i have found a ebook web site

[Nate the great]

You misunderstood Harry. The only files we have on the US server are ebooks that are not in the public domain in Canada.

[akiburis]

I am puzzled by MobileRead's policy regarding uploads to it Canadian or US server and "applicable law." Applicable to whom or what? To the uploader, the downloader, or the server?

I, in the US, have downloaded from PG Australia a couple of books that I know to be in copyright in the US. I don't believe--and I am not in the least a copyright scofflaw--that I have violated US copyright law by doing so, any more than I would by obtaining, for my private use, a copy of a printed book legally published in Australia.

In the case of the printed book, I believe I would be violating US copyright law if I made or obtained many copies of that book and, without permission of the copyright holder, republished or redistributed it.

Likewise, in the case of the ebook, I believe I would be violating US copyright law if I republished or redistributed it electronically, without permission, even--here is my point--if I did so by uploading it to a server located in country (let's say Canada) where that book was not in copyright. For surely, the applicable law is the law that applies to me, the performer of the act; the location of the server by itself is not determinative, or so I would think. If I were distributing a printed edition, could I circumvent US copyright law by routing all my copies through a Canadian depot?

If I'm right, it follows that MobileRead's policy is wrong, I think, and vice versa, of course. But I am just making inferences from my rudimentary, far from expert understanding of the legal issues, and I may be quite wrong. Can someone explain to me where I'm wrong?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by akiburis

I, in the US, have downloaded from PG Australia a couple of books that I know to be in copyright in the US. I don't believe--and I am not in the least a copyright scofflaw--that I have violated US copyright law by doing so, any more than I would by obtaining, for my private use, a copy of a printed book legally published in Australia.

Yes, you have violated US copyright law by doing so. You must only download books which are in the public domain where you live. That is why every book in PG Australia says in it "Be sure to check the copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing this file."

Likewise, in the case of the ebook, I believe I would be violating US copyright law if I republished or redistributed it electronically, without permission, even--here is my point--if I did so by uploading it to a server located in country (let's say Canada) where that book was not in copyright. For surely, the applicable law is the law that applies to me, the performer of the act; the location of the server by itself is not determinative, or so I would think. If I were distributing a printed edition, could I circumvent US copyright law by routing all my copies through a Canadian depot?

If I'm right, it follows that MobileRead's policy is wrong, I think, and vice versa, of course. But I am just making inferences from my rudimentary, far from expert understanding of the legal issues, and I may be quite wrong. Can someone explain to me where I'm wrong?

There are two laws applicable:

1. The law regarding where it's legal to host the file. The file has to be in the public domain (or covered by something like a CC license) in the physical location of the server. That's why MR has two servers - our main server is in Canada, and all the books on that server are in the public domain in Canada. We also have an FTP site in the USA which hosts the relatively small number of books which are in the public domain in the USA, but not in Canada.

2. The law relating to whether or not it's legal for a person to download a book. This depends solely on whether or not the book is out of copyright or not in the downloader's location. That's because once you've downloaded the book, a copy of it exists on your computer.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

[akiburis]

Yes, you have violated US copyright law by doing so.

I don't think I have, and I explained why I don't think so. Granted, there's no case law that I'm aware of to settle the question. But a bare assertion to the contrary, giving no rationale and citing no legal authority--I don't believe PG Australia is generally recognized as a legal authority in the US, or even in Australia--cuts no ice with me.

There are two laws applicable:

1. The law regarding where it's legal to host the file. The file has to be in the public domain (or covered by something like a CC license) in the physical location of the server. That's why MR has two servers - our main server is in Canada, and all the books on that server are in the public domain in Canada. We also have an FTP site in the USA which hosts the relatively small number of books which are in the public domain in the USA, but not in Canada.

2. The law relating to whether or not it's legal for a person to download a book. This depends solely on whether or not the book is out of copyright or not in the downloader's location. That's because once you've downloaded the book, a copy of it exists on your computer.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Two laws applicable? You mean, apparently, that there are two different sorts of act, hosting a file and downloading a file, that may be legal or illegal depending, in the case of hosting, on the law of the country where the server is located, and in the case of downloading, on the law of the country where the downloader resides.

My post had to do with a third sort of act, uploading. I think it reasonable to suppose (again, I am making inferences in the absence of any case law that I know of to settle the question) that the legality of uploading a file would be determined by the law of the country where the uploader resides. I don't see why uploading should be subject to a different sort of legal liability from downloading--except that, since uploading the file to a publicly accessible server is a way of distributing it, and unauthorized distribution, more than acquisition, is what copyright law is concerned to prevent, illegal uploading might rightly be considered more culpable than illegal downloading.

That, anyway, is my perhaps ignorant and confused view. What puzzles me about MobileRead's uploads policy is that it doesn't acknowledge uploading--an act distinct from hosting and downloading--as an act that might incur any legal liability. Not an entirely trivial matter, since it will be taken--is presumably meant to be taken--as a guide to what people may legally do. It may be well enough formulated to protect MobileRead's administrators, as hosts, from legal liability, but that's not what I'm questioning. I don't believe it is formulated to protect uploaders from legal liability. At any rate, I myself would not be guided by it.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

if we left the links here knowing that they linked to a copyright violation or something else illegal, we'd be doing the same sort of thing as handing someone a loaded gun.

No.
It's like saying "Jack Ruby shot a man" and tell me where he holds his gun.
And that's what newscasts do.

To make people think twice about what they say, making them stay silent rather than risk a hard punishment, is exactly one of the targets of a Police State.

Actually, MR is giving enough information about that illegal site to make me easily google for it.
Is it really different from just giving the link?

I'd like to be free to talk about crimes, as I'm free to talk about sports.
If I say here how to kill a man with bare hands, nobody here would think I'm exhorting you to be an assassin. And nobody will think about MR as a site where one can learn to kill people.
So why if I give you a link to a illegal site I'm treated like a criminal or an accomplice? (*)

To give news is not to infringe copyright.
To point out is not to upload.
To know where they are, is not to download them.
And if I download a illegal book, it's my fault. Not yours.

I agree 100% and more with restriction policies about books being posted here. And also about the prohibition to post software cracks.
And I also agree with the deletion to direct link to illegal files (that's not giving information: that's illegal distribution of copyrighted material).
But I don't like censorship in any form. And to say: "John Doe is giving away books" is not to give away books. Not at all.

And, of course I understand it's not at all MR's fault. It's the law.
We can just respect it and try to change it democratically.



(*) you can find the answer, as usual, following the money.

[Format C:]

[Post deleted]

Instructions on how to kill people are off-topic here. Please discuss such matters in the Lounge.

Thank you.

[Moderator]

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

So why if I give you a link to a illegal site I'm treated like a criminal or an accomplice?

It is MR site policy to remove links to illegal material. This policy is not open to debate. If you can't live with it, you're probably better off going elsewhere - there are numerous sites which I'm sure don't have such a policy. If you decide to stay here though, it's our ball and we require you to play by our rules. We aren't going to change the rules merely because you don't like them.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is MR site policy to remove links to illegal material. This policy is not open to debate. If you can't live with it, you're probably better off going elsewhere - there are numerous sites which I'm sure don't have such a policy. If you decide to stay here though, it's our ball and we require you to play by our rules. We aren't going to change the rules merely because you don't like them.

I never said I don't want to follow those rules.
I never said I want them changed.
I've never linked nothing illicit, nor here, nor elsewhere.

And I think that a link to a site who links illicit material is not at all a link to illegal material, as you say.

And I think that remove the direct links and keep all information to let everybody find the same site with Google/MSN/Yahoo is funny, at least.

If loving just 99% of this site makes me eligible for a ban (as you seem be implying), please remember to remove every bit of personal information I gave while subscribing.
Thank you.

[Patricia]

Format C:
No one is thinking of banning you.
Given that you appeared to be unhappy, HarryT merely suggested that you might find happiness elsewhere.
But if you are 99% happy that may not be necessary. Perfection seems to unobtainable in this world.

[pshrynk]

Have you guys ever banned anyone? Haven't seen any evidence since I've been around. This is a really tolerant forum site and has the most open moderators I've ever seen.

Well, except for Nate, who seems to gathering a list.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

To clarify; it is, and always has been, MobileRead's policy that we neither condone nor support illegal activities. Although we obviously have no control over illegal content on other sites, links to such sites are not permitted on MR. That was the reason for the removal of this link.

Well, MR support Bookeens illegal activity in selling the Cybook without respecting the GPL. I think this is irritatingly inconsistent.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Have you guys ever banned anyone? Haven't seen any evidence since I've been around. This is a really tolerant forum site and has the most open moderators I've ever seen.

Well, except for Nate, who seems to gathering a list.

It's actually a list of people to be smited when I complete my Self Deification Plan.

I found a 12 step plan online. Step One was getting Sony to do what I want. Step Two and Three involve bending time and space. I have the first down pat, and I am working on the second. Look:

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

It's actually a list of people to be smited when I complete my Self Deification Plan.

don't you mean "to be smote" ? (i know i know, i'm on the list now... )

I found a 12 step plan online. Step One was getting Sony to do what I want. Step Two and Three involve bending time and space. I have the first down pat, and I am working on the second. Look:

well i'm worried.

[wayrad]

To be smitten, perhaps.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by wayrad

To be smitten, perhaps.

i think that might be something different... but we can certainly hope he means that.