The old tired laws, methods and definitions don't work. You can either move into the future or live in the past. All I can do is show you the water, I can't make you drink.

You prompted me to start a new thread. Perhaps you'd like to contribute.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75599

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You prompted me to start a new thread. Perhaps you'd like to contribute.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75599

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This a new age, with new requirements.

Such as FUD.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, what will happen is the same thing that happens now with piracy. Somebody will pay for the stream, capture it, and then share it with everyone else. All those other people won't be paying for the stream. It won't change anything.

I think it will be less prevalent. As long as the streaming services aren't that pricey, it will be more convenient to just have the service than having to dig around online to find it.

And if things like Netflix are any indication, prices don't have to be very high. Netflix is $8.99 (10.99 if you want Blu Ray rentals) for one disc out at a time AND unlimited streaming. Granted the streaming is only 17,000 or so movies, so it's a pittance compared to their disc selection.

But if they get price right, they can cut down on piracy as it's more worthwhile to just pay for the service and have full access to everything than to pirate stuff for more people than it is now. Especially if people grow up with access to all this streaming stuff and having the service(s) is just the norm like having cable or satellite TV is todya.

But you're right that piracy will still happen, and again there needs to be a large and aggressive effort to enforce copyright infringement. Criminalize it and be uber aggressive in shutting down the darknets.


But again, we're both just restating the same views over and over. My views on the topic are clear, so I'll bow out of this thread and not keep restating it over and over.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Such as FUD.

You seem to use other misleading words for theft, so yeah I guess that works for me.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I think it will be less prevalent. As long as the streaming services aren't that pricey, it will be more convenient to just have the service than having to dig around online to find it.

Assuming, of course, that the people pirating would want to pay for it in the first place.

I agree with the idea that the best thing to do is make your product better/easier and you'll get rid of some of the pirates.... usually the ones that are interested in paying. As for the rest, they were never going to be your customers anyway, so why worry about them.

I don't know if the answer to that is necessarily streaming, or improving the value in other ways.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You seem to use other misleading words for theft, so yeah I guess that works for me.

Yes, using misleading terms like referring to "copyright infringement" as "copyright infringement". I see what you mean.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

The act of obtaining copyrighted digital content that is for sale without paying for it is wrong.

However, the act of obtaining copyrighted *physical* content without paying for it is an established part of book culture. Why is digital content inherently wrong to acquire without payment? We certainly have no problem with physical books being loaned or given away; why should we object to digital files being loaned or given?

There is a technical issue in that it's difficult--but not impossible--to loan a digital file without making a copy of it. But that shouldn't change the inherent morality of the act.

It doesn't matter if there is a clear, quantifiable loss, it's wrong and there should be a penalty if you're caught with it, even if it's stuff the person would never would have bought. If they didn't pay for it, they shouldn't be able to get the enjoyment of having their own copy of the content.

Ah, *THIS* is a key issue. It's not about "paying the author," it's about whether the reader deserves to be able to read the content.

It's not about the law. It's about money and social standards: only those who can afford entertainment and information should have access to it.

Harm/loss to others/society aren't requirements for things to be crime.

Yes, it is. The harm doesn't have to be measured in dollars, but acts presumed harmless are not considered criminal. In the case of drunk driving, whether an incident is harmful or not is based on luck, rather than skill of the driver; since people without skills to control a car safely aren't given licenses, a drunk driver is effectively an unlicensed driver. Prostitution is considered "morally harmful," and is often harmful to the women involved, who may be coerced or forced into the job against their will. Some drug use is considered harmful to society at large--both because, like drunk drivers, some drug users aren't in control of their actions, and because ... um, kinda drawing a blank here, but I gather there's plenty of arguments that claim some drugs are illegal because they do cause harm, none that say they're illegal because of some inherent evil in the drug itself separate from any damage it can do.

There doesn't have to be an absolute loss that occurs for something to be wrong and to be subject to criminal penalties.

There doesn't have to be an objectively-measurable loss, but harm is required.

Every illegal download/upload is wrong and should be a misdemeanor criminal act IMO.

Do you believe *every* illegal act is wrong, and that there is no such thing as an unjust law?

Another key question: How can an individual downloader know what files violate copyright? How can I know if the distributor has the right to distribute the ebook or song or whatever? (Note that Amazon sold Orwell's books to hundreds of customers who believed Amazon had a legal right to sell them. Should they all have been prosecuted for illegal downloading?)

When you visit a website, how can you ascertain ahead of time that nobody's uploaded illegal content to it?

If a work is found to infringe on copyrights, are people who downloaded it before the court ruling guilty of the crime?

This is *important.* Right now, there is often *no way to know* if something is copyright infringement until a court has ruled on it. If someone's selling bootleg CDs, it's easy to say, "he's distributing more than 10 copies, for profit... that violates the law." However, if someone is distributing an ebook version of Harry Potter--that needs to be measured against the four factors; it might be fair use. It's not competing with the ebook market, and might serve to promote physical sales. If someone releases an ebook, "Harry Potter: 20 years later," and claims it's a parody, who decides if it's fair use or an infringing derivative work?

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You seem to use other misleading words for theft, so yeah I guess that works for me.

By the way, which is more a theft to you: downloading a copy of the book from the Internet server, or buying the book from a used books store? Since in both cases you don't have the copyright owner's permission to obtain the book, and the copyright owner doesn't get a dime, and in the second instance you're also rewarding the person helping you to commit the act, buying from a used books store would be more of a theft?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

By the way, which is more a theft to you: downloading a copy of the book from the Internet server, or buying the book from a used books store? Since in both cases you don't have the copyright owner's permission to obtain the book, and the copyright owner doesn't get a dime, and in the second instance you're also rewarding the person helping you to commit the act, buying from a used books store would be more of a theft?

Very different situations as you well know. You're just trying to stir the pot. The author of paper books has already given permission in the form of the contracts for publishing the book in paper form and in subscribing to the first sale doctrine. Neither is the case for digital media.

[Iphinome]

The first sale doctrine came about because copyright holders tried to claim selling at anything other than their own set terms was infringement making discount and used sellers pirates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-M..._Co._v._Straus

I only bring this up to note that just because content providers claim something doesn't mean it should be taken at face value. consider http://iplitigator.huschblackwell.co...ors-copyright/

A sculptor of a memorial on public land objected to use of a photo by the postal service. Whatever you think would you at least agree reasonable people could see this case differently? Kenny would call it theft of course but would other people? The artist was payed, the piece is on public display. A photo of a 3d image is far from an exact replica, the us postal service profited from the image but isn't really run on a for profit basis. We might move that discussion to another thread I don't mean to thread jack I'm just saying things aren't as cut and dry as some here are trying to claim.