Archive.org

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you saying that the law in whatever country it is that you live in allows you to download anything you find on any web site without having to concern yourself about whether or not it's in the public domain in your country? I find that quite remarkable...

Well, prepare to be surprised because yes it does, except if it is for other than the person's private and domestic use (it specifically states that, hence my earlier post's use of "commercial") or, of course, it is not of criminal content e.g. child porn. To then distribute such material is not lawful.

I suspect that similar occurs in most countries in law, or in the practice of accepting reality if the law has not caught up with technology, instant worldwide communications, rapid transport around the world, etc. (the courts in most countries, including your own, would soon be completely bogged down with cases if that were not so). It is all very fine to claim the moral high ground in these sorts of things, but often it turns out that standing up on those heady and self satisfying heights just puts the real world out of view.

Parallel importing is specifically lawful too so it is easy for personal use to import pbooks (and other physical media) not released here by the copyright holder (where copyright does not exist, for example electronic goods, motor vehicles, designer clothes and accessories, etc., etc., commercial parallel importation is lawful).

[Cinisajoy]

An example would be, it is legal for me to make a copy of a cross stitch pattern as a working copy for personal use. Now if I sell that copy, that is illegal.

[pendragginp]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If Mary would have otherwise purchased the book, the author's estate has still lost out financially as a result of Mary's illegal download of the book. That's the problem with "archive.org"; unlike MR or Project Gutenberg, it's not a "curated" collection.

Well if Mary borrows the book from a library you could make the argument that the author's estate has lost out financially too. Or if Mary buys a used copy of the book. In fact publishers aren't fond of either of these options for just that reason - or rather, because the publisher hasn't collected on Mary reading the book. <shrug>

I'll take your word for it that Open Library may have some books that are there without the author's permission, but I can't see that anybody else is making any profit from the books bein borrowed, read, and returned. What am I missing?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by pendragginp

I'll take your word for it that Open Library may have some books that are there without the author's permission, but I can't see that anybody else is making any profit from the books bein borrowed, read, and returned. What am I missing?

Are you asking legally, or morally?

Legally, in most countries, there isn't an exception to book copyrights based on profit.

In the US, there isn't an absolute exception either. But, compared to other countries, the US balances an extremely long copyright period with a fair use doctrine that conceivably gives OpenLibrary a legal out:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview.../four-factors/

When you review fair use cases, you may find that they sometimes contradict one another or conflict with the rules expressed in this chapter. Fair use involves subjective judgments and are often affected by factors such as a judge or jury’s personal sense of right or wrong.

Until someone with enough money to follow through with appeals sues archive.org, Americans don't know the legal status here. People in other countries may know better what the situation is in their case.

Morally, here's what I think:

I've read a few of the EPUB's, and they are of quite low quality. Not only are they filled with scan errors -- way, way more than anything from Amazon or Overdrive I've ever read -- about half the time there is significant missing material. It seems to me that extremely few people who would have purchased the EPUB or paper book will put up with this. The effect on the copyright holder is thus so minimal that the public interest in dissemination of literature outweighs the economic harm. Some defenders of out-and-out piracy make similar arguments. But I think it is far more likely for a perfect pirated EPUB to replace a commercial sale than it is for a junky OpenLibrary scan, borrowed for two weeks, and probably after a wait, to do the same. Advantage: OpenLibrary.

However, the PDF situation may be different. In 2006, when OpenLibrary started, their PDF's were extremely inconvenient to read, since you probably had to do it on a PC. But, nowadays, I suspect that color tablet owners can have a pretty good reading experience with a copyrighted OpenLibrary PDF. If so, and I was on the archive.org board, I might vote to withdraw the PDF's while keeping the EPUB's.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Well, prepare to be surprised because yes it does, except if it is for other than the person's private and domestic use (it specifically states that, hence my earlier post's use of "commercial") or, of course, it is not of criminal content e.g. child porn. To then distribute such material is not lawful.

I suspect that similar occurs in most countries in law

No, it does not. In most countries, downloading pirated material is not legal.

It is all very fine to claim the moral high ground in these sorts of things, but often it turns out that standing up on those heady and self satisfying heights just puts the real world out of view.

The "real world" is the place in which I see people stealing my software every day and I am almost powerless to do anything about it. This is not some theoretical discussion we're having here; this is a real world issue that affects real people like me, so you'll forgive me, I hope, if it is something that I feel passionately about. I will never agree with the attitude that it's OK to take anything you want simply because you can.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it does not. In most countries, downloading pirated material is not legal.

Do you mean not legal in the sense that it is against the criminal law? Or do you mean that the hypothetical downloader of pirated material is exposing themselves to a civil claim? Without looking at the law of each country concerned I suspect that your statement is correct for the second but not the first.

[HarryT]

It is copyright infringement which, in most circumstances, is a civil offence.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is copyright infringement which, in most circumstances, is a civil offence.

Hence the practice of civil disobedience in relation to copyrighted material.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

Hence the practice of civil disobedience in relation to copyrighted material.

It is not "civil disobedience" to steal from someone; it's just plain dishonest. Perhaps you have not had the experience of seeing people steal your work day after day, year after year. If you had, you would perhaps understand the attitude of those of us who do not take these matters lightly. The sad fact is that the law provides us with virtually no recourse against these thieves. Copyright infringement is not something which only affects large corporations; it affects ordinary people, too.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is not "civil disobedience" to steal from someone; it's just plain dishonest.

Civil Disobedience, by its very definition, is the breaking of law.

In this case, it is the copyright laws that are being broken.

The laws that say you can't circumvent DRM are being broken.

The laws that say you can't possess DRM circumvention tools are being broken.

The laws that say you can't download content that is not available in your country are being broken.

I view a vast majority of the non-profit oriented unauthorised uploading and distribution of copyrighted material as a political statement. Otherwise, why would so many people go to so much effort and risk to do something which brings no reward to them.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps you have not had the experience of seeing people steal your work day after day, year after year. If you had, you would perhaps understand the attitude of those of us who do not take these matters lightly. The sad fact is that the law provides us with virtually no recourse against these thieves. Copyright infringement is not something which only affects large corporations; it affects ordinary people, too.

Since we are talking about electronic copies here...

Ebooks have opened a large new market for publishers. One that did not exist prior. In exchange for the billions of dollars (pounds, euros, etc), the publishers have to live with some shrinkage. The same as all businesses.

However, in the case of digital content, the publishers have only themselves to blame for this shrinkage. Because they made it so easy to copy their product.

The publishers could have established tight control of their electronic product. For example, ebooks could be published on read-only physical encrypted cards, say the size of a credit card (so you can still have a cover image). This card would be inserted in the ereader to read the book. While there would still be counterfeiting in this scenario, it would be done by only by serious criminals and not casually as is now the case.

While I agree that having people steal your work is bad, in many ways it is the fault of the publishers for taking the easy way out and making stealing from them so very easy.

If the figurative you set up a table in any High Street and put an inch thick stack five pound notes on it, and exited the scene (as they say), we'd all think that you were an idiot to not expect the money to be stolen. Even if it was only a single fiver, we'd still think you were an idiot.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

While I agree that having people steal your work is bad, in many ways it is the fault of the publishers for taking the easy way out and making stealing from them so very easy.

No, it's the greed of the people who want something for nothing. The fact that something is easy to steal does not morally excuse the act of stealing it. And unfortunately the law as it stands gives virtually no help to people like me who are having their work stolen: it's far too expensive for an ordinary individual to take someone to court even if you can get proof that they've taken your work. We can sometimes do things - eg on one occasion I was able to get a student expelled from a Japanese university who was pirating my software and selling it on eBay - but such successes against the criminals are few and far between.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it's the greed of the people who want something for nothing. The fact that something is easy to steal does not morally excuse the act of stealing it. And unfortunately the law as it stands gives virtually no help to people like me who are having their work stolen: it's far too expensive for an ordinary individual to take someone to court even if you can get proof that they've taken your work. We can sometimes do things - eg on one occasion I was able to get a student expelled from a Japanese university who was pirating my software and selling it on eBay - but such successes against the criminals are few and far between.

This is getting far afield from your original claim that users of archive.org somehow need to investigate the copyright status of material offered there before downloading.

It is not up to me as an average person downloading material for my own use to determine copyright status. It's up to the site offering the material; it's up to someone seeking to reuse the material for profit. Telling me I need to check copyright is an unfair burden, and one I reject.

It is not stealing to download something from archive.org.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If Mary would have otherwise purchased the book, the author's estate has still lost out financially as a result of Mary's illegal download of the book. That's the problem with "archive.org"; unlike MR or Project Gutenberg, it's not a "curated" collection.

And the problem with all disgustingly immoral format shifters that do not buy two copies when they need a book in two formats.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It is not up to me as an average person downloading material for my own use to determine copyright status. It's up to the site offering the material; it's up to someone seeking to reuse the material for profit. Telling me I need to check copyright is an unfair burden, and one I reject.

It is not stealing to download something from archive.org.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. "archive.org" contains a great deal of pirated material. If you download a pirated book or other item, you are stealing from the copyright holder. It is your responsibility to check, just as you need to check before you download something from MR. In MR's case, not because it's pirated, but because a lot of what's in the MR library is not in the public domain in the US. The download pages at MR specifically tell you this.