Copyright infringement terminology

[Krystian Galaj]

The word 'piracy' when used in connection with copyright infringement seems to me to describe really well the activity, and not the fair use branch of it. So I don't see a need for any new word, and I doubt any artificially introduced word would catch on - if there was a word to describe it with a power to catch on, someone would have used it randomly on the Net, and it would be known here by now.

[pietvo]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Most EULA's in Europe are a waste of the electrons used to display them, yea.

Most of the print books here in Holland have the standard clause on one of the first pages like: `No part of this book may be reproduced [etc. ...] without the written permission of the publisher', while the laws says that you are allowed to copy a couple of pages. These things just have no legal binding power whatsoever.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

The word 'piracy' when used in connection with copyright infringement seems to me to describe really well the activity, and not the fair use branch of it.

...And there again there's the basic misconception. There is no "branch" of unauthorised copying which is fair use, it's a defence against being charged with infringement!

Piracy has it's own meaning for ship hijacking which is once more on the rise and needs to be held in a sharply different light to unauthorised copying if it is to have the appropriate action taken against it - using "piracy" at this stage is promoting a moral panic on one hand, and used as fodder for the darknet community's self-justification on the other. There is no "gripping hand" in the situation, people need to stop using it when talking about IP law.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

I really, really dislike attempts to directly push new words in general. Either a word catches on because you use it, or it doesn't. Attempts to deliberately define the language is one of the reasons why we're speaking English, not French.

It seems fair enough to me to propose new language - not that I was being serious with my particular taurocoprologism. To attempt to mandate what language is used, to legislate even - which is what I assume you're referring to wrt the French, is a very nasty idea. Language should be free to evolve - but people need to suggest things from which the fittest survive.

What this thread was about was finding language to describe the different cases of unauthorised copying - because not all cases are the same.

[DawnFalcon]

Trying to force the use of rigid language onto the current system, which legally mandates individual testing of each case, is precisely what's being proposed by both (fanatical) ends of the spectrum - and only serves their ends.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Trying to force the use of rigid language onto the current system, which legally mandates individual testing of each case, is precisely what's being proposed by both (fanatical) ends of the spectrum - and only serves their ends.

I thought that this was a light-hearted thread about what we could call some different types of activity that don't seem to fit the language being used. Downloading a copy of a book that one has on paper doesn't seem like "piracy", for example - at least to some.

So, I'm confused by the idea of "trying to force the use of rigid language onto the current system" - who is doing that?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I thought that this was a light-hearted thread about what we could call some different types of activity that don't seem to fit the language being used. Downloading a copy of a book that one has on paper doesn't seem like "piracy", for example - at least to some.

So, I'm confused by the idea of "trying to force the use of rigid language onto the current system" - who is doing that?

Ben meet Dawn.

[K-Thom]

What about copyrape?

See, no "theft" in there, but people still would get the message. You're doing something you shouldn't and force your will upon others to satisfy your basic desires.*

* still not sure if I do want to use an <irony> tag ...

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

What about copyrape?

See, no "theft" in there, but people still would get the message. You're doing something you shouldn't and force your will upon others to satisfy your basic desires.*

* still not sure if I do want to use an <irony> tag ...

The whole point of this thread was to distinguish between "innocuous" cases of copying without permission, which may or may not in fact be legal (e.g. for back-up or format shifting) and, for example, obtaining new material without paying when you could have paid.

That's why we were coming up with softer sounding words like "snaffle".

The cases that were being discussed were not ones that were seen as wrong (by definition in the original post), and certainly not forcing ones will onto anybody else.

[K-Thom]

You mean, something like "Whoopsy daisy"?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

You mean, something like "Whoopsy daisy"?

Now you've got it!

[ChrisC333]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Suggestions for a new term welcome. I'd prefer it not to be a term for an existing crime — so not piracy or bootlegging.

Would you accept "Booklegging" ?

There are several problems with trying to unify both attitudes and practice regarding books. One is that we are already used to an existing system with print books whereby we can legally share a physical book as freely as we like and then even resell it. Furthermore we have a fully sanctioned library system that allows free use of books and often even provides photocopying equipment to assist in copying text. There are usually rules on the degree of copying allowed but I've not seen them effectively policed.

Even the language is misleading. We refer to a "copy" of a book even when we mean a legally purchased physical volume.


A further problem comes when you try and sort out what is basically a commercial wish-list (largely a bluff if you like) and what is the actual law in your particular country. I once spent a week ringing round everybody from retailers to the police, consumer groups, law firms etc to find out what the local laws are regarding computer games (the EULA's attempt to set very tight restrictions which are widely ignored). The police weren't interested and NOBODY was able to tell me what the law was. The nearest I got was the Law Society offering to provide me with a list of firms that I could hire to mount a test case in court!

The answer turned out to be that, in practice, it's a commercial matter and the wholesalers had to look after their own interests in whatever way they saw fit. Some pressured retailers not to trade second hand games, but most didn't bother and concentrated on attracting new sales during the peak interest time.

eBooks seem to be going down a similar path. Most people will follow whatever their personal morality says, and local law enforcers won't have the time, interest or capacity to do much about it. I strongly prefer to pay my way, but I'll make my own mind up about issues such as DRM, mutual lending, fair use of material for 'demonstration' purposes etc.

Cheers,

Chris

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I thought that this was a light-hearted thread ....

Nothing about the issues involved are light hearted. Or fun. Or amusing.

It's at the heart of a very real struggle which will define our society and it's control over our lives in the next few decades. Post-scarcity and scarcity economics are competing in the same market space, and the result is not proving pretty.

You cannot force a hard and fast distinction in the way you're advocating without bringing an axe down on copyright law and re-writing it from the ground up, given the current way copyright law works. Are you arguing that a re-write, now, given the influence which trade guilds (and I am using the word deliberately, in the old sense of the world) have on governments that it would benefit the consumer?

So...I can only treat your suggestion from the standpoint of the likely result. Adjustment is possible, but a re-write is not going to work at this time.


ChrisC333 - No, it's in no way misleading to call something an "authorised copy". Because copy is the word - you're dealing with the start of post-scarcity economics now. And yes, right, again: Fair Use is a defence against accusations of wrongdoing, not a right per-se.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Nothing about the issues involved are light hearted. Or fun. Or amusing.

It's at the heart of a very real struggle which will define our society and it's control over our lives in the next few decades. Post-scarcity and scarcity economics are competing in the same market space, and the result is not proving pretty.

This strikes me as over-dramatic.

You cannot force a hard and fast distinction in the way you're advocating

I'm not advocating any such thing. I'm not taking part in a titantic struggle to redefine society. I'm chatting on an internet forum about ebooks, wondering whether we should have a special word for innocuous copying.

[DawnFalcon]

...And that's why the collection companies and the darknet advocates are dominating the debate.