What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

But the license is for the text not the instance. So if there is a general permission to distribute the text it does not matter that you have a copy that says something else. So I think you are wrong.

You do not have general permission to distribute the text.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is allowed ethically and legally to give copies (e.g. tape copies of LP) to your friends (in most countries). I really do not see that having given copied to your friends you would not be allowed or that it would be an ethical problem to later sell the LP (keeping no copies yourself).

It is news to me that there are countries where it is legal (as opposed to simply being common and illegal) to give permanent copies of copyrighted content to your friends. It is certainly not legal in the US or UK.

And I do not really see how the situation with keeping copies yourself can be different ethically.

It isn't different, see above.

[eschwartz]

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"?

One is theft of a single copy, one is theft of multiple copies. The second is worse, simply in terms of scale. It is more wrong to rob two banks than to rob one bank. etc.

Even if the buyer knows, or reasonably suspects, that the seller has retained a copy in digital form?

If you can be reasonably sure that you are buying stolen goods, I believe it is illegal to do so.

Does it make a difference, ethically, if the original is donated instead of sold?

Does it make a difference if I rob a bank for my own desire for wealth, or because I want to donate the proceeds of my theft to charity?

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.

Oh, so now copyright theft is legally permissible if it is done for the sake of culture?

If you do not wish to retain the physical copies, you are being careless about cultural treasures. That is your prerogative.

You are under no obligation to destroy your possessions. You are however under an obligation to not perform theft with the excuse of doing it for the sake of culture.

[eschwartz]

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.

Then I am legally allowed to upload my ebook collection to torrent websites just so long as I do not do it for commercial purposes? Cool, thanks for the info.

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Then I am legally allowed to upload my ebook collection to torrent websites just so long as I do not do it for commercial purposes? Cool, thanks for the info.

What are you talking about? I mentioned in the same post that public distribution (such as torrents) could be seen as a commercial purpose (since as soon as it is in the public, someone may use the content for commercial purposes). And I also specifically referred to musical recordings, as the Recording Act only concerns musical recordings but not your ebook collection.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by darryl

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.

Do you read Swedish?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You do not have general permission to distribute the text.

Well. The meaning of general here was that it applied to everybody which I though was the case in the example given.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by darryl

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.

For example

http://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uppho...verige#/search

Or google "kopiera och ge till vänner. You also have to go to court cases since they and " förarbeten" defines the law. You cannot read just the law.

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by barryem

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

Yes, to me, that's the essence of it.

Originally Posted by barryem

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.

a) An objection might be that it can be a rather one-sided agreement...

b) Breaking the law... like, don't sit in the front of the bus when you are black? don't have sex with someone who happens to be of the same gender as you are? There are other examples, too -- it's a time-honored tradition to break a law that you consider unjust, for the purpose of changing or abolishing it (it's called civil disobedience, BTW).

c) "But to live outside the law you must be honest..."

[darryl]

Originally Posted by tompe

For example

http://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uppho...verige#/search

Or google "kopiera och ge till vänner. You also have to go to court cases since they and " förarbeten" defines the law. You cannot read just the law.

Thank you very much for the link. This is a most interesting provision.

This is a translation of the relevant part of the link to Wikipedia.

Exemptions
You may copy material without permission of the copyright holder, if the specimen is produced by the copyright owner's permission. This applies, however, only a few copies for private use. It also does not apply, for example, computer programs or entire books in accordance with § 12. [ 13 ] This means for example that one can take a "legal" produced movie or music album and make a few copies for himself, family and close friends, without commit copyright infringement. However, note that if the material is copy-protected, it may be illegal to bypass the protection. [ 14 ]

The translation suggests that copies for private purposes can be made wihout the permission of the copyright holder (does this mean, say, the publisher?) if the copyright owner (say, the author?) gives permission. However, in the translated copy of the law no similar restriction is apparent. I don't know the answer to this and don't have the time or inclination to research it further.

Here is a translation of the relevant section of the Law, Section 12, together with relevant commentary, courtesy of Google Translate.

The making of copies for private use
12 § Each one gets for private purposes, one or a few copies of published
works. As regards literary works in written form, specimens petition,
however, only limited parts of works or such works of limited scope. The
copies may not be used for purposes other than private use.

The first paragraph does not authorize the

1. construct works,
2. make copies of computer programs, or
3. make copies in digital form of compilations in digital form.
The first paragraph does not give a right to private use allow a third party

1. make copies of musical works or cinematographic works,
2. producing appliances or sculptures, or
3. through the artistic process by creating other artwork.
This paragraph does not give right to make copies of a work when the copy
that is the real master produced or made available to the public
in violation of § 2 . The Act (2005: 359).

Comment
Private use means that the copy may be used only in private life and in
family and social circle. Copies may not be made for purposes that are
directly or indirectly commercial.

It is unclear exactly what applies to copying in the workplace. Copy the
workplace for use at work, as long as this is done for its own account, is
allowed. But it is no longer permitted to make copies for colleagues in the
workplace, such as several employees within a company or to each member of a
team within a research institution (cf NJA II 1961 p. 122). The rules of
contractual license gives some opportunities, see § 42 b . The exact
boundaries of the permissible copying will be settled case-law, including
the ECJ.

The prohibition to produce copies of databases applies only if a temporary
copy includes a sufficient portion of a database for it to be considered as
a copy of the database, see also § 49 .

It is not permitted to make copies of copyright works in the form of
computer programs or databases. For the liability of intermediaries, see Act
(2002: 562) on electronic commerce and other information society services
(e-commerce law).

The commentary suggests that "private use" extends to family and social circles. The Wikipedia article referred to this as including family and close friends. It would be interesting to look at the case law on this.

What is also clear is that it does not extend to copies of a whole book, thought apparently the same cannot be said of music or movies.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by darryl

TThe translation suggests that copies for private purposes can be made wihout the permission of the copyright holder (does this mean, say, the publisher?) if the copyright owner (say, the author?) gives permission.

My guess would be that 'specimen' in this case is a translation of a legal term meaning the original copy. That is, one may make copies for private use, provided that the thing being copied was obtained with the copyright holder's permission.

This is necessary to make clear that it's not permissible to copy an unauthorised copy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

My guess would be that 'specimen' in this case is a translation of a legal term meaning the original copy. That is, one may make copies for private use, provided that the thing being copied was obtained with the copyright holder's permission.

Yes, I'd read it as saying that only "first generation" copies can be made.

It's also interesting to note that is specifically excludes "entire books" and "digital copies of digital sources". That would suggest that it's legal to (for example) record from the radio, but it's not legal to copy a CD, which is a digital source.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by 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.

This point has been made in this thread, but there are some posts that seem to confuse the two and forget that this thread is about morality, not legality.

Originally Posted by barryem

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

It is isn't always ethical behaviour to share with friends. It depends on what you are sharing and the circumstances. For instance, if you break in to your neighbours house and take their goods, it is most unlikely (but not impossible) that it would be ethical for you to share those goods with your friends.

Originally Posted by barryem

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 is not always ethical to follow the law, or unethical to break it. It depends on the particular law and the circumstances. History is full of very bad laws, and of people who had the courage to break them and usually suffered the consequences. If you are going to knowingly break the law then you are very foolish indeed if you are not prepared to suffer the consequences no matter how slight the chances are that you will be caught.

Originally Posted by barryem

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

The philosophy of the Social Contract is really not relevant here. For purposes of this discussion morality must be determined by reference to the circumstances of the particular case in question.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by darryl

It is isn't always ethical behaviour to share with friends. It depends on what you are sharing and the circumstances. For instance, if you break in to your neighbours house and take their goods, it is most unlikely (but not impossible) that it would be ethical for you to share those goods with your friends.

That's precisely why I question the claim made in this thread that it's "generous" to "share" your ebooks with your friends. Sure, your friend probably does think you're being generous, but the problem is that it's not your property that you're so generously giving away - it's the author's. Both the law and - IMHO - ethical considerations should, to my mind, dictate that it's the author who has the right to determine who to give copies of his or her books away to, and nobody else.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I'd read it as saying that only "first generation" copies can be made.

It's also interesting to note that is specifically excludes "entire books" and "digital copies of digital sources". That would suggest that it's legal to (for example) record from the radio, but it's not legal to copy a CD, which is a digital source.

You and Paul may be right about this, even though it would mean the use of the term would be redundant, as I thought this was accomplished by this passage:

This paragraph does not give right to make copies of a work when the copy
that is the real master produced or made available to the public
in violation of § 2 . The Act (2005: 359).

Perhaps we have a Swedish lawyer or someone else familiar with the Swedish law who can comment. It is a most interesting and strange provision which I doubt is replicated elsewhere in the world. Then again, I was surprised to find it in Sweden, hence my query as to Tompe's sources. Once again, my thanks to Tompe for providing the link.