Funny I don't feel like a criminal

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And therein lies the problem. Businesses (corporations) increasingly don't give a rat's ass about customers, they only care about the ROI to investors. If they can f**K the customer and increase the ROI they will. It is only when the "treating the customer right" happens to coincide explicitly and measurably with ROI that they will "implement it."

Increasingly? I'm afraid you're being a little naive if you think that's a new phenomenon. A business has a legal duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders - that's how it's always been. There's nothing new in that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Increasingly? I'm afraid you're being a little naive if you think that's a new phenomenon. A business has a legal duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders - that's how it's always been. There's nothing new in that.

Not at all Harry. This is the direction since the inception of the corporation.

Private business is somewhat different than corporations and as I say, therein lies the problem.

I say increasingly because at least to me, the focus and intensity of the ROI above anything else has grown. There was a time when the Board of Directors etc were interested in providing for the customer while making a reasonable profit. Now they seem to be raping and pillaging customers, taxpayers, copyright holders etc. more than every in the eternal quest for ROI.

[frank.w]

My guess is that the success of industry efforts to limit e-copies of digital material will be determined by how legal cases are dealt with.

Most of us, I suspect, would make the odd copy of a song and give it to a friend, knowing that we might be breaking some law, but not caring too much about it because everyone is doing it, and up to recently, no one was getting busted for it.

The few high profile cases of individuals getting hit with outrageous fines - if they are allowed to stand, and if the practice continues - would most likely place a chill on public acceptance of "personal copies for friends" .

Alternately, if public pressure continues to grow against DRM, and if there is not a highly visible crack-down against alledged offenders in your area, then you would probably carry on with the odd duplicate now and again.

- Frank

[eserafina42]

I see what Daryl did as analogous to taping a TV show at home for personal use. Remember when that was claimed as copyright infringement? (As I remember, there was a hilarious sketch on the Tonight Show at the time, showing people watching their home-recorded tape and the SWAT teams bursting in with guns blaring as if it were a raid on a massive illegal operation.) Hopefully we will have something like the "Betamax case" that will allow people to do that kind of thing without being considered "criminals."

[theducks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you deleted all copies from your PC? You've removed the copy you downloaded from your internet cache? You've deleted the copy of the e-mail from the "send items" folder of your mail program? If the answer to any of these is "no", then how can you say that "there is only one copy floating around"?

You forgot : defrag your drive, then wipe free space.
Otherwise Data can be recovered using forensic tools

Oh! And you MUST forget you read the book (borrowing/lending any book clearly violates Copyright. You must be Shot as soon as you finish reading :^) a book and don't instantly destroy your Other Copy as soon as th last word has been read.)

Most people could not locate the copy in cache (which will get cleared over time).


Borland had the clear concept: "No Simultaneous use"

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by theducks

You forgot : defrag your drive, then wipe free space.
Otherwise Data can be recovered using forensic tools

Oh! And you MUST forget you read the book (borrowing/lending any book clearly violates Copyright. You must be Shot as soon as you finish reading :^) a book and don't instantly destroy your Other Copy as soon as th last word has been read.)

Most people could not locate the copy in cache (which will get cleared over time).


Borland had the clear concept: "No Simultaneous use"

So are memory-wipes next?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Increasingly? I'm afraid you're being a little naive if you think that's a new phenomenon. A business has a legal duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders - that's how it's always been. There's nothing new in that.

Yeah, but it's not at all clear that the best way to do that is to treat the customer unfairly.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Harmon

It seems clear to me that people who are unwilling to pay for a book when they can get a pirate version are most likely unwilling to pay for that book when they cannot get a pirate version. It also seems to me that the key to selling books is to make it easy for the customer to buy the book, and that customers will pay extra for convenience. And finally, it seems to me that when businesses treat their customers fairly, their customers treat them back the same way.

So when I put all this together, I think that The Lost Pirate Sale is an illusion.

But that's just an opinion. All I ever see on this is opinion. Has anyone ever seen a serious study of the matter?

Even if their is no lost sale, as the person would have never bought the book, album movie etc., it's still wrong.

They still have copyrighted material that is for sale and were able to enjoy it without paying for it. That is still wrong, should be a misdemeanor and punished with a small fine proportionate to the retail price of the item (not the absurd law suits the RIAA wins)--something like MSRP + 25%.

So I think that's a non-issues. All that matters is a potential sale is lost, and the person got a copy of the material illegally. I couldn't care less if they would have bought it if piracy wasn't an option.


But yes, things should be easy for consumers to get, not full of DRM that only hassles legitimate users, and priced fairly etc. That doesn't mean they shouldn't still go after pirates.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by frank.w

The few high profile cases of individuals getting hit with outrageous fines - if they are allowed to stand, and if the practice continues - would most likely place a chill on public acceptance of "personal copies for friends" .

Of course the few high profile cases we've seen from the music industry had nothing to do with "personal copies for friends" unless "friends" means "anyone with a torrent tracker". They're very unlikely to sue me for giving a copy of a book to my sister even if they somehow found out about it. It's not worth the price of their lawyer even writing me a letter. The case would just bring them bad publicity and the minuscule judgment they might get would hardly serve as a deterrent. Now if I put my library up on torrents and a few thousand people download it, then we're talking.

[fugazied]

Well imo you aren't a criminal, but in the eyes of the law you are. For this crime they would want to fine you $50'000 and give you up to 5 years in jail.

I think we need to have identical rights on e-books compared to print books. So imo you should be allowed to lend it to your mother, but you can't open the book while it is 'lent' to her, eg. replicating paperbook functionality.

[smerrall]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Increasingly? I'm afraid you're being a little naive if you think that's a new phenomenon. A business has a legal duty to act in the best interests of its shareholders - that's how it's always been. There's nothing new in that.

What has changed is the timeframe that is being used. In the past companies looked at the long term profitability of their business and ensuring customer satisfaction and repeat business was a good thing. Increasingly the current quarter is all they care about and if this quarter's profits are improved by damaging customer relations then so be it. Next quarter or next year can be dealt with by the next CEO.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

So are memory-wipes next?

Heck, I'm over 60. They'll never find my memory. I certainly can't. (Where did I put it, anyway? Had it here a minute ago...)

Like a friend of mine used to say, I have a good memory, but it's short. At least, I think he said that. Maybe it was something else...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

So are memory-wipes next?

Of course, it's not true at all that I have a bad memory. My memory is so good I can remember things that never happened.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Heck, I'm over 60. They'll never find my memory. I certainly can't. ....
.....

Hey I resemble that!

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It depends on where you live. In some countries simply downloading or possessing the tools to circumvent the DRM or TPM is illegal. Where it's not illegal today there are strong lobby groups trying to make it illegal.

In Canada the latest copyright bill had wording that the consumer could format shift for personal use but circumventing the TPM was illegal.

In Denmark there was a similar law and Henrik Anderson performed the equivalent of what you're describing (only with DVD's) and then he reported himself and challenged them to charge him. I believe the result was a statement that they decided not to pursue it at this time but they didn't acknowledge it was legal.

I'm sorry, I think you've completely missed the most important second point I made. No one can possibly show that they have suffered any harm by what I do. That being so they would have virtually no chance of successfully taking me to court.

Regards, Alex