Is this a pirate site?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I suspect the "morality" involved with self-scanning is not morality, but throwing roadblocks in the path. To do a good scan/OCR/copyproof of a book takes 24-40 hours of labor. Most people won't go to that level of work, and if a few misguided people do, well, as long as they don't make that labor available for free (i.e. by uploading it), the moralists can live with it. They can't do too many books anyways....

24-40 HOURS??!

Not if the person has lots of experience with it.

Quick-and-dirty scan-OCR (with correction)-format: 1-4 hours, depending on book. That'll get a me a readable ebook version in Word-formatted PDF. It'll have some OCR errors, and the formatting won't be great, but it'll be fine for a novel I'm going to read once, or for first reading of a novel I want to format more carefully, but don't want to have the ending spoiled while I'm doing the formatting.

Extra-careful: ~6-10 hours (higher end only for image-heavy books where OCR zoning is critical) lets me fix the OCR errors, and format with line breaks between paragraphs & chapters tagged as H2 for Calibre conversion.

However, for that I'm assuming a high-speed scanner, good OCR software (Finereader Pro), and enough practice to make all the steps go smoothly.

Another dozen hours would let me produce nifty customized BookDesigner ebooks in several formats.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Here is a couple of thoughts on the original issue.

1. I think most of us agree (Except for those who ascribe to the information must be free philosophy) that downloading a copy of a book that you never paid for is illegal (except from a legitimate public library).

Many agree, but is it really true? Uploading a copy of a book without authorization is clearly illegal. I don't ascribe to the "information must be free" thing, but from a purely legal standpoint, whether downloading is actually illegal or not is a very cloudy question. It is not direct infringement, according to US law. It *may* be indirect infringement, but then you start getting into a whole ugly nest of things like intent... etc.

A downloader might be partly responsible for inducing an uploader to commit infringement, but they have not committed infringement themselves. I don't think anybody has ever been taken to court for downloading. It's always been for uploading without authorization, which is definitely illegal (assuming no fair use).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

To put it in simple terms, if a new company was to start producing 2010 Toyota Camry's (it being the year 2010) you can be sure that Toyota would sue them and would win.

Absolutely, but that's different from the original context. It is not theft, or copyright infringement... etc. If you don't try and sell/claim it as original than you won't have issues with trademark.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

.. Uploading a copy of a book without authorization is clearly illegal. ...

Not really. Again "it depends"

If I upload it to my personal server simply to store there or access for my own personal use, that is no more illegal than making a backup copy or copying to a different device for my reading.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Felonies are "big crimes;" misdemeanors are "small crimes." (I think the federal/local split mentioned is inaccurate, but I am not a lawyer.)

You are probably right, I was thinking of federal felonies.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Many agree, but is it really true? Uploading a copy of a book without authorization is clearly illegal. I don't ascribe to the "information must be free" thing, but from a purely legal standpoint, whether downloading is actually illegal or not is a very cloudy question. It is not direct infringement, according to US law. It *may* be indirect infringement, but then you start getting into a whole ugly nest of things like intent... etc.

A downloader might be partly responsible for inducing an uploader to commit infringement, but they have not committed infringement themselves. I don't think anybody has ever been taken to court for downloading. It's always been for uploading without authorization, which is definitely illegal (assuming no fair use).

IIRC the Electronic Frontier Foundation actually believes that downloading is illegal. I agree it has generally never been tested in court, but that doesn't mean a judge would not find it to be infringement. I suspect that the biggest reason that it has never been tested is that most downloaders, since they use the torrents, are also uploaders and uploading is a clearer issue (and more profitable since people tend to download a given work once, but upload many times). And its too easy to get bad publicity by going after simple downloaders.

To put things in simple terms, by downloading an illegal copy, you are in fact making (or at least causing to be made) a new illegal copy on your hard drive.

In any case, I am not particularly interested rehashing that argument over again. I am more interested in the case of making your digital copy from a library book while you own your own paper copy.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not really. Again "it depends"

True, I'm assuming we're not talking about public libraries (as bill mentioned) or "fair use" which just makes the whole issue even cloudier.

If I upload it to my personal server simply to store there or access for my own personal use, that is no more illegal than making a backup copy or copying to a different device for my reading.

Technically, that is probably copyright infringement as well, but fair use can be used as a defense.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Absolutely, but that's different from the original context. It is not theft, or copyright infringement... etc. If you don't try and sell/claim it as original than you won't have issues with trademark.

What if you start making copies and giving them to people who were going to buy Toyota camry's? Remember, the claim is that the car is an exact duplicate; in other words, it will contain Toyota trademarks on the car. Eventually some who receive the car are going to try and sell it.

--
Bill

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

What if you start making copies and giving them to people who were going to buy Toyota camry's? Remember, the claim is that the car is an exact duplicate; in other words, it will contain Toyota trademarks on the car. Eventually some who receive the car are going to try and sell it.

Even if someone does--the crime is not "theft," it's "fraud."

As long as the seller is clear on saying, "this is not the original," it's not even that. Plenty of generic items sell by saying, "Compare our version to [brandname]", insisting they have the same ingredients/design and just lack the brandname official seal. An exact copy of a Camry--if it didn't run into patent violations--could advertise itself as a "Clonery" and sell as many as possible.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

IIRC the Electronic Frontier Foundation actually believes that downloading is illegal.

It may be indirect infringement, but as I said, that is a very cloudy area and relies on all sorts of things that are difficult to define. Many people believe that it is direct infringement, which is not true (another reason why theft is a very misleading term, it completely misses this issue and actually implies the opposite). The uploader is the one that has committed direct infringement.

I'll probably regret saying this, but if some insist on making an analogy to theft, it would be a much better argument to say that the uploader is committing "theft" and the downloading is "receiving stolen goods". That still brings all sorts of associations and connotations into the equation that don't really exist. For example, there's no such thing as "stolen goods" in copyright. However, it may give people a clearer picture of the downloader's responsibility. Whether or not receiving "stolen goods" is a crime depends on whether the receiver knew the goods were "stolen".

Whether they knew or not is what makes it a cloudy issue, not to mention, in the digital world, actually knowing who is a downloader is virtually impossible.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

What if you start making copies and giving them to people who were going to buy Toyota camry's?

Nothing illegal about that.

Remember, the claim is that the car is an exact duplicate; in other words, it will contain Toyota trademarks on the car. Eventually some who receive the car are going to try and sell it.

Then we're just back to the same rule. If they try to claim it's a Toyota, then they're going to get into trademark law. Still has nothing to do with theft or copyright.

You can go to many collector car auctions and buy a clone that is virtually identical to the original, including any trademarked badges/design/etc. That happens today all the time. As long as the seller doesn't claim it's an original, then there is no problem.

But this is trademark law, which doesn't have much to do with the original question/analogy.

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

What if you start making copies and giving them to people who were going to buy Toyota camry's? Remember, the claim is that the car is an exact duplicate; in other words, it will contain Toyota trademarks on the car. Eventually some who receive the car are going to try and sell it.

--
Bill

What if someone wanted to buy a Toyota Camry and there weren't any for sale. The only ones for sale are the duplicate ones. What does the buyer do then? I downloaded from the pirate site. I wanted to give someone money for the books, but they weren't for sale at any price except free. I had bought all the books as pbooks first but don't have the time and patience to scan them myself.

-Marcy

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

24-40 HOURS??!

Not if the person has lots of experience with it.

Quick-and-dirty scan-OCR (with correction)-format: 1-4 hours, depending on book. That'll get a me a readable ebook version in Word-formatted PDF. It'll have some OCR errors, and the formatting won't be great, but it'll be fine for a novel I'm going to read once, or for first reading of a novel I want to format more carefully, but don't want to have the ending spoiled while I'm doing the formatting.

Extra-careful: ~6-10 hours (higher end only for image-heavy books where OCR zoning is critical) lets me fix the OCR errors, and format with line breaks between paragraphs & chapters tagged as H2 for Calibre conversion.

However, for that I'm assuming a high-speed scanner, good OCR software (Finereader Pro), and enough practice to make all the steps go smoothly.

Another dozen hours would let me produce nifty customized BookDesigner ebooks in several formats.

I'm talking about a fully proofed (zero OCR artifacts, against the paper copy) copy. The scanning takes very little time, it's the final proofing that takes all the time. If you depend on only a single read, you'll still find OCR errors the next read. The human minds fills in gaps too well.....

(Think of the weeks Harry T has put into some of the Dickens volumes.)

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Saying that something shouldn't be regarded as a crime, merely because lots of people do it, seems like a rather poor excuse. I suspect, for example, that the overwhelming majority of people who hold a UK driving licence get a speeding ticket at some point during their driving career; should we de-criminalise speeding simply because a lot of people do it?

We certainly shouldn't treat it as a felony, which is what I was reacting against.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "felony" - I don't think we use that word in Britain. If you tell me what it means, I'll tell you whether or not speeding is one!

I'm in Britain, and I used it - and I said what it meant in my post!

It comes from English law:

Originally Posted by OED

(Feudal Law.) An act on the part of a vassal which involved the forfeiture of his fee.

later part of common and statute law

Originally Posted by OED

(Common and Statute Law.) Formerly the general name for a class of crimes which may loosely be said to be regarded by the law as of a graver character than those called misdemeanours. No longer differentiated from misdemeanour (see quot. 1967).

but since 1967 not differentiated from a misdemeanor.

Anyway, my point was simply that calling copying a "bad crime" was OTT.