Fair Use?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think that it's true to say that the fact that so-called "piracy" enables people to get content for free only works because the majority of people do pay for what they consume? If nobody paid, there would be no works to pirate. Pirates are leeching from the honest purchasers.

According to independent research, pirates and honest purchasers are the same people, so how does that work?

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

According to independent research, pirates and honest purchasers are the same people, so how does that work?

I only pay for the works of a few favorite authors... I don't just post these books on a website or torrent site, but I will share copies with other friends who have the same interest. Presumably those friends will also share the books with other friends, and so on... I have other friends that will share books with me that I wouldn't normally buy. If I really like the author, I'll start buying their books and complete the circle.

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Because anything that is created for financial gain caters for the lowest common denominator in order to maximise profit. What you end up with is very bland. That goes for music and film as well as books.

So don't buy it...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Because anything that is created for financial gain caters for the lowest common denominator in order to maximise profit. What you end up with is very bland. That goes for music and film as well as books.

One could argue the opposite; that artistic work created for intellectual pleasure is often not "accessible" to the viewer/reader/listener, whereas work created to appeal to popular taste is. I know that personally, for example, I'd rather read Harry Potter than Virginia Woolf, and listen to Abba rather than Schoenberg, but perhaps that simply goes to show how terribly plebeian my artistic tastes are.

[mr ploppy]

I wouldn't even download it, never mind buy it.

[HarryT]

Harry Potter, or Virginia Woolf?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think that it's true to say that the fact that so-called "piracy" enables people to get content for free only works because the majority of people do pay for what they consume? If nobody paid, there would be no works to pirate. Pirates are leeching from the honest purchasers.

I think this is too broad of a brush, Harry. Obviously, people downloading things falling (or deliberately placed) in the public domain aren't leeches, by any definition. But what about long out-of-print work still under copyright? Nobody is getting money from these works, so who is being economically harmed. Potentially harmed, perhaps, but then again, aren't the people doing the illegal download being harmed as much but not having digital access to the works? It's not all cut and dried...

What I find frustrating is the following. Author/publisher work hard to create production to interest people. They are among the successful ones, economically and creatively. After having gone to the effort to please their customers, and building a base of customers who will buy their product, the author/publisher then get on their high horse and state that their customer can't have the product the way they want it, and they'll throw them in jail for doing it the way they want it, boasting their works are their property, to do with what Author/Publishers wish, even denying it to their customers. No other business in the world treats their customers with this kind of contempt...

And publishers wonder why there is so little moral outrage at piracy...

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Harry Potter, or Virginia Woolf?

Yes. ()

Actually, Harry, in games at least - and I have a hard time believing it's different elsewhere - staggered launches in different territories, even by a few days, causes a big spike in torrent'ing, but a far more limited impact on sales.

People want it THEN, even if they later buy it. Of course, it DOES have a known impact on sales, which grows with the length of the delay...and should hence be avoided.


Ralph Sir Edward - That's the flip side of Orphan Rights, isn't it. You'll have a legitimate body to pay a minimum fee to for that old content to be legal.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

OK, so I'm new to eReaders and I have to say that I'm done with hardcopy books (at least stuff like novels) for good. eBooks are just much easier to deal with than paper.

Here's the thing though. I've got a couple of books that I bought in paperback but hadn't gotten to before I bought my eReader. Also, my wife is still reading books on paper so if we're both going to read a particular book, then we'll have to buy it in paper for her.

So the question is: What does everyone think the ethics are of downloading ebook copies of books you already own on paper from P2P networks like BitTorrent?

The ethical issue has to do with supporting people who are behaving unethically - i.e., the pirate site & the uploaders. On the other hand, the failure of the publishers to offer a digital version of the book basically means that the think they have the right to require you to read the book in the format they, rather than you, chose.

My resolution of this is simple. If i own the book in paper, & the publisher offers an ebook version I buy it. If they don't, I'll download it. If I don't own the book in paper, I don't download it.

But frankly, I don't see anything wrong with downloading the pirate version if I already own the book. I do thing that I'll get a better version from the publisher. And it's easier. That's the real answer to piracy, if publishers are alert.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

For example, the law states one can make a personal copy of most media for back up purposes yet, if the original is DRM encumbered, it is illegal to defeat it.

Not in the US. If you have bought the ebook version, it is perfectly legal for you to remove the DRM. What is illegal is for someone to sell you the software to do it with. But that's his problem. If you can acquire the tools to remove the DRM, go right ahead without fear. Read the law - you will see that it is written this way.

It's just like Prohibition was. It was always legal for you to drink alcohol if you made it yourself & did not remove it from where you made it. What was illegal was selling or distributing the booze.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Here 'tis:


New litigation campaign quietly targets tens of thousands of movie downloaders
Tue Mar 30, 2010 @ 10:29AM PST
By Eriq Gardner

EXCLUSIVE: In what may be a sign of things to come, more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders have been sued in the past few weeks in Washington D.C. federal court for copyright infringement. A handful of cases have already settled, and those that haven't are creating some havoc for major ISPs.

The lawsuits were filed by an enterprising D.C.-based venture, the US Copyright Group, on behalf of an ad hoc coalition of independent film producers. So far, five lawsuits have been filed against tens of thousands of alleged infringers of the films "Steam Experiment," "Far Cry," "Uncross the Stars," "Gray Man" and "Call of the Wild 3D." Here's an example of one of the lawsuits -- over Uwe Boll's "Far Cry."

Another lawsuit targeting 30,000 more torrent downloaders on five more films is forthcoming, we're told, and all this could be a test run that opens up the floodgates to massive litigation against the millions of individuals who use BitTorrent to

This involves movies, not books. Movie downloaders don't own the DVD. But in the situation under discussion, the downloader already owns the book. That case will never go to trial.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Not in the US. If you have bought the ebook version, it is perfectly legal for you to remove the DRM.

With the greatest respect, that is one opinion; other views differ. Until this is tested in court, we will not know which of these differing views is correct.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, that is one opinion; other views differ. Until this is tested in court, we will not know which of these differing views is correct.

Technically, it's perfectly legal to make a copy or format shift for your own use, it's not legal to defeat the DRM. That is the inconsistency in the law.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

No other business in the world treats their customers with this kind of contempt...

The music industry does. It treats its creators with contempt too.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Technically, it's perfectly legal to make a copy or format shift for your own use, it's not legal to defeat the DRM. That is the inconsistency in the law.

there may be local variances in this