What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

As HarryT has made clear in his post I quote below, I did not miss the "fig." at all. I several times referred to "figuratively described" in my post. Apparently, you missed those references when you read my post.

Then you have failed to understand that part of the definition.

Have a great time sailing.

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Urheberrecht is the original Copyright.

Copyright and Urheberrecht really are not identical. To quote from the German Wikipedia --
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...gte_Staaten%29

Das Copyright-Law (...) bezeichnet im Recht der Vereinigten Staaten ein Rechtsgebiet zum Schutze geistigen Eigentums. Es ist dem deutschen Urheberrecht ähnlich, unterscheidet sich jedoch in wesentlichen Punkten. (...) Im Copyright des amerikanischen Rechtssystems werden im Gegensatz zum kontinentaleuropäischen Urheberrecht die Entscheidungs- und Verwertungsrechte über ein Werk oft nicht dem Urheber (beispielsweise dem Künstler) zugestanden, sondern den wirtschaftlichen Rechteverwertern, zum Beispiel dem Verlag.

In my clumsy and legally uneducated translation:

In the law of the United States Copyright Law signifies an area of law that protects intellectual property. It is similar to the German Urheberrecht, but differs in several significant points. (...) Copyright in American law, contrary to continental European Urheberrecht, often accords rights of decision and rights of utilization not to the author (for instance, the artist) but to the commercial users of rights, for instance the publisher.

Sadly I'm not qualified to elaborate on this, but the concepts of copyright and Urheberrecht do differ!

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

In the law of the United States Copyright Law signifies an area of law that protects intellectual property. It is similar to the German Urheberrecht, but differs in several significant points. (...) Copyright in American law, contrary to continental European Urheberrecht, often accords rights of decision and rights of utilization not to the author (for instance, the artist) but to the commercial users of rights, for instance the publisher.

Sadly I'm not qualified to elaborate on this, but the concepts of copyright and Urheberrecht do differ!

The rights of utilization come to commercial users via a license from the author.
Who may choose to license them, reserve them, or use them themselves. They don't materialize out of nowhere. Copyright terms vary from country to country but they are all granted from the state to the creator. Everything flows from the creator.

[tompe]

Also by transferring of copyright which is or was the most common method.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

+1 This is the way consumers tend to look at things.

Fundamentally, copyright is basically about who has the right to make money on copyrighted material. Who has the right to sell copies of that material. Sometimes people who discuss copyright get caught up in the mechanics of making copies or preventing copies from being made, when that isn't really the point of copyright. It's all about who has the right to make money selling copies of a specific work.

Originally Posted by itisbomb

Spot on.

From economic view point, copyright is a necessary evil. It is evil because copyright is nothing more than a scheme to create monopoly (albeit a legal one). It is necessary because without it a would-be creator of copyrighted work would have no incentive to create the said work. Economists always feel uncomfortable towards copyright, but are not yet bright enough to come up with a workable alternative.

Did it really take 115 posts before anyone thought to ask what copyright is actually for?

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Did it really take 115 posts before anyone thought to ask what copyright is actually for?

Wow! That few! We really must be evolving...

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by tompe

Also by transferring of copyright which is or was the most common method.

Copyright can be transferred, Urheberrecht cannot (during the author's lifetime it is inalienable). But I admit, this part of the discussion becomes boring, and DRM is evil whatever the law says

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

Sadly I'm not qualified to elaborate on this, but the concepts of copyright and Urheberrecht do differ!

The concepts are not. Only the implementation. Copyright doesn't mean that is applicable to US only, like Urheberrecht doesn't mean it's only applicable to Germany (BTW, the Urheberrecht in Switzerland differs from AT and DE). It's a term that started long time ago, in Berne, and this convention is the mother of all CP worldwide.

Now, how strict some states/countries will go, depends on their interests. For instance, up to 1923 US even did not recognize the copyright of non-US works (meaning the US companies were free to copy and use European works for free). And it lasted until 1980 (or was it 1990, I don't remember exactly, very recently anyway) when they adhered fully to Berne convention, more than 100 years after. Even within EU, the copyright directive leaves room for play to member states, so if one is strict enough may say that whatever-is-the-word-for-copyright in Slovenia is different from the british-term-copyright in UK.

In your example, the lawmakers were lobbied to death by media industry (printed books, movies, music - all of these were developed faster and earlier in the US than everywhere else) and part of the copyright concept was taken out from the author in favour of the publisher. because the intermediate layer makes all the money in these businesses.

The old concept of copyright involved that the creator/author does it everything on his own. Writing the book, printing it, selling it. Writing the song, performing it (live), selling it. Writing a script, composing a score, filming a movie, playing it in his own cinemas. The publishers were initially only helpers, like one normal Joe S Public asks a technician to fix the sink in the kitchen. Like renting the recording studios together with manpower. When the publishers flexed their muscles, they managed to get more importance, and finally they now dictate what's happening. The authors live in a sweet slavery, they won't or cannot leave.

PS: do you know how much has invested the lobby to raise the ancillary rights duration from 50 to 95 years? A meagre 58.000$. Une fourth of what they may get from a single infringer, if one believes the FBI warning .

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

In what way would that be more harmful to the author than when I borrow a printed book from a library, lend it to a friend, buy a used copy, or inherit a book from my parents? In each of these cases, neither the author nor the publisher sees any money, but to my knowledge no one has ever considered any of this to be dishonest?

Because there is all the difference in the world between borrowing, buying, or giving away an existing copy of a book, and creating an additional copy of a book and distributing that additionalal copy without the permission of the copyright holder.

The latter has been described as "piracy", and condemned by authors as such, for well over 400 years (you are, I'm sure, aware of Thomas Dekker's scathing attack on book piracy in his 1603 book "The Wonderfull Yeare"?). And that was in the days when people were extremely familiar with what acts of piracy really were.

It is not a new phenomenon, and not a new condemnation.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because there is all the difference in the world between borrowing, buying, or giving away an existing copy of a book, and creating an additional copy of a book and distributing that additionalal copy without the permission of the copyright holder.

The latter has been described as "piracy", and condemned by authors as such, for well over 400 years (you are, I'm sure, aware of Thomas Dekker's scathing attack on book piracy in his 1603 book "The Wonderfull Yeare"?). And that was in the days when people were extremely familiar with what acts of piracy really were.

It is not a new phenomenon, and not a new condemnation.

One of the problems is that some copyright holders who are trying to come up with new and innovative ways to increase their cash flow will label anything that might not match their business model as piracy. Thus, Disney's CEO claims that not watching commercials is stealing from Disney and some copy right holders claim you need to buy a separate copy for each and every device that you use.

Ultimately, in the US, copyright is a privilege granted by the Constitution to encourage artists to produce art for the increased good of all. It's not a property, it's not a right. It's a limited grant of a monopoly. A social contract if you will. While the pendulum has swung far, far to the side of the copyright holder, that is not set in stone. As consumers demand the ability to do normal things with digital media, I think that pendulum will start to swing back.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because there is all the difference in the world between borrowing, buying, or giving away an existing copy of a book, and creating an additional copy of a book and distributing that additionalal copy without the permission of the copyright holder

But now you're twisting things as described. The scenario was loaning the original copy of the CD--something they have every legal right to loan. The additional copy was made for backup purposes--something they have also every legal right to do. As long as that original CD was loaned (and not given away or sold), I don't believe your assertion that it inherently constitutes infringement holds any water. None whatsoever.

Besides. No one is really arguing what is or isn't infringement (in a rigidly legal, semantic sense). It's about harm. It's possible that someone (not me, of course, because I would never encourage, condone or suggest that anyone do anything illegal), can technically infringe copyright and cause the same amount of harm to the creator--which is none--that you do when removing DRM. It is also possible that you, removing DRM, could do potentially even MORE harm to the creator by removing DRM than our hypothetical person might do by infringing copyright.

So it's not about legality, or morals, it's about you believing no one else but yourself has the integrity to "technically" break laws while retaining their "honesty." You assume the "best" in your own ability to do no harm and the "worst" in everyone else. You should think about not doing that any more.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As consumers demand the ability to do normal things with digital media, I think that pendulum will start to swing back.

I agree. And the "honesty/dishonesty" of the hypothetical people who were breaking those rules before that pendulum-swing happened will be utterly unaffected by such a legal change.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But now you're twisting things as described. The scenario was loaning the original copy of the CD--something they have every legal right to loan. The additional copy was made for backup purposes--something they have also every legal right to do. As long as that original CD was loaned (and not given away or sold), I don't believe your assertion that it inherently constitutes infringement holds any water. None whatsoever.

I was responding to Robert's post about "sharing" books, not lending CDs. That was a separate discussion.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was responding to Robert's post about "sharing" books, not lending CDs. That was a separate discussion.

Still doesn't explain why you believe harmlessly breaking one law/rule is any more or less "honest" than harmlessly breaking another. Unless you believe an unauthorized copy of an ebook with the DRM removed is not infringing on a right-holders right to control copying.

If you're going to stick to the letter of the law to determine "dishonesty" in one case, you need to to do the same in the other. Conversely; if you feel you're qualified to determine "no harm" in your civil own disobediance, you must acknowledge the possibility that others are just as qualified as you to determine the "harm"--or lack thereof--in theirs.

You don't get to grant yourself a "no harm" loophole to one law while expecting others to stick to the letter of another law in order to remain "honest." It's as simple as that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Still doesn't explain why you believe harmlessly breaking one law/rule is any more or less "honest" than harmlessly breaking another. Unless you believe an unauthorized copy of an ebook with the DRM removed is not infringing on a right-holders right to control copying.

I'm not talking about what I do or don't believe. I'm talking about whether or not lending someone a physical object (a printed book) can be equated to giving someone a copy of a digital one. I would respectfully submit that they are two very different acts, and that giving someone a copy of a digital item is what has conventionally been described as "piracy".

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not talking about what I do or don't believe. I'm talking about whether or not lending someone a physical object (a printed book) can be equated to giving someone a copy of a digital one. I would respectfully submit that they are two very different acts, and that giving someone a copy of a digital item is what has conventionally been described as "piracy".

I would have absolutely no problem with that statement. I don't find it very relevant or interesting since no one is actually trying to equate the act (at least not at the electron level). They're equating the end result of the acts and comparing the "harm done" between the two.

If you'd left it there, I'd've taken no issue. But you don't seem capable of making that statement without questioning the integrity of the people who believe the end result and the "harm done" are very comparable--pre- and post-digital. While at the same time, reserving and announcing the right to interpret "harm done" for your own post-digital grey activities and how that allows you to retain your integrity. Yes, you very-much HAVE been talking about what you believe. To great extent, actually.

What IS copyright infringement just isn't all that helpful in a "what should (or shouldn't) be copyright infringement", or " what is 'honest'" discussion.