What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by darryl

I doubt that giving copies wholesale to family and friends could be allowed even in a redesigned "sane" system of copyright. However, it is arguable that such a system could include a more limited right to share within households or families. Or perhaps licences covering use on a reasonable number of devices within a household or family.

Some devices already permit this, of course. Eg with a Kindle you can share books between any devices registered to the same Amazon account, and also share books between family members using different accounts. As you rightly say, it's unrealistic to expect that books won't be shared between family members, and much better if (as Amazon have done) a legitimate method is provided for doing so.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by doctorow

Interesting tidbit though... did home taping kill music as predicted? Perhaps one should have a more critical look at the dreary predictions of the entertainment industry.

Well, quite. The film industry made a great fuss about video as well. Idiots.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by darryl

I am not aware of any jurisdiction where it is legal to give copies to friends.

Well it is is Sweden. The law say something like "a few copies to family or close friends for personal use".

[darryl]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well it is is Sweden. The law say something like "a few copies to family or close friends for personal use".

How sure are you of this, and what is your source? I had an admittedly very quick look at the Swedish "ACT ON COPYRIGHT IN LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS" and was unable to find such a provision. If true, it would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, though certainly a very welcome one.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Very much a different question. I fully agree with Harry on your first question: it's unethical (& probably illegal) to resell CDs/LPs after making and retaining a digital copy.

Do you see a difference between (1) copying an LP and retaining a digital copy for personal use, then donating or selling the LP and (2) copying and retaining an LP and distributing multiple digital copies of it? Are both equally "bad"?

However, it's not illegal or unethical to buy a second-hand LP or CD. The owner of the object has the implicit license to the content. If the original owner retained a copy, that makes the original owner the copyright infringer, not the purchaser or the item.

Even if the buyer knows, or reasonably suspects, that the seller has retained a copy in digital form? Does it make a difference, ethically, if the original is donated instead of sold?

Must all originals be destroyed when one format shifts, if retaining them is impossible? Does that really make sense? Seems to me that it's not a good thing to advocate destroying cultural artifacts--that wholesale destruction is worse than some very slight harm to the copyright holders.

[barryem]

I keep reading the phrase in this discussion "ethically or legally" and I think these should be more clearly distinguished. It's not necessarily unethical to break a law and it's not necessarily illegal to do something unethical.

A good clear illustration of this is driving on a freeway with a speed limit of 55 when everyone else is doing 60. The safe behavior is to drive 60 and I think that makes it the ethical behavior. In this case being legal might be thought to be unethical.

I sometimes lend a book to one of my neighbors on my spare Kindle and I suspect that's legal, although I'm not completely sure. I'm quite sure it's ethical. I refuse to admit in this public forum that I may also have made a copy of a book for a neighbor with her own Kindle, but of course that would be illegal if I've done it. However, refusing to do it would, in my opinion, be considered stingy by both my neighbor and myself and would probably, therefore, be unethical.

A good person shares with friends. That's ethical behavior. It isn't always legal behavior.

When the law says you can't do something that's ethical is the law unethical? What do you do then? Follow the law? Be a good person? Of course then it becomes a practical choice. Can we afford to be ethical? Are we likely to get caught?

It might be argued that law is an agreement we make with others and that breaking that agreement is unethical. I can't think of a good objection to that but I don't necessarily buy it, either. So I'm ignoring it for now.

Barry

[tompe]

Originally Posted by darryl

How sure are you of this, and what is your source? I had an admittedly very quick look at the Swedish "ACT ON COPYRIGHT IN LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS" and was unable to find such a provision. If true, it would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, though certainly a very welcome one.

Very sure.

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well it is is Sweden. The law say something like "a few copies to family or close friends for personal use".

Hard to believe, but there is something similar in the US as well - the Audio Home Recording Act.

Section 1008 of the Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1008:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

By its terms Section 1008 provides noncommercial consumers with prescribed statutory immunity from suits for copyright infringement when performing "home taping" of musical recordings. Unlike public distribution (such as file sharing), which might go beyond "noncommercial", it would certainly seem that you can make (noncommercial) copies for your family and friends. Technically you'd still be infringing copyright, but the section above bars actions alleging infringement based on such uses.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Do you see a difference between (1) copying an LP and retaining a digital copy for personal use, then donating or selling the LP and (2) copying and retaining an LP and distributing multiple digital copies of it? Are both equally "bad"?



Even if the buyer knows, or reasonably suspects, that the seller has retained a copy in digital form? Does it make a difference, ethically, if the original is donated instead of sold?

Must all originals be destroyed when one format shifts, if retaining them is impossible? Does that really make sense? Seems to me that it's not a good thing to advocate destroying cultural artifacts--that wholesale destruction is worse than some very slight harm to the copyright holders.

What a lot of questions.

Distributing multiple digital copies is worse.

If I suspected that someone was keeping a digital copy of something they were selling me, I wouldn't buy it. I don't see that it makes a difference whether the original is given away or sold.

Your last question is the one that I'm most conflicted about. And yes, I can see that in some cases (e.g. rare items) destruction would be causing more harm than good. If the original has significant monetary value, the obvious solution is to sell it and use the proceeds to obtain a new digital copy. If the original has little to no monetary value, perhaps the only wholly ethical option would be to return it to the copyright holder.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

What a lot of questions.

Distributing multiple digital copies is worse.

So if they're not equally bad, is it the number of copies distributed that makes a difference?

If I suspected that someone was keeping a digital copy of something they were selling me, I wouldn't buy it. I don't see that it makes a difference whether the original is given away or sold.

How about this: I have bought various CDs from Amazon as gifts--shipped to me and then given, not sent direct to the recipients. When Amazon began its AutoRip program, they added mp3 versions of all these CDs to my account for downloading. Was I supposed to refuse to download and/or stream these mp3 files in order to be ethical? I wonder how many people have complained to Amazon that they have infringed copyright by providing illicit copies.

Your last question is the one that I'm most conflicted about. And yes, I can see that in some cases (e.g. rare items) destruction would be causing more harm than good. If the original has significant monetary value, the obvious solution is to sell it and use the proceeds to obtain a new digital copy. If the original has little to no monetary value, perhaps the only wholly ethical option would be to return it to the copyright holder.

But I'm not talking about rare items necessarily; I'm talking about mass-produced items in a format that has become outdated. Maybe out of print and now unavailable for purchase in any form. Maybe of dubious monetary value now, but still--is one really supposed to just destroy it?

I just think that the issue is not as black and white as some would make it.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So if they're not equally bad, is it the number of copies distributed that makes a difference?

How about this: I have bought various CDs from Amazon as gifts--shipped to me and then given, not sent direct to the recipients. When Amazon began its AutoRip program, they added mp3 versions of all these CDs to my account for downloading. Was I supposed to refuse to download and/or stream these mp3 files in order to be ethical? I wonder how many people have complained to Amazon that they have infringed copyright by providing illicit copies.

But I'm not talking about rare items necessarily; I'm talking about mass-produced items in a format that has become outdated. Maybe out of print and now unavailable for purchase in any form. Maybe of dubious monetary value now, but still--is one really supposed to just destroy it?

I just think that the issue is not as black and white as some would make it.

Wow loads more questions.

Yes, I think that the number of copies does affect the seriousness of copyright infringement.

I have wondered about that myself. It may be that Amazon has some agreement with the music companies about this. I confess I haven't enquired.

I agree that, as in most things, there are grey areas and points for discussion. c.f. my comments about grains of sand.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by doctorow

Hard to believe, but there is something similar in the US as well - the Audio Home Recording Act.

Section 1008 of the Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1008:



By its terms Section 1008 provides noncommercial consumers with prescribed statutory immunity from suits for copyright infringement when performing "home taping" of musical recordings. Unlike public distribution (such as file sharing), which might go beyond "noncommercial", it would certainly seem that you can make (noncommercial) copies for your family and friends. Technically you'd still be infringing copyright, but the section above bars actions alleging infringement based on such uses.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

Thanks for providing the link. It is quite an interesting provision. This bar on actions referred to was not intended to be quite as wide as suggested above, though the article refers to a case where a Court did suggest such a wide interpretation (though probably in non-binding "obiter" comments).

[darryl]

Originally Posted by tompe

Very sure.

Could you please share your source as I would like to look at the provision concerned. If you are not prepared or able to do this then perhaps anyone else who is aware of such a provision is prepared to help.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Let me ask Harry another question--shifting the focus to music, since I'm currently in the process of digitizing my LP collection, creating multiple archival and listening copies. I plan to get rid of the LPs, donating and/or selling them. In your ethical system, is this acceptable or not?

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... I'm supposed to destroy them?

Err, yes it is illegal to retain digital copies of your music while at the same time selling the had copies to someone else. Your moral and legal right to own the digital copies is tied to your moral and legal right to own the physical disks.

That is absolutely worlds away from retaining your right to the digital text of a book while loaning the text to another... if you have taken upon yourself to not access the text yourself during that time.
(debatable, considering that current rights systems allow and encourage you to share your library with an arbitrary one person.)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

Do you really think it is ethical to destroy them instead of giving them away to somebody which would be happy to get them?

Wait, so the fact that someone else can enjoy them means it is okay to perform theft?

If you intend to keep ownership of the digital format-shifted version of the LPs, but do not want to have the physical copies taking up space, your only option is to trash them.