Can free e-books be pirated?

[pdurrant]

I note this from the Rampant Loon Media page:

"Once the votes are in and the list of finalists is announced, though, this book is withdrawn from distribution and never reissued."

and also

"For contractual reasons the Campbellian Anthologies remain available only for a limited time, and then are withdrawn from distribution and never re-released."


I said earlier "It all depends."

In this case, IMO, obtaining either book after the close of voting is piracy, pure and simple. The authors did not give their permission for indefinite free distribution of their work.

[Katsunami]

In that case, I did pirate the 2013 edition through the WBM, as I found out about about it several days after its release. The page has now completely been removed from Rampant Loon Press, which makes that book harder to find.

Damn. And there I thought I had a completely pirate-free library.

(On the other hand, maybe downloading a cover and using it in a book to replace a low-res one (or add one if there isn't one) can be considered piracy of artwork as well... Maybe I'll just go back to paper books. Much easier )

[MikeB1972]

The blurb is pretty exact in those pre-read anthologies

From the 2014

Copyright © 2014 Rampant Loon Media LLC

All rights reserved. This special “Awards Edition” is licensed for free distribution, from January 15, 2014 through the end of April 2014, or thirty days after the 2014 Hugo/Campbell ballot is announced (whichever is later). All contributors have agreed that the stories and excerpts herein may be shared as part of this volume, for the specified duration. If you obtain this volume within that span, you may likewise redistribute it, without modification, within that span. Once the official distribution ends, you are asked to refrain from any further redistribution of the files, although you are permitted to keep copies for your own personal reference and enjoyment.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

In that case, I did pirate the 2013 edition through the WBM, as I found out about about it several days after its release. The page has now completely been removed from Rampant Loon Press, which makes that book harder to find.

Damn. And there I thought I had a completely pirate-free library.

(On the other hand, maybe downloading a cover and using it in a book to replace a low-res one (or add one if there isn't one) can be considered piracy of artwork as well... Maybe I'll just go back to paper books. Much easier )

If you are are "Rules are rules" purist, then yes, downloading cover art is "piracy". It's covered under copyright and the artist didn't give you permission to make a copy.

If you go by the most restrictive definition of piracy (i.e. using copyrighted material without explicit permission), then pretty much everyone is a pirate. It's just that some people tend to apply the term unequally. It's piracy if you go back and grab a copy of an ebook that isn't available elsewhere to fill out your series, but it isn't piracy if they grab a piece of cover art, or exchange recipes with friends (if they got it from a book, newspaper or website, then it's covered under copyright law, though in a broader sense, recipes is a prime example of why allowing works to go into public domain is important).

Personally, I look at the intent, which is to encourage an artist to produce more by making sure they get paid for their work. If I can buy it from a legit ebook store, then I will. If I can't and I already have a paper version, I figure that that artist got his or her money. Heck, I even have a few works were I paid for the hardback, paperback, ebook, audiobook and movie. There is even one author who I donate money to. That's how artist got paid in the old days, they had patrons.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you are are "Rules are rules" purist, then yes, downloading cover art is "piracy". It's covered under copyright and the artist didn't give you permission to make a copy.

So if "rules are not rules", what are they......................fish?
Apache

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

All rights reserved. This special “Awards Edition” is licensed for free distribution, from January 15, 2014 through the end of April 2014, or thirty days after the 2014 Hugo/Campbell ballot is announced (whichever is later).

I should have read the entire site. I obtained the 2013 version of the book a few days after the official time span... but maybe the ballot hadn't been passed at that time. Assuming these rules were also true for the 2013 version.

Well... so I *might* have pirated the 2013 version... or I *might* have not. Damn. I should have become a lawyer. There will be much money in wheedling these rules around.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I even have a few works were I paid for the hardback, paperback, ebook, audiobook and movie.

LOL. Tell me about it. It's like that with Lord of the Rings for me.

I now have:
- 2005 Illustrated edition
- Boxed Deluxe edition
- E-book versions
- Blu-Ray Extended edition movies

I had in the past:
- 1998 Dutch hardcover (gave it away when I got the 2005 illustrated one)
- 2005 English Paperback (fell apart in 2010; got the illustrated one)
- Saw all the movies in theater. Twice.
- Had the DVD Extended Edition. (Sold them to get the Blu-Ray versions.)

And that's not even counting all the other Middle-Earth/Tolkien stuff I have. (I don't do the games or audiobooks.)

Same with old fantasy; I've had most Eddings and Brooks stuff in Dutch, then in English, now as e-book. Had most Salvatore stuff in paper, and now in e-book form. I've replaced all paper books with e-books, so at least 25% of my current e-books were bought as paper before.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you are are "Rules are rules" purist, then yes, downloading cover art is "piracy". It's covered under copyright and the artist didn't give you permission to make a copy.

If you go by the most restrictive definition of piracy (i.e. using copyrighted material without explicit permission), then pretty much everyone is a pirate. It's just that some people tend to apply the term unequally. It's piracy if you go back and grab a copy of an ebook that isn't available elsewhere to fill out your series, but it isn't piracy if they grab a piece of cover art, or exchange recipes with friends (if they got it from a book, newspaper or website, then it's covered under copyright law, though in a broader sense, recipes is a prime example of why allowing works to go into public domain is important) is.

But it is my understanding that mere lists of ingredients and procedures are excluded from copyright! Basic recipes are just a list of ingredients and a procedure for mixing them together and thus can't be under copyright regardless of source. Only the extra frills (such as commentary) are under copyright.

Grabbing cover images on the other hand ....

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ekbell

But it is my understanding that mere lists of ingredients and procedures are excluded from copyright! Basic recipes are just a list of ingredients and a procedure for mixing them together and thus can't be under copyright regardless of source. Only the extra frills (such as commentary) are under copyright.

Grabbing cover images on the other hand ....

Sort of correct. The ingredients list can't be copyrighted. The instructions are copyrighted. So if you choose to publish Cindy's Cheesy Chicken Chowder exactly, you have violated my copyrights. If you change the wording, you would be fine. Or just link where you found it. Food.Com is where I originally published it.

Now where you do have to be careful is using brand names. Those can be trademark violations unless you put in a disclaimer. Even the big companies have to do that if they are using someone else's product.
Fundraiser cookbooks have more leeway.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

So if "rules are not rules", what are they......................fish?
Apache

guidelines. Rules are guidelines to be ignored when they don't make sense. The Rules are rules quote is normally trotted out when the rules make absolutely no sense in a given situation, but since they are rules, they must be followed regardless of how idiotic they are. The classic example is insisting that a blind person show a driver's license rather than a passport as id because the rule says you have to show a driver's license.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Sort of correct. The ingredients list can't be copyrighted. The instructions are copyrighted. So if you choose to publish Cindy's Cheesy Chicken Chowder exactly, you have violated my copyrights. If you change the wording, you would be fine. Or just link where you found it. Food.Com is where I originally published it.

Now where you do have to be careful is using brand names. Those can be trademark violations unless you put in a disclaimer. Even the big companies have to do that if they are using someone else's product.
Fundraiser cookbooks have more leeway.

My point was that if you copy a recipe from a web page, or from a newspaper and then share it with a friend, you have technically violated copyright. While the list of ingredients isn't under copyright, the instructions are.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My point was that if you copy a recipe from a web page, or from a newspaper and then share it with a friend, you have technically violated copyright. While the list of ingredients isn't under copyright, the instructions are.

And exactly why when I put my aunt's banana bread on the internet, I changed the wording and gave her credit.

Oh on college papers, just changing names and pronouns can get you in trouble too.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My point was that if you copy a recipe from a web page, or from a newspaper and then share it with a friend, you have technically violated copyright. While the list of ingredients isn't under copyright, the instructions are.

Nope. Basic instructions to go with those ingredients are not copyrighted, either. There has to be additional authorial input involving "substantial literary expression" to invoke copyright. Description of a procedure or process isn't sufficient.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by issybird

Nope. Basic instructions to go with those ingredients are not copyrighted, either. There has to be additional authorial input involving "substantial literary expression" to invoke copyright. Description of a procedure or process isn't sufficient.

I do believe
Mix until blended cannot be copyrighted. Mix with a wooden spoon for exactly 3.5 minutes or until the mixture is a pretty purple color can be copyrighted.
General instructions no. Added verbiage yes.
So don't copy and paste to other sites unless you can 100% guarantee that the wordage isn't copyrighted.
Most true cookbook writers embellish for that very reason. To be able to keep track of their recipes.


So, when in doubt, don't post a recipe you find on site A to site B or at least give credit to the original poster.
And yes, the big companies do send take down notices to the recipe sites.

[Skeeve]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Quick answer just because you get a digital book on sale for free, does not mean you are able to do whatever you want with it.
So yes, if you buy Wool or The Arrangement free, if you distribute it to others you are committing piracy.

Question: When I buy 20 copies of a printed book, I am free to do whatever I want with it, meaning, I can give them away for free, right?

Next Question: When I buy an ebook 20 times, I should be eligible to do the same and give it away for free to whomever I want, right?

So when there is an ebook freely available, it should be okay for me to give it away, provided I downloaded it for free as often as I want to give it away, correct?