Fair Use?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Here 'tis:

New litigation campaign quietly targets tens of thousands of movie downloaders
Tue Mar 30, 2010 @ 10:29AM PST
By Eriq Gardner

I'm pretty sure you'll find that they're transposing "download" with "upload" in their terminology. Think about it, how would this company ever be able to detect downloaders unless they are the uploader. Usually, what happens is they go on the torrent network and start downloading from somebody, then track down the uploader based on their IP, etc.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Well, think of it this way.

Assuming the book in question is still under copyright: Whoever put the file online did not have permission or the legal right to share it.

This is true.

As such, it's a "fruit of the poisoned tree" situation. Even if you could construct a moral or legal right, you're still supporting an illegal use of a distribution system.

Not really. Whether or not the poster uses this distribution system is not going to effect the existence of the distribution system. There's no "supporting" going on here. It's not like they're donating money to the guy or anything. The uploader is going to continue uploading, regardless of whether or not the poster downloads from them.

As to "do you have the right," it's equivalent to owning a vinyl record or a VHS tape; just because you bought the item in one format, when you purchased it no one granted or guaranteed you the right to a free copy in a future format.

Of course you do, as long as you make it yourself. At least in the US, format-shifting is legal. What you seem to be arguing is that the copyright owner has the right to force you to pay them again every time you want to change the format of the same content. That's probably even less ethical.

The only reason why you're even contemplating this is basically out of convenience, which IMO is not a particularly strong ethical position.

Nor does it make it a weak on either. Whether or not one method is more convenient than the other doesn't really make a difference.

[Shaggy]

The genesis of this legal campaign occurred in Germany when lawyers from the US Copyright Group were introduced to a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents. According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the program captures IP addresses based on the time stamp that a download has occurred and then checks against a spreadsheet to make sure the downloading content is the copyright protected film and not a misnamed film or trailer.

Specifically above, when they are talking about "downloading" they're referring to the Guardaley IT application downloading. The user they're going after is the uploader.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

They wouldn't need to prove that you uploaded it, only that you made it available for downloading.

"Making available" is not a valid legal argument in the US. I don't know about other countries.

You can't download from Bittorrent without doing that, as soon as you have a bit of it that bit will be uploaded to someone else.

You can download from Bittorrent without uploading.

In the UK there is big business in sending out letters demanding money for alleged copyright infringement after your IP has been "caught" downloading through BT.

http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/

See also:

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-will-...office-100530/

They already have 5,000 IP addresses ready to roll, and are planning at least another 5,000 after that. I don't know about you, but I have never seen anything on BT with 10,000 seeders.

It's very common that the media misuses the terminology. They almost always say "downloader", but if you actually drill down into the cases, it's always about the "uploader". They go after people distributing copyrighted material.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

So the question is: What does everyone think the ethics are of downloading ebook copies of books you already own on paper from P2P networks like BitTorrent?

It's been hashed through several times here. Short answer: Mobileread users are split on the ethics, but agree that practical issues make any kind of repercussions unlikely if you don't redistribute those books.

There's some (thin) legal support for the acceptance of torrented/fileshared digital copies if there is no commercially available version. The issue of using a P2P network instead of scanning the book yourself, or hiring it done, hasn't been brought up in a courtroom yet.

The ethics, however, have little to no connection to the legal issues, and MR has exchanged several hundred comments on all aspects of those ethics. If you *want* to discuss Ethics of Downloading, be prepared for dozens of very strong opinions, with lots of supporting evidence, from several sides.

If, however, you just wanted to find out how much public censure there is for the idea of downloading digital copies of books you own, the answer is "not much; even the people who hate the activity have more practical things to worry about."

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If, however, you just wanted to find out how much public censure there is for the idea of downloading digital copies of books you own, the answer is "not much; even the people who hate the activity have more practical things to worry about."

Well said.

Although, I'm starting to remember why I once promised myself to stop wasting my time on these sorts of threads. Something about resisting pointless arguments where both sides are never going to change their minds anyway...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Well said.

Although, I'm starting to remember why I once promised myself to stop wasting my time on these sorts of threads. Something about resisting pointless arguments where both sides are never going to change their minds anyway...

I like the recurring arguments. They give newcomers something to watch, and help me figure out how to describe my position in relation to new tech, legal rulings and news events. This doesn't affect MR much, but it lets me figure out how to talk to my coworkers.

But I have gotten to a point where, if I don't feel up to the debate today, I ignore the thread, no matter how fascinating I find the actual topic being discussed.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

They wouldn't need to prove that you uploaded it, only that you made it available for downloading. You can't download from Bittorrent without doing that, as soon as you have a bit of it that bit will be uploaded to someone else.

Course you can, you set upload to zero. Sheesh, some people.

Shaggy - Format shifting is legal. Unless there's DRM. Always, always got to add that.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Shaggy - Format shifting is legal. Unless there's DRM. Always, always got to add that.

True, but I haven't seen DRM on a paper book... yet.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

True, but I haven't seen DRM on a paper book... yet.

Exactly! That's why I'm buying used books and scanning them (the scanning process destroys the original) and will continue to do so unless I can buy the book already digitized without DRM.

The convoluted mess called copyright laws are a product of the lobbyists of publishers. Under the guise of protecting the rights of authors, composers, artists, recording artists, etc. (most of whom do not even own their copyrights anymore), the industry has manged to legislate a stranglehold on consumers. The laws are contradictory, confusing, constantly changing and lagging behind current technology. Prosecution is subjectively judged case by case. One person may be convicted for something and another gets off scot free for doing exactly the same thing.

For example, the law states one can make a personal copy of most media for back up purposes yet, if the original is DRM encumbered, it is illegal to defeat it. Where the ability to allow only one copy is behind current technology is, if backing up to a digital copy, one should never rely on only one backup copy since they are so volatile. I keep at least one back up of everything on my computer locally and another in the cloud. The odds of losing all three locations at once are too unlikely to be worth worrying about but the possibility of losing one or two locations simultaneously is possible. The company that keeps my backups online could go belly up. My computer could crash. My home could burn, taking out both my computer and the backup. Same if my house gets burgled and the crook gets away with both my computer and my backups. Insurance will replace the hardware but not the data. Sadly, copyright laws have not kept up with that need. Of course, the publishers would prefer we buy extra copies of their media for backups.

Then there is the licensing nonsense. Now you have to pay to use a product but never get to own it. You have to agree to give up your right to keep a backup, you may be restricted to use the media you are paying for only on certain devices, and/or you may lose the right to lose the media you paid for if you decide to quit paying ransom (membership fees, etc.) for it.

The only thing "copyright protection" does is force honest people to become dishonest.

[GERGE]

I just downloaded Wheel of Time to re-read in the summer before the last book comes out.
I have all 11 books in Turkish and my budget can't buy them in English again.

Do you think it is wrong to pirate books you have in a different language?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GERGE

I just downloaded Wheel of Time to re-read in the summer before the last book comes out.
I have all 11 books in Turkish and my budget can't buy them in English again.

Do you think it is wrong to pirate books you have in a different language?

That is a complicated can of worms. In one way of thinking, you would only be getting translations for books you already own but someone had to put forth some effort to do the translating and you would be cheating that someone out of the revenue s/he deserve for her/his efforts. It's not really the same as a media change.

There is a large danger in pirating books (or anything else). Ignoring that pirated media is often lower quality than legal copies, even if you could justify pirating a copy of something (replacing a damaged original, for example), pirated media is often rife with malware. You would also be supporting the pirates.

Here is an analogy to what I am talking about. I bought a used F150 truck recently. I really wanted (and needed) the additional trailer towing capacity of an F350 but couldn't afford to buy or operate one. Would that justify me to buy the F150 then go out and steal a dealer's F350 (heck, they have plenty more)? A little extreme but essentially the same principle is involved.

[L.J. Sellers]

Even though it may seem okay and no one gets hurt, by downloading from a site like that, you're supporting an unethical business. I say, find another way.
L.J.

[GERGE]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

That is a complicated can of worms. In one way of thinking, you would only be getting translations for books you already own but someone had to put forth some effort to do the translating and you would be cheating that someone out of the revenue s/he deserve for her/his efforts. It's not really the same as a media change.

Not exactly. The books are translated into Turkish from English. I already paid Robert Jordan and the Turkish translator. I want to read them in their original language. I don't think I need to pay for them again. Jordan already got my money.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Shaggy - Format shifting is legal. Unless there's DRM. Always, always got to add that.

Again, that depends where you live. Format shifting is not legal in the UK (although nobody's ever prosecuted for it).