My perspective on buying books with DRM

[howyoudoin]

If the law were enforced to the letter, then schools would have to pay for literature review classes. The resulting backlash would most definitely end up in the law being modified. It is pretty apparent that the law as it stands is not and will not be strictly enforced by the publishing houses. Not because they can't, but because they're smart enough to realise that they shouldn't. It is a relatively toothless law that exists to be ignored in certain cases by the very parties who theoretically have the greatest interest in enforcing it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

If the law were enforced to the letter, then schools would have to pay for literature review classes.

No, "Criticism or review" is one of the three "Fair Dealing" exceptions, the others being non-commercial research and reporting of current (but not past) events.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I guess, though, that since Murg was talking about the situation in Australia,

I was commenting on your comment about British law.

You keep asking what Australian law on the matter is. I don't know, and can't be bothered to check, especially on this issue. If you really want to know, there's this thing called the internet, it makes all knowledge in the world available at your fingertips.

Anyone that goes after someone for reading a children's book to a bunch of kinds in a Library deserves all of the bad publicity and public scorn they will receive.

This is one of those situations where the old adage 'the law is an ass' really applies to. Society as a whole will enforce it's natural law on the legislative law.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by murg

...Anyone that goes after someone for reading a children's book to a bunch of kinds in a Library deserves all of the bad publicity and public scorn they will receive.

This is one of those situations where the old adage 'the law is an ass' really applies to. Society as a whole will enforce it's natural law on the legislative law.

Fortunately in NZ and Australia legislation regarding such things is not interpreted as literally and as being as black and white as some here would like us to believe. What constitutes a "public performance" will actually be interpreted according to the circumstances.

In the end if a rights holder decided to pursue a case against a reading made free of charge to get anything from the reader they will have to prove what the damages are. It may even be that it could be shown that the quantum of damages is zero as the reading may be regarded as a free advertisement that resulted in promoting more book sales than it curtailed.

Frankly, I think those prattling on that rights apply in what are pretty informal and unpaid performances in "public" places are either dreaming or see the world in purely black and white terms; to them the difference between what constitutes a "public performance" and a non public performance becomes knife sharp and not open to interpretation.

On the latter point I periodically work as an expert witness in civil cases (not copyright) and plaintiffs of the narrow perspectived ilk soon find out that the world is not as literally defined as they had imagined.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

You keep asking what Australian law on the matter is. I don't know, and can't be bothered to check, especially on this issue.

Murg, with the very greatest respect, you're contradicting yourself. A few posts ago you said that you were "in big trouble" because you read aloud to your children in public, but now you say that you don't actually know what the law in Australia is on the matter. How can you know whether or not you're in trouble if you don't know what the law in your own country is? The reason I asked you what the legal situation in Australia was is that it appeared from your posts as if you did know.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Fortunately in NZ and Australia legislation regarding such things is not interpreted as literally and as being as black and white as some here would like us to believe. What constitutes a "public performance" will actually be interpreted according to the circumstances.

This is also the situation in the UK, as I gave a reference to in post #247 on the previous page.

Frankly, I think those prattling on that rights apply in what are pretty informal and unpaid performances in "public" places are either dreaming or see the world in purely black and white terms...

Let me give you a real-world example of such a situation. A few years a local school was prosecuted for staging a performance of "Joseph and His Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" without the permission of the rights holder. No fee was being charged, but still the school was found guilty of copyright infringement. I see no fundamental difference between that and a public reading of a book in a library.

There is very little question that "rights apply"; the law makes it clear that public performance is an activity which is the exclusive right of the copyright holder. The question (as you rightly point out) is what constitutes a public performance, and a court will make a decision on this based on the specific circumstances of the case in question. In the case of the school I mentioned above, the court decided that even though this was a school play to which no admission was charged and only pupils, teachers and parents were in attendance, it was nonetheless a public performance. Can you honestly say that it's "dreaming" to say that a public reading in a library might well be viewed in the same way?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is also the situation in the UK, as I gave a reference to in post #247 on the previous page.



Let me give you a real-world example of such a situation. A few years a local school was prosecuted for staging a performance of "Joseph and His Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" without the permission of the rights holder. No fee was being charged, but still the school was found guilty of copyright infringement. I see no fundamental difference between that and a public reading of a book in a library.

There is very little question that "rights apply"; the law makes it clear that public performance is an activity which is the exclusive right of the copyright holder. The question (as you rightly point out) is what constitutes a public performance, and a court will make a decision on this based on the specific circumstances of the case in question. In the case of the school I mentioned above, the court decided that even though this was a school play to which no admission was charged and only pupils, teachers and parents were in attendance, it was nonetheless a public performance. Can you honestly say that it's "dreaming" to say that a public reading in a library might well be viewed in the same way?

Sadly, you are correct. At least in the UK, you are not dreaming. Nevertheless, the result both of your example and your hypothetical IMHO would be morally unjust, and I think most people would regard it as such. Further, such results tend to bring into contempt not only the particular law but the law in general. The balance between Public Interest and the interests of "rights holders" is, once again IMHO, currently far too much in favour of the latter.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Murg, with the very greatest respect, you're contradicting yourself. A few posts ago you said that you were "in big trouble" because you read aloud to your children in public, but now you say that you don't actually know what the law in Australia is on the matter. How can you know whether or not you're in trouble if you don't know what the law in your own country is? The reason I asked you what the legal situation in Australia was is that it appeared from your posts as if you did know.

I did? I can't seem to find the post, and I went back over two weeks in the thread.

It's quite possible my post, if I in fact did write such post, as you claim, was an attempt to exaggerate in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the claims.

Then again, it may have been a simple case of:

[darryl]

Originally Posted by murg

I did? I can't seem to find the post, and I went back over two weeks in the thread.

It's quite possible my post, if I in fact did write such post, as you claim, was an attempt to exaggerate in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the claims.

Then again, it may have been a simple case of:

Murg! From you. Tell me it isn't true!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

I did? I can't seem to find the post, and I went back over two weeks in the thread.

I owe you an apology - it wasn't you who said it; it was meera (post #223 on page 15 above). Apologies for mixing up your respective posts.

[murg]

Originally Posted by darryl

Murg! From you. Tell me it isn't true!

It isn't true.

Apparently, it was a figment of HarryT's fevered brain.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

It isn't true.

Apparently, it was a figment of HarryT's fevered brain.

It wasn't a "figment" of anything. I simply got the identity of the poster confused.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I owe you an apology - it wasn't you who said it; it was meera (post #223 on page 15 above). Apologies for mixing up your respective posts.

Then it's quite clear, that my post, since in fact I didn't write it, wasn't an attempt to exaggerate in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the claims. This shouldn't, in no uncertain terms, detract from the sheer brilliance of my post nor hide the absolute clarity of my message in the post nor tarnish the infinite correctness of the opinion (or statement) which was the guiding light of the post.

[meeera]

It was me, and I thought it was a pretty obvious eyeroll.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

Just for the sake of having a nice stimulating discussion...

I'm willing to confess to the theft, but to make this confession valid, I have to (as the German phrase goes) name horse and rider -- what have I stolen, and from whom did I steal it?

Did I steal from the publisher? But if they had it, either in print or digitally, they'd sell it to me. Since they don't, they don't have it. The thing I want -- a new pbook, or a legal download -- doesn't exist. So, can I steal something that doesn't exist, from someone who doesn't have it?

Did I steal from the author? But, with the book not for sale as ebook or new pbook, there is no way she can receive any money from me. If I bought it used, or if I borrowed it from a library if they had it (the only alternatives to downloading the pirated copy), she wouldn't receive payment either. So, which amount do I steal from her when I choose one action from which she doesn't profit, over a different action from which she doesn't profit?

Did I steal from the used book vendor, who asked $350? But my only interaction with him was that I walked by his (online) shop window, saw his price tag, and decided not to buy from him. As I did with a different vendor, who asked even more. They both still have their copies -- have I stolen from one of them, or from both, just by not buying from them at the outrageous price they asked?

I still have the feeling that I've done something wrong (even if morally excusable and legally not actionable), but it puzzles me, what, of which specific monetary value, have I stolen from whom...?

Well, now. Keep in mind that copyright doesn't grant an author the right to make money off their work. It grants an author the right to control distribution.

There have been people who didn't want their work to be available to the public at all.

I am not judging whether you should do so or not. However, I do think it is important to keep in mind that while as a consumer we naturally feel entitled to obtain what we want -- and pay for that right, except when we can't, which sometimes leads to piracy -- there really is no such inherent right.
And how much of this is moot because no one will ever try hauling a consumer into court over the matter?

I will keep my own counsel on whether or not I might end up pirating such books.