Dotcom raid illegal

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by JoeD

But the tax payer does and the library tracks your check outs in order to make payments (depending on the terms agreed with the rights holders)

But I'm sure you already know that, which made the library post odd.

In the US, authors are not paid when their books are checked out from libraries. Also, not every use is checked out--it's considered perfectly reasonable and legitimate to show up at a library and read all day without checking out anything. (Depending on one's choice of reading material, this may be the only way to access it; rarer books and periodicals often can't be checked out at all.) Certainly, many students visit libraries to conduct research involving several books, none of which they check out. No royalty payments are made past the initial sale of the book, regardless of how many people use it.

And while state- and city-managed libraries are funded by taxpayers, private libraries are not--and I know many people who have lending libraries of books. Many teachers have a shelf or two of books they intend to loan to their students. The concept of "library" isn't limited to state-funded institutions.

Libraries are entirely legal. Copying ebooks and handing them to strangers is not. However if the essential *moral* issue is, "someone is reading without paying the author," libraries and p2p sharing have the same ethical problems.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copying ebooks and handing them to strangers is not. However if the essential *moral* issue is, "someone is reading without paying the author," libraries and p2p sharing have the same ethical problems.

The moral issue goes beyond not paying the author. Piracy is in the same ballpark with book shoplifting and plagiarism, the latter being, among other things, another form of copyright infringement. The moral issue is using the book in a way not authorized by the author (or, in the case of many books, the book team including author, editor, agent, translator, designer, and support staff).

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The moral issue goes beyond not paying the author. Piracy is in the same ballpark with book shoplifting and plagiarism, the latter being, among other things, another form of copyright infringement. The moral issue is using the book in a way not authorized by the author (or, in the case of many books, the book team including author, editor, agent, translator, designer, and support staff).

This is the kind of argument that paints everything so black and white that it makes me want to rush right over and embrace the dark side.

Even the copyright laws allow for a big gray area called fair use.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This is the kind of argument that paints everything so black and white that it makes me want to rush right over and embrace the dark side.

My feeling exactly.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The moral issue goes beyond not paying the author. Piracy is in the same ballpark with book shoplifting and plagiarism, the latter being, among other things, another form of copyright infringement.

Plagiarism is a form of fraud; it's only copyright infringement if (1) the original is copy-restricted (works in the public domain can be plagiarized) and (2) the use doesn't fall within fair-use standards.

Quoting a joke you heard at a party is not plagiarism unless you try to pass it off as your own; it may not be infringement either way.

I don't see how "piracy" (does giving my teenager a copy of ebooks I bought for myself count as piracy?) is in the same area as book shoplifting, for reasons that get hashed through here on a regular basis.

The moral issue is using the book in a way not authorized by the author (or, in the case of many books, the book team including author, editor, agent, translator, designer, and support staff).

So, the wrongness of shoplifting a book is that it's an unauthorized use, not that it takes the possibility of income away from the owner? I must admit, I hadn't heard that interpretation of theft before.

Does the author have the moral right to declare "I forbid Muslims to read this book?" Or is your idea of an author's moral rights specifically (and conveniently) limited to exactly those rights currently granted by law? (In which case, are people more or less moral in the US vs the UK? Or is morality defined by local laws?)

Parodies are legal fair use in the US. They are not specifically legal under UK moral rights. Are parodies moral?

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Its also possible to go after facilitators without hurting the infrastructure. Let me repost what I said elsewhere:

I am glad you actually do understand the argument. Now, I guess it would be too much to hope for that you stop disregarding it

[Lynx-lynx]

[QUOTE=Elfwreck;2138620] I don't see how "piracy" (does giving my teenager a copy of ebooks I bought for myself count as piracy?) is in the same area as book shoplifting, for reasons that get hashed through here on a regular basis. /QUOTE]

I seem to recall that many moons ago microsoft had similar issues re loading its operating software on more than 1 home computer.

That is, a person would buy their Microsoft products and then install them on x number of computers in their household. (Where it was a multi computer household)

Microsoft didn't like this at all ..... then something or other happened in the ideas department and they determined that (nominated) copies of particular kinds of their software could be downloaded on a maximum of 3 home computers.

Made total sense, and possibly merely legitimised that which may have already been occurring.

Personal and fair use are avenues that are integral to the copyright of software and need to be realistically treated imo.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Libraries are entirely legal. Copying ebooks and handing them to strangers is not. However if the essential *moral* issue is, "someone is reading without paying the author," libraries and p2p sharing have the same ethical problems.

I wasn't aware of the US specifics on libraries.

I agree morally the two can fall into a similar area. However, libraries operate within the law, they purchase books for lending with the agreement of the publishers under terms publishers accept. Pirates do not.

Any publisher who considers you lending a book to your mates as piracy I hope goes out of business. It's imo a question of scale. If someone buys a book, game, movie, cd and uses it then lends it to a mate and another mate and another, nobody really cares (except perhaps collection agency reps . If you invite a group of friends over to watch the DVD you bought, nobody cares.

However, if someone shares that same item online with their "friends" it's a different matter, because online when people say friends, they tend to mean masses and masses of people. Or starts showing that DVD on a regular basis to random members of the public or filling out theatres without additional rights, then they do care. [1]

My original reason for picking up the library post, is that when Harry mentioned reading a book without paying for it is stealing (paraphrased), I think he would have included reading a book for free or otherwise as long as it's with the permission of the author/publisher as perfectly acceptable. Libraries fall into that category.

[1] There are stupid elements to this law too. A company near here was fined several hundred thousand pounds for copyright infringement, because they had a normal DVD playing in their demo room to show off their TV and speaker systems (Avatar, which has lots of explosions ). They'd never let a member of the public go in and sit and watch the whole film, it was for a short couple of minutes that people would watch the movie and see if the speakers are decent or not. That imo, is copyright laws been pushed too far. Had they proof the company was letting people watch the entire film in effect making it a theatre, then fair enough, but they didn't and they hadn't.

illegal, yes. Morally wrong, I doubt it.

That's the problem with may of these discussions though, different parties have different lines for what is morally right and usually the law when applied blindly in all cases is pure stupidity. I wouldn't be surprised to hear numerous people think the opposite to me on the [1] point above. Who's right, who's wrong? Who knows

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Plagiarism is a form of fraud; it's only copyright infringement if (1) the original is copy-restricted (works in the public domain can be plagiarized) and (2) the use doesn't fall within fair-use standards.

The fair use equivalent might be if you download a torrent, read a chapter to see if you want to buy the book, and do not go beyond that unless you purchase it. Reading a whole current book is indeed like massive plagarism.

More on the shoplifting analogy later.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

. Reading a whole current book is indeed like massive plagarism.

I doubt -- I've read quite a few books so far, but never committed plagiarism.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This is the kind of argument that paints everything so black and white that it makes me want to rush right over and embrace the dark side.

There is always a balance to be made between making your point strongly and putting in necessary qualifications, and I welcome being qualified (as in #265!). To make my own favorite qualification, people in countries without freedom to read shouldn't be expected to respect foreign copyrights.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I wasn't aware of the US specifics on libraries.

I agree morally the two can fall into a similar area. However, libraries operate within the law, they purchase books for lending with the agreement of the publishers under terms publishers accept. Pirates do not.

...

Are you talking about pbooks or ebooks, in the U.S. For pbooks, I don't think this is true in the U.S. (the bolded part)? I believe that a library could go to any book store, buy a book, and lend it (this falls under Fair Use). The publisher has no say in the matter. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

Are you talking about pbooks or ebooks, in the U.S. For pbooks, I don't think this is true in the U.S. (the bolded part)? I believe that a library could go to any book store, buy a book, and lend it (this falls under Fair Use). The publisher has no say in the matter. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

A library can lend any paper book, that's correct; they can only lend an e-book if the publisher has signed up to the lending programme.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by John F

Are you talking about pbooks or ebooks, in the U.S. For pbooks, I don't think this is true in the U.S. (the bolded part)? I believe that a library could go to any book store, buy a book, and lend it (this falls under Fair Use). The publisher has no say in the matter. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

I was thinking specifically about ebooks, although I'll admit I didn't realise paper books were treated differently. However, even with paper books, libraries are operating within the boundaries of law. When it came to ebooks where they couldn't lend under the same terms, they sought out agreements with publishers.

My point though was that when Harry said

I think that most people are against piracy because they think it's wrong to take stuff without paying for it.

He was referring to taking stuff without permission. If you have permission to take something for free then clearly it's not stealing and I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that and anyone who has read any of Harry's posts on here regarding the mobile read library would reach that conclusion. Thus, the library remark was not a valid counter to what he'd said as libraries operate within the law and people borrowing books do so with the permission of the library and thus do so lawfully.

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... they can only lend an e-book if the publisher has signed up to the lending programme.

Has this actually been determined (library ebook lending, again, in the U.S.). I was under the impression that so far the libraries haven't really pushed the issue?