My perspective on buying books with DRM

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

All of the above means I am not a Pirate, even by the strictest of views, I would think, and that I am not, currently, being caused any noticeable inconvenience by DRM. What I object to is some of the holier-than-thou attitudes on display here. I find it unbelievable that someone would consider me criminally culpable if I were, being human, to misplace my Kindle or if my mother misplaced the one I gave her and someone picked up the lost Kindle and spread my books about. Have you never lost anything or been careless in your life? It happens! People have very busy lives these days, for the most part, and can get distracted. It doesn't make them criminals! You may say that would be unlikely and, sure, but it is possible.

I think my views are being misrepresented again...

I think if someone snatched your misplaced Kindle, you should be treated no differently than anyone else whose possessions are found at the scene of a crime.

That is, to the extent to which said crime is usually investigated, the authorities should look at you with suspicion, and ask you why your books are appearing on the internet. You are then welcome to tell them that your Kindle was stolen, they will check around and I guess find friends and neighbors that agree you haven't had your Kindle recently, etc. something mumblemumblemumble... and put you aside for lack of evidence. This is of course assuming anyone bothers to investigate piracy anyway, which is a rather dubious assumption.


You know what I find unbelievable? That people would think digital media is the one aspect of one's life where one need not be responsible for their actions, or undergo scrutiny pertaining to such.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by murg

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.

+1 karma (except I can't apparently, since I have already given you recently)

[murg]

I witnessed law-breaking on a horrendous scale yesterday.

I was in a restaurant, and a group of people sang the Happy Birthday song. Clearly audible on the street outside, which definitely makes it a public performance.

I'm surprised the SWAT team didn't descend from helicopters and arrest everyone.

[AnotherCat]

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?

You seem to be ignoring my allusions to casualness, such as my "what are pretty informal and unpaid performances in "public" places" and extrapolating into formal performances and readings in order to make your case.

Here, providing the audience comprises the students, teachers and others associated with the establishment (e.g. parents are excluded) then such a performance is not a "public performance" for the purposes of copyright. As far as I know that applies even if an entry charge is made (but I have not checked on that), but in any event one assumes that any charge to view the performance in these circumstances would likely be just to cover costs such as for costumes, sets, etc.

Of course, if the performance is open to the general public as I suspect is likely in the case you mention (and so not having the informality I mentioned), no matter who they may be, then obviously the situation is quite different. In the case of a library an informal reading to a small group (even if a few other listeners casually hung in the background) would be casual but an advertised reading to which members of the public are invited, say, is not.

So, Yes, I stand by my original comments.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by murg

I witnessed law-breaking on a horrendous scale yesterday.

I was in a restaurant, and a group of people sang the Happy Birthday song. Clearly audible on the street outside, which definitely makes it a public performance.

I'm surprised the SWAT team didn't descend from helicopters and arrest everyone.

Alas, the SWAT team was tied up raiding whole milk shops like this one.
http://news.yahoo.com/swat-team-raid...025201044.html

... budget cuts. The world needs more SWAT.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by murg

I witnessed law-breaking on a horrendous scale yesterday.

I was in a restaurant, and a group of people sang the Happy Birthday song. Clearly audible on the street outside, which definitely makes it a public performance.

I'm surprised the SWAT team didn't descend from helicopters and arrest everyone.

No. That would be too easy. I think such incidents are handled by those nice Dallas Buyers Club people who will take the restaurant owner to the Federal Court to get whatever names they can. Rest assured, those miscreants will regret their actions when they receive the letter telling them they could face execution and demanding $100,000. Who knows where this could end. If nothing is done people could be singing Happy Birthday in the Park, on the Beach, in Cafe's .... The list is endless.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by murg

I witnessed law-breaking on a horrendous scale yesterday.

I was in a restaurant, and a group of people sang the Happy Birthday song. Clearly audible on the street outside, which definitely makes it a public performance.

I'm surprised the SWAT team didn't descend from helicopters and arrest everyone.

A work associate and I were working in Paris (so no little sleepy country village) and having a meal at a family restaurant. It turned out that at another table a young boy was having his birthday party and those at the table sang the French Happy Birthday song for him. Now that was informal, family and friends so probably ok, but what I am to relate next will for sure incur the ire of the literal law interpreters here.

When they finished singing, my friend and I, uninvited, sang Happy Birthday to him in English. A true public performance as both the boy and his family, and the whole restaurant went quiet and listened; we knew no one there, they were just an "audience".

Now while we did not get paid in money we sure as hell got very well rewarded in brownie points by both the patrons and the staff who despite us being very, very poor singers thought we were wonderful .

But it doesn't end there. My wife and I were guests of friends on a super-yacht one New Year and a couple of the better able were giving (not drunken) singing solos. Now I am nowhere even close to having the ability (nor wanting ) to do that but my wife does; in fact when she did so the crew switched the audio into the deck public address system at full volume and so she ended up entertaining, in a very public way, not only those on board but the whole marina as well as the whole neighborhood.

To date, no rights holders have come knocking on our doors; perhaps those who are sticklers for literal interpretations of the law could tell me when they will be doing so? (And before they point it out, I am aware that the rights over Happy Birthday are disputed, but as in this case when the rights holder is swimming in money but we are not, they could exert their rights by just chasing us into submission).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

You seem to be ignoring my allusions to casualness, such as my "what are pretty informal and unpaid performances in "public" places" and extrapolating into formal performances and readings in order to make your case.

Sorry, AnotherCat, but we may perhaps be talking at cross-purposes here. We were talking about organised book readings in libraries, not "casual" events. Such readings do, in my view, stand a high probability of being considered to be public performances.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

I witnessed law-breaking on a horrendous scale yesterday.

I was in a restaurant, and a group of people sang the Happy Birthday song. Clearly audible on the street outside, which definitely makes it a public performance.

I'm surprised the SWAT team didn't descend from helicopters and arrest everyone.

I'm curious what law you believe was being broken, given that "Happy Birthday" has been in the Australian public domain for many years (its last author died in 1946)? Public performances of public domain works are absolutely fine.

[cvkemp]

Originally Posted by murg

I witnessed law-breaking on a horrendous scale yesterday.

I was in a restaurant, and a group of people sang the Happy Birthday song. Clearly audible on the street outside, which definitely makes it a public performance.

I'm surprised the SWAT team didn't descend from helicopters and arrest everyone.

I am 67 years old and Happy Birthday has been song at every birthday party I have been to public or private as for back as I can remember. Lots of times it was at locations with lots of police there. And I spend 8 years in the military where we always celebrated everyone's birthday by singing Happy Birthday.
I do not know where you are coming from but it can not be from the USA.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cvkemp

I am 67 years old and Happy Birthday has been song at every birthday party I have been to public or private as for back as I can remember. Lots of times it was at locations with lots of police there. And I spend 8 years in the military where we always celebrated everyone's birthday by singing Happy Birthday.
I do not know where you are coming from but it can not be from the USA.

The copyright of the song in the US is disputed, but the company which claims to hold the copyright (a company called "Warner/Chappell Music") only requires payment for commercial use of it - eg in films or TV programmes. They make something like $2m a year in licensing fees from it in this way.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The copyright of the song in the US is disputed, but the company which claims to hold the copyright (a company called "Warner/Chappell Music") only requires payment for commercial use of it - eg in films or TV programmes. They make something like $2m a year in licensing fees from it in this way.

This doesn't make the use of the song any less illegal, it just means that Warner/Chappell Music doesn't prosecute non-commercial usage.

In order to not be illegal, Warner/Chappell Music would have to put the song into the public domain for non-commercial usage. I don't think that's possible.

[murg]

Originally Posted by cvkemp

I am 67 years old and Happy Birthday has been song at every birthday party I have been to public or private as for back as I can remember. Lots of times it was at locations with lots of police there. And I spend 8 years in the military where we always celebrated everyone's birthday by singing Happy Birthday.
I do not know where you are coming from but it can not be from the USA.

Actually, the song is still copyrighted in the US, so the police were ignoring an obvious violation of the law, maybe even participating in it.

From the scenarios that you are describing, I'm sure the police were also ignoring any local, state or federal laws on the use of unlicensed pyrotechnics in a public place.

[cadele]

Originally Posted by murg

I witnessed law-breaking on a horrendous scale yesterday.

I was in a restaurant, and a group of people sang the Happy Birthday song. Clearly audible on the street outside, which definitely makes it a public performance.

I'm surprised the SWAT team didn't descend from helicopters and arrest everyone.

So THAT'S what really happened with Marilyn Monroe!

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm curious what law you believe was being broken, given that "Happy Birthday" has been in the Australian public domain for many years (its last author died in 1946)? Public performances of public domain works are absolutely fine.

However said I was in Australia at the time?

As far as I know, Australia doesn't have SWAT teams, I think they call it something different. Also, there seems to be a lot less call of such a thing in Australia.