Question about legalities - Page 4

nekokami · 09-25-2008, 03:31 PM

This is actually a question that comes up regularly here on mobile-read. (Try searching on "Format shifting" or "copyright" or "piracy".) In short, downloading an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is not legal in the US, nor, as far as I know, in the EU, whether or not you own the original work in print (nor is it legal in the US to download an MP3 file of a song you own on CD). However, a publishing house would be very unlikely to come after an individual in a case like this. Even the RIAA tends to go after uploaders, not downloaders.

Regarding the hypothetical situations above, I would recommend keeping the hard copy of your content in some form if you scan OR download. For paperbacks, it might be enough to keep the front cover, as a paperback can't legally be sold without the front cover in the US (due to the policy of bookstores stripping the front covers and returning them to the publisher for full credit, then pulping the rest of the book).Filing the libretto of the CD might be sufficient, in the case of music. It would at least show you'd made a good-faith attempt to keep a record of your ownership of the content.

Redcard · 09-25-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I do not believe that is correct. Ripping a CD for personal use is legal, regardless of whether or not the record company gives you permission.

The RIAA and various courts disagree. When you copy something from one format to another, verbatim, the fair use doctrine does not apply. Many cases have held that whatever fair use is, a full and complete copy cannot be fair use.

Again, whether or not they'd go after you for it is a different discussion. But that's why Canada has a "tax" on CD media, and why the same is getting advanced through here.

Shaggy · 09-25-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcard

The RIAA and various courts disagree. When you copy something from one format to another, verbatim, the fair use doctrine does not apply. Many cases have held that whatever fair use is, a full and complete copy cannot be fair use.

The RIAA can say anything they want, but it doesn't matter. Only the courts decision matters. Also, the amount of the work copied is only one of the tests for fair use. There are lots of things that are still fair use even though they make a complete copy.

Redcard · 09-25-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The RIAA can say anything they want, but it doesn't matter. Only the courts decision matters. Also, the amount of the work copied is only one of the tests for fair use. There are lots of things that are still fair use even though they make a complete copy.

The courts have gone both ways on this.

A test case is eventually going to make it to the supreme court like it did in the Betamax case. Here's hoping that it doesn't end up as close.

Right now, it depends on your jurisdiction whether or not it is legal or not, and the ruling of judges.

Even so, I reiterate my initial claim to the initial question. It is NOT fair use to space-shift in this case.

axel77 · 09-25-2008, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanellthyon

Gosh guys, I just wanted to know if it'd be legal to download something I already own. Didn't mean to start a court war or anything.

Short Answer: It is very complicated.

A Bit less short: Its somehow gray, some say darkgray, other light gray, it might depend on which country you are sit in, if you think the publisher wouldn't mind eitherway, or what strong or weak defence you could do in a court if the worst case should arise.

bill_mchale · 09-25-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcard

The RIAA and various courts disagree. When you copy something from one format to another, verbatim, the fair use doctrine does not apply. Many cases have held that whatever fair use is, a full and complete copy cannot be fair use.

Again, whether or not they'd go after you for it is a different discussion. But that's why Canada has a "tax" on CD media, and why the same is getting advanced through here.

Redcard,
Are you sure about that? I mean yes the RIAA would say it is illegal and if they could, they would love to charge you every time you listen to, watch or read copyrighted material. That being said, I would think that the existence of some of the features in iTunes and other digital media playing software suggests that Ripping CDs for personal use is legal. After all, Apple and Microsoft (since Windows Media Player has the capability too) would hardly have put a feature in their products that they knew was likely to get them sued. If ripping CDs were illegal, then writing the software to rip the CDs would likely be considered aiding and abetting the crime (Since there would be very few legitimate uses of the software at that point).

--
Bill

nekokami · 09-25-2008, 04:06 PM

I'd thought ripping ones own CDs was legal, but the RIAA wanted the tax for the claims that people were doing it with other people's CDs or downloads or whatever.

axel77 · 09-25-2008, 04:22 PM

You know, there are even some funny effects. In my country there is an extra tax on recordable CDs, a tax that goes fully to the RIAA. They argued, because people do all kind of illegal things with the CD, they got compensated beforehand.

Just imagine that! I pay already extra, because I *might* do an illegal with my CD recorder... its just so hillarious. (or rather sad)

As company you can be freed of this tax, if you explicitly prove you are using the recordable CDs for something legal like data backups... but you can never get this exemption as private person.

acidzebra · 09-25-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by axel77

You know, there are even some funny effects. In my country there is an extra tax on recordable CDs, a tax that goes fully to the RIAA. They argued, because people do all kind of illegal things with the CD, they got compensated beforehand.

Just imagine that! I pay already extra, because I *might* do an illegal with my CD recorder... its just so hillarious. (or rather sad)

As company you can be freed of this tax, if you explicitly prove you are using the recordable CDs for something legal like data backups... but you can never get this exemption as private person.

If that is true I would consider it tacit permission to rip whatever music you want and burn it to CD - since they've accused you, the buyer of blank CD, of ripping them off anyway and charged you for it.

In the Netherlands we had a similar situation where the "stichting Thuiskopie" (home copy foundation), appointed by the ministry of justice, collected dues on blank CDs and other media to the tune of 57 million and were supposed to pass them on to artists. This never happened - their position was something like: let the artists come to us. Yeah, like a piano player in Japan knows some idiot outfit in the Netherlands is holding money for him. In some cases the artists had disbanded, or died, and this foundation really wasn't that interested in finding them.

At any rate, the tax was for "home copying", in other words, a private copy or format shifting - are you sure your tax isn't similar?

Redcard · 09-25-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Redcard,
Are you sure about that? I mean yes the RIAA would say it is illegal and if they could, they would love to charge you every time you listen to, watch or read copyrighted material. That being said, I would think that the existence of some of the features in iTunes and other digital media playing software suggests that Ripping CDs for personal use is legal. After all, Apple and Microsoft (since Windows Media Player has the capability too) would hardly have put a feature in their products that they knew was likely to get them sued. If ripping CDs were illegal, then writing the software to rip the CDs would likely be considered aiding and abetting the crime (Since there would be very few legitimate uses of the software at that point).

Course I'm sure of it.

You do realize that both Apple and Microsoft products report back home and tag your stuff, and if you go to the native format, they tag it for just your computer. It's quite insidious both what Itunes and Windows Media Player do. And I suspect if it goes all the way to the top, and the court finds it to be against copyright, then those products would simply wipe out any MP3s it finds that were "not legal."

Either way, it's not germane to the initial question. And it'll likely all be answered by a court soon enough. Had the mistrial not been declared, I'd imagine we'd see some things coming out of the Thomas case, since the main thrust of the RIAA's argument was that ripping WAS part of the sharing agent and cannot be separated.

Oh well. We'll see what happens in round two of that.

PsyDocJoanne · 09-25-2008, 04:50 PM

I'll preface this post by saying that while I read most of this thread, I scanned over parts of it for general content...so if I repeat something or have missed someone's vital point, please forgive me.

I've been very interested in the legalities of ebooks for a while (even before I got my reader). Part of my interest stems from my own experiences with pirated music and some friends' run-ins with the RIAA, and I think there are a lot of parallels (well, duh).

Thinking back to beginning of pirated music (and by beginning, I really mean when solid, reliable software for sharing music became available to the masses), I remember programs like BearShare, LimeWire, and Napster (in its early years). Most people thought that they could download music via these programs, knowing it was illegal, and not face any repercussions. After all, the internet is global and huge, you're just one person who wants your favorite songs, and it would cost millions for the RIAA to track you down and prosecute you, right? And they were right...for a while; after all, no one ever tracked you down for taping songs off the radio (and yes, I'm aware that quality of the pirated content makes a huge difference), and that was technically illegal.

Most regular folks (people who were downloading for personal use, not downloading to ultimately host those files on a server) were shocked when the RIAA started sending out cease and desist notices. While my pirated song count never reached above a couple of dozen (but yes, I did it), I knew two people who received RIAA cease and desist notices. These were, again, "regular" folks, but with more than 1,000 pirated songs for their personal use. As you know, the RIAA, while initially playing nice, wasn't playing around.

Fast forward to 2008. Now we're dealing with the same issues, only for ebooks. I would love, love, love to get all my pbooks in ebook format and have my entire library on my device. I purchased all those pbooks. I should be able to read them in any format I would like, since I own them--at least that's my opinion. I could go to any number of Websites Whose Names I Will Not Mention Here, and probably come close to being able to digitize my entire library.

Will I? Not likely. We're in a place right now where the likelihood of being prosecuted for ebook piracy is low. I'm confident, however, that will change...and it will change as rapidly as the ebook market expands.

So my point is that we can debate the legalities, the consequences, the loopholes, and the lack of common sense of piracy and fair-use laws, but all that goes out the window when you get a cease and desist notice. Whether you download "illegally" a book that you just don't feel like paying for, or you download "illegally" to format-shift a book you already own, it's a moot point in the eyes of the law.

So bottom line, I'm content to keep paying for content, for now, and see how this all shakes out.

nekokami · 09-25-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsyDocJoanne

Whether you download "illegally" a book that you just don't feel like paying for, or you download "illegally" to format-shift a book you already own, it's a moot point in the eyes of the law.

A reasonable assumption, but not one we can rely on until there's a test case in court. Remember, "fair use" isn't a provision of law, it's a defense. I think it would be quite interesting to see a trial where some brave soul (no, I'm not volunteering) sits before the jury and the prosecutor asks, "Did you download these books?" and then the defense wheels in a cart full of paper books and says, "Are these yours? Did you pay for them? Did you own them before the copies of their content appeared on your hard drive?" and then after that, we'll see what the jury says.

If your friends who were given a cease-and-desist had been able to show ownership of legal copies of all music in question, either as commercial CDs or at least CD inserts, I think it would be tough to get a conviction out of a jury for downloading. (Uploading is a different matter. We're still waiting to see how the court will rule if someone has uploaded if there's no evidence that anyone has downloaded-- the crux of the Thomas case.)

PsyDocJoanne · 09-25-2008, 05:30 PM

Hi nekokami,

>A reasonable assumption, but not one we can rely on until there's a test case in court

I wholeheartedly agree. And much like yourself, I'm not volunteering. Primarily because I've seen how the RIAA has comported themselves, and the aggressiveness with which they pursued downloaders. And really, who wants the hassle and expense of retaining a lawyer to prove you were truly acting within the bounds of the law? I'll leave that to some other poor soul.

My goal was not to debate the veracity or standing of the laws as they exist today, or to pick apart the minutiae of whether those laws can be worked around in a court of law by a competent lawyer, but rather to point out that even people who believe they have every right to engage in "illegal" downloading may find themselves in hot water in the very near future.

I'm waiting with baited breath for that court case to happen...then I'll download my heart out

jasoraso · 09-25-2008, 05:43 PM

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, as I've skimmed through these posts, is Reverse Format Shifting. Using the analogy of MP3's and CD's, ALMOST all Mp3's and I believe even iTunes .acc's (or whatever) that are purchased (w/ or w/o DRM) are able to be format shifted > you can record them back to a CD. And that is considered Fair Use.

Also, many purchased Ebooks allow you to PRINT them (I know, that sounds heretical in this forum). Granted, there are many ebooks where the license granted with the ebook does NOT include a license to print, but in most of the ebooks that are DRM free, this license is included.

In my opinion, if you can format shift from electronic to hard copy, for personal use, it is Fair Use to format shift your own copy from physical to electronic, whether for backup purposes or for personal use.

Whether it is legal, I'm not sure. I really don't think a jury would convict if you scanned your own copy and destroyed your paper copy (except for the front cover perhaps). In my ethical world (and I do try and be honest with my fellow men), I can sleep at night in this scenario.

The additional step of mailing your physical copy to a friend, or shop, who scanned it for you, and then emailed it back to you, after destroying the physical book (except for the front cover), for whatever compensation was agreed upon, is probably ok too. (in a side note, a company in Utah did something similar to this with VHS movies, although they edited the movie for you, and they were sued by Hollywood and shut down BECAUSE they were altering the content).

Now, consider the case of someone who purchases a paperback book, then downloads from an anonymous person a SCANNED paperback book that some individual did themselves. Legally, I believe this is crossing the line. Ethically, I don't believe so.

The case where someone purchases a paperback book and downloads a COMMERCIALLY produced ebook, I believe that is crossing the legal and ethical line. A commercial entity (presumably with authority) has spent their time and capital to produce the ebook with the intent to recapture that capital by selling the ebook, and in this case, I believe it is committing a theft.

I do believe that what is legal is not necessarily ethical, and what is ethical is not alway legal. (consider the commercial website selling The Lord of Rings as ebooks, which the consensus on this forum, is that it is without permission. It is legal to purchase and download, but probably not ethical if you are aware that there is likely no permission from the copyright holder).

Redcard · 09-25-2008, 06:31 PM

There is a difference, Jasoroso, though. When you say that you can print an ebook, that company is giving you the right to print that ebook. It was there choice. They, if they used a DRM capable of it, could stop you from printing it out, but ultimately , it was the choice of the copyright holder.

That's what's important here, and what future court cases will decide. Already there are cases where format shifting by ripping (mostly with DVD Ripping/Jukeboxes) are losing, it's only a matter of time before that precedent is used against (and has been in some cases) , a test case that goes all the way up.

In Betamax, the court ruled 5-4 that legalized the technology of duplication / recording / time shifting. After a few years, duplication devices became common, and the court released an opinion stating that the initial decision was likely incorrect, but that they can't unring the bell without destroying too many viable companies.

I'm hoping that when the high court is faced with this again, they don't over compensate for what they felt was a mistake in Betamax.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
3G or not 3G, that is the question!	zeb	Amazon Kindle	8	09-01-2010 08:18 AM
Classic Few Nook Question and Question on Nook 3G vs WiFi	blackonblack	Barnes & Noble NOOK	4	07-02-2010 02:07 AM
Looking for another reader question and PRS-600 question	lilpretender	Which one should I buy?	9	10-24-2009 04:02 AM
Question Vis-a-Vis anti-DRM legalities	Neil	Kindle Formats	13	09-16-2009 11:11 AM
The Legalities of Conversion	hacker	Workshop	23	10-27-2007 11:41 AM

09-25-2008, 03:31 PM	#46
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	This is actually a question that comes up regularly here on mobile-read. (Try searching on "Format shifting" or "copyright" or "piracy".) In short, downloading an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is not legal in the US, nor, as far as I know, in the EU, whether or not you own the original work in print (nor is it legal in the US to download an MP3 file of a song you own on CD). However, a publishing house would be very unlikely to come after an individual in a case like this. Even the RIAA tends to go after uploaders, not downloaders. Regarding the hypothetical situations above, I would recommend keeping the hard copy of your content in some form if you scan OR download. For paperbacks, it might be enough to keep the front cover, as a paperback can't legally be sold without the front cover in the US (due to the policy of bookstores stripping the front covers and returning them to the publisher for full credit, then pulping the rest of the book).Filing the libretto of the CD might be sufficient, in the case of music. It would at least show you'd made a good-faith attempt to keep a record of your ownership of the content.

09-25-2008, 04:06 PM	#52
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	I'd thought ripping ones own CDs was legal, but the RIAA wanted the tax for the claims that people were doing it with other people's CDs or downloads or whatever.

09-25-2008, 04:22 PM	#53
axel77 Fanatic Posts: 584 Karma: 914 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: iliad	You know, there are even some funny effects. In my country there is an extra tax on recordable CDs, a tax that goes fully to the RIAA. They argued, because people do all kind of illegal things with the CD, they got compensated beforehand. Just imagine that! I pay already extra, because I might do an illegal with my CD recorder... its just so hillarious. (or rather sad) As company you can be freed of this tax, if you explicitly prove you are using the recordable CDs for something legal like data backups... but you can never get this exemption as private person.

09-25-2008, 04:50 PM	#56
PsyDocJoanne Loves her 505 and her Z4! Posts: 157 Karma: 631 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Weston, FL Device: Sony PRS-505	I'll preface this post by saying that while I read most of this thread, I scanned over parts of it for general content...so if I repeat something or have missed someone's vital point, please forgive me. I've been very interested in the legalities of ebooks for a while (even before I got my reader). Part of my interest stems from my own experiences with pirated music and some friends' run-ins with the RIAA, and I think there are a lot of parallels (well, duh). Thinking back to beginning of pirated music (and by beginning, I really mean when solid, reliable software for sharing music became available to the masses), I remember programs like BearShare, LimeWire, and Napster (in its early years). Most people thought that they could download music via these programs, knowing it was illegal, and not face any repercussions. After all, the internet is global and huge, you're just one person who wants your favorite songs, and it would cost millions for the RIAA to track you down and prosecute you, right? And they were right...for a while; after all, no one ever tracked you down for taping songs off the radio (and yes, I'm aware that quality of the pirated content makes a huge difference), and that was technically illegal. Most regular folks (people who were downloading for personal use, not downloading to ultimately host those files on a server) were shocked when the RIAA started sending out cease and desist notices. While my pirated song count never reached above a couple of dozen (but yes, I did it), I knew two people who received RIAA cease and desist notices. These were, again, "regular" folks, but with more than 1,000 pirated songs for their personal use. As you know, the RIAA, while initially playing nice, wasn't playing around. Fast forward to 2008. Now we're dealing with the same issues, only for ebooks. I would love, love, love to get all my pbooks in ebook format and have my entire library on my device. I purchased all those pbooks. I should be able to read them in any format I would like, since I own them--at least that's my opinion. I could go to any number of Websites Whose Names I Will Not Mention Here, and probably come close to being able to digitize my entire library. Will I? Not likely. We're in a place right now where the likelihood of being prosecuted for ebook piracy is low. I'm confident, however, that will change...and it will change as rapidly as the ebook market expands. So my point is that we can debate the legalities, the consequences, the loopholes, and the lack of common sense of piracy and fair-use laws, but all that goes out the window when you get a cease and desist notice. Whether you download "illegally" a book that you just don't feel like paying for, or you download "illegally" to format-shift a book you already own, it's a moot point in the eyes of the law. So bottom line, I'm content to keep paying for content, for now, and see how this all shakes out.

09-25-2008, 05:30 PM	#58
PsyDocJoanne Loves her 505 and her Z4! Posts: 157 Karma: 631 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Weston, FL Device: Sony PRS-505	Hi nekokami, >A reasonable assumption, but not one we can rely on until there's a test case in court I wholeheartedly agree. And much like yourself, I'm not volunteering. Primarily because I've seen how the RIAA has comported themselves, and the aggressiveness with which they pursued downloaders. And really, who wants the hassle and expense of retaining a lawyer to prove you were truly acting within the bounds of the law? I'll leave that to some other poor soul. My goal was not to debate the veracity or standing of the laws as they exist today, or to pick apart the minutiae of whether those laws can be worked around in a court of law by a competent lawyer, but rather to point out that even people who believe they have every right to engage in "illegal" downloading may find themselves in hot water in the very near future. I'm waiting with baited breath for that court case to happen...then I'll download my heart out

09-25-2008, 05:43 PM	#59
jasoraso Addict Posts: 228 Karma: 1212418 Join Date: Sep 2008 Device: Nook Touch, Nook Color (rooted) and Samsung Galaxy Nexus	One thing that hasn't been mentioned, as I've skimmed through these posts, is Reverse Format Shifting. Using the analogy of MP3's and CD's, ALMOST all Mp3's and I believe even iTunes .acc's (or whatever) that are purchased (w/ or w/o DRM) are able to be format shifted > you can record them back to a CD. And that is considered Fair Use. Also, many purchased Ebooks allow you to PRINT them (I know, that sounds heretical in this forum). Granted, there are many ebooks where the license granted with the ebook does NOT include a license to print, but in most of the ebooks that are DRM free, this license is included. In my opinion, if you can format shift from electronic to hard copy, for personal use, it is Fair Use to format shift your own copy from physical to electronic, whether for backup purposes or for personal use. Whether it is legal, I'm not sure. I really don't think a jury would convict if you scanned your own copy and destroyed your paper copy (except for the front cover perhaps). In my ethical world (and I do try and be honest with my fellow men), I can sleep at night in this scenario. The additional step of mailing your physical copy to a friend, or shop, who scanned it for you, and then emailed it back to you, after destroying the physical book (except for the front cover), for whatever compensation was agreed upon, is probably ok too. (in a side note, a company in Utah did something similar to this with VHS movies, although they edited the movie for you, and they were sued by Hollywood and shut down BECAUSE they were altering the content). Now, consider the case of someone who purchases a paperback book, then downloads from an anonymous person a SCANNED paperback book that some individual did themselves. Legally, I believe this is crossing the line. Ethically, I don't believe so. The case where someone purchases a paperback book and downloads a COMMERCIALLY produced ebook, I believe that is crossing the legal and ethical line. A commercial entity (presumably with authority) has spent their time and capital to produce the ebook with the intent to recapture that capital by selling the ebook, and in this case, I believe it is committing a theft. I do believe that what is legal is not necessarily ethical, and what is ethical is not alway legal. (consider the commercial website selling The Lord of Rings as ebooks, which the consensus on this forum, is that it is without permission. It is legal to purchase and download, but probably not ethical if you are aware that there is likely no permission from the copyright holder).

09-25-2008, 06:31 PM	#60
Redcard Addict Posts: 235 Karma: 1202269 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: Kindle	There is a difference, Jasoroso, though. When you say that you can print an ebook, that company is giving you the right to print that ebook. It was there choice. They, if they used a DRM capable of it, could stop you from printing it out, but ultimately , it was the choice of the copyright holder. That's what's important here, and what future court cases will decide. Already there are cases where format shifting by ripping (mostly with DVD Ripping/Jukeboxes) are losing, it's only a matter of time before that precedent is used against (and has been in some cases) , a test case that goes all the way up. In Betamax, the court ruled 5-4 that legalized the technology of duplication / recording / time shifting. After a few years, duplication devices became common, and the court released an opinion stating that the initial decision was likely incorrect, but that they can't unring the bell without destroying too many viable companies. I'm hoping that when the high court is faced with this again, they don't over compensate for what they felt was a mistake in Betamax.

Advert

Advert