Is this a pirate site?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The term "piracy" to refer to something that's unauthorised goes back a long time, at least 50-odd years to the days of "pirate radio stations" in the late 1950s. Did you have those in the US? Here in Europe, they were ships which anchored in international waters, and broadcast pop music, without getting permission from the countries to which they were broadcasting to use the radio frequencies in that way. Hence the "nautical connection".

Seeing as I had the dictionary open

Originally Posted by OED

One who appropriates or reproduces without leave, for his own benefit, a literary, artistic, or musical composition, or an idea or invention of another, or, more generally, anything that he has no right to; esp. one who infringes on the copyright of another.

But the earliest reference surprised me:

Originally Posted by OED

1668 J. Hancock Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You don't see any ethical difference between creating your own copy from a legitimately bought book, and accepting one from someone who's giving them out to all and sundry, regardless of whether or not they've bought the book?

Seems like a very different situation to me!

I think your position - which would otherwise have some moral force - is undermined by how publishers are using DRM. In ethical parlance, the publishers do not have "clean hands."

If the publisher doesn't want me to go to the pirate, then all it has to do is either give me an ecopy when I buy the pcopy, or stop using DRM to prevent me from making an ecopy myself.

It's the publisher's decision to make the ecopy available only from a pirate. I don't make the decision to distribute ecopies in that fashion - the publisher does.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The end result may be the same, but for me, yes, the origin of the material does matter.

It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.

The proper analogy is that you go down to the supermarket to buy a bottle of Scotch, and you find out that the only thing available is blended. You want a single malt, and the supermarket manager tells you that the purveyers of Scotch have conspired to buy up all the single malt and sell it to the French. So when the guy in the pub offers to give (not sell, GIVE) you a bottle of single malt, you take it. (But of course, before drinking it, you test it on the parrot.)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So does "piracy", but people seem perfectly happy to use that, even though copyright infringement has absolutely nothing to do with robbery at sea, which is what piracy actually is.

We can't control what people call things. Like it or not, some people use the word "theft" for copyright infringement, just as other people use the word "piracy"; both are of course, technically incorrect, but language is a living, evolving, thing. It's futile to try to dictate to people what they should or should not call something.

What one names something influences what others think about it. Here in America, it is illegal for foreigners to come into the country without proper permission, evidenced by documents. Foreigners who do so are "illegal immigrants" to those who think that the law should be enforced, and "undocumented workers" to those who don't. Whoever wins the word war, controls the terrain on which the argument is carried out - a distinct advantage, as the politically correct know.

People who call copyright infringment "theft" do so either out of ignorance, or deliberately to seize the verbal high ground, but in either case, allowing them to use the word "theft" effectively concedes a point which is sufficiently important that to lose the word war, loses the argument.

It's not "theft." It's "infringment."

[Harmon]

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!

The term "felony" originates in English law, and denoted a crime for which one's estate or one's life (execution or exile) was forfeited to the crown. Broadly speaking, it stood in contrast to "misdemeanor," which refered to a crime punishable by a fine or short term loss of liberty.

Historically, in England, felonies involved royal courts, and misdemeanors involved the local squire.

I suspect that the terms are still relevant in English law, and I'm confident that speeding is not a felony, unless maybe you run over the Queen...

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I suspect that the terms are still relevant in English law

Not since 1967, as I discovered today when I looked it up

[Harmon]

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).

If the source of the download is a commercial enterprise in violation of copyright, the feds could probably get a downloader on a conspiracy charge, as a technical legal matter. It might have to involve a payment by the downloader, though. A freeloading downloader, paradoxically, might be better off than an "honest" downloader if the site is a pirate site.

Getting a conviction is another matter, so from a practical point of view, downloading isn't criminal, and won't be prosecuted unless there's something else going on, like filesharing.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Harmon

People who call copyright infringment "theft" do so either out of ignorance, or deliberately to seize the verbal high ground, but in either case, allowing them to use the word "theft" effectively concedes a point which is sufficiently important that to lose the word war, loses the argument.

It's not "theft." It's "infringment."

Fight back, don't let them rape the high ground.

[pwarren]

Damnit, now I'm going to have to spend some hours googling for this 'infringement enabling private collection ebook website from hong kong'

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Not since 1967, as I discovered today when I looked it up

Not even if you run over the Queen? England is no more...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The file sharers, I believe.

The term "piracy" to refer to something that's unauthorised goes back a long time, at least 50-odd years to the days of "pirate radio stations" in the late 1950s. Did you have those in the US? Here in Europe, they were ships which anchored in international waters, and broadcast pop music, without getting permission from the countries to which they were broadcasting to use the radio frequencies in that way. Hence the "nautical connection".

We didn't have the issues you guys in England had about the government trying to control what was being broadcast. Mainly, the government was concerned about regulating signal strength. There was some concern for trying to have some diversity of stations, but not much. Back in the late 50s, you could pick up stations from all over the country at night, when a lot of stations went off the air & the big ones could rachet up the signal strength. I used to listen to WLS in Chicago way down in south Alabama, with a Hitachi transistor radio my dad gave me.

In the early 60s, when we were stationed in West Germany, Radio Luxembourg was my primary source of rock & roll. I have a vague recollection of hearing Radio Caroline during that same time frame, but I might just have heard about it.

Apparently we do have the equivalent of pirate radio stations these days, in a sort of underground of very weak signal radio stations that operate in urban areas without licenses. Don't know much about them, though.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I am more interested in the case of making your digital copy from a library book while you own your own paper copy.

Here is what the copyright law in the US says:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

First, notice the heading: Limitations on exclusive rights. In other words, copyright holders do not have the absolute right to control when copies of their works are made. There are some situations when someone can copy a work even over the heartfelt and sincere objections of the copyright holder. What this section of the law does is state the circumstances in which that is permissible - i.e. when making a copy is "fair use."

Next, notice that the law is not structured in terms of how the copier gets the copy. He can get it from anywhere, anyhow - the law doesn't say a word about it. He can read someone else's copy and type it out from memory. He can scan it. He can read it aloud to a secretary who writes down his dictation.

So the fact that you make a copy from the library's copy is irrelevant. The law isn't interested in that. If what you want to talk about is where the copy came from, the law does not give a damn. The law yawns, and checks its watch.

The law only gets interested once you slap the copy down on the table, and then the law inquires: "is this a fair use copy or not?"

So, if you accept that it is "fair use" for you to make a full copy of a book you have already bought, what additional factor from the ones listed in the four subparagraphs above comes into play if you make that copy using the library's volume as the original rather than your own? I don't see any.

Bottom line: if it is "fair use" to make a copy of a book you own, it is "fair use" to make that copy from the library book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Bottom line: if it is "fair use" to make a copy of a book you own, it is "fair use" to make that copy from the library book.

But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so. In UK copyright law, for example, fair use for a book is specifically defined - you are permitted to copy one chapter or 10% of a book, whichever is the lesser amount, or one article from a magazine.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so.

Format shifting?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Format shifting?

But that's the big "if", isn't it? Do you have a "right" to format-shift a book? You might like to do it, but is it a right? As you know, it certainly isn't here in the UK.