An anonymous piracy poll.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Now if she downloaded the book, and upon discovering it wasn't her book, decided to read it, would she be breaking the law?

I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that in the U.S. you can still be liable for civil damages for unintentional copyright infringement. That strikes me as really problematic. For instance, it seems to mean that if I post several poems in my blog from the same author without copyright permission and beyond fair-use, and you innocently go to my blog not knowing that I've done this bad thing, you may be liable for copyright infringement, just because you downloaded the page to your computer's memory. Or am I missing something?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by pruss

I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that in the U.S. you can still be liable for civil damages for unintentional copyright infringement. That strikes me as really problematic. For instance, it seems to mean that if I post several poems in my blog from the same author without copyright permission and beyond fair-use, and you innocently go to my blog not knowing that I've done this bad thing, you may be liable for copyright infringement, just because you downloaded the page to your computer's memory. Or am I missing something?

That's not an unreasonable question, but I think your blog visitor is in the clear.

But "Hold!" you cry, "she has copied everything I copied. She gets away with it and I don't? What if it was the entire book of poems, for sale at my local poem store, which I checked out from the library, copied & posted on my blog? You mean she can copy the whole book, and nothing happens to her, while I have to cough up penalties for copyright infringment?"

My answer to that is a firm and unyielding "probably." (Because if the answer were "certainly" we would have little need for lawyers. Speaking as a lawyer, my advice is that you need a lawyer.)

Suppose your reader eliminates the middleblogger, goes directly to the library, and copies out the entire book while innocently pretending to merely be taking notes. She now owns a complete copy of the book, which she takes home, types into her computer, and makes into her screensaver. So long as she doesn't send a copy off to her friends, or try to sell the screensaver, she is not going to be liable for copyright infringement.

About the worst that could happen to your blog reader (even if she copied the whole book) is that if she were to be hunted down & hauled into court, she could be required to erase the poems from her computer and either erase or destroy her handwritten copy.

In other words, as I read the law, merely copying something, even in its entirety, does not amount to "infringement," but can result in an unauthorized copy which no one actually owns. The copyright owner doesn't own it, not even the handwritten copy - that's the property of your blog reader. But at the same time, the blog reader doesn't own it, although she owns the physical medium in the form of the computer or the handwritten copy. But the computer file or handwriting has no right to exist - the author didn't give permission -so the court can order it erased.

Now, I am not a copyright lawyer, and someone who knows better than I could put me straight. But the way I read copyright law, it is not intended to punish individuals who make a single copy for their own use. It is intended to penalize people who make money - or get some kind of other reward, like attracting blog readers - by taking someone else's creation and publishing it without permission.

[scrapking]

I won't pirate content, period. Even books I already own on paper, if I want them on my Kobo I buy them again. I'm actually in the process of selling/giving away most of my paper books, keeping only a few treasured exceptions, and re-buying them all. The cost is a small part of my budget in the grand scheme of things, and the convenience is huge.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Harmon

That's not an unreasonable question, but I think your blog visitor is in the clear.

But "Hold!" you cry, "she has copied everything I copied. She gets away with it and I don't? What if it was the entire book of poems, for sale at my local poem store, which I checked out from the library, copied & posted on my blog? You mean she can copy the whole book, and nothing happens to her, while I have to cough up penalties for copyright infringment?"

My answer to that is a firm and unyielding "probably." (Because if the answer were "certainly" we would have little need for lawyers. Speaking as a lawyer, my advice is that you need a lawyer.)

Suppose your reader eliminates the middleblogger, goes directly to the library, and copies out the entire book while innocently pretending to merely be taking notes. She now owns a complete copy of the book, which she takes home, types into her computer, and makes into her screensaver. So long as she doesn't send a copy off to her friends, or try to sell the screensaver, she is not going to be liable for copyright infringement.

About the worst that could happen to your blog reader (even if she copied the whole book) is that if she were to be hunted down & hauled into court, she could be required to erase the poems from her computer and either erase or destroy her handwritten copy.

In other words, as I read the law, merely copying something, even in its entirety, does not amount to "infringement," but can result in an unauthorized copy which no one actually owns. The copyright owner doesn't own it, not even the handwritten copy - that's the property of your blog reader. But at the same time, the blog reader doesn't own it, although she owns the physical medium in the form of the computer or the handwritten copy. But the computer file or handwriting has no right to exist - the author didn't give permission -so the court can order it erased.

Now, I am not a copyright lawyer, and someone who knows better than I could put me straight. But the way I read copyright law, it is not intended to punish individuals who make a single copy for their own use. It is intended to penalize people who make money - or get some kind of other reward, like attracting blog readers - by taking someone else's creation and publishing it without permission.

By your interpretation of the copyright law it would not only be unpunishable to download and keep a copy of pirated book, but would also make it 100% legal to do so. Even if brought to court the worst that can happen is the deletion of that ownerless unauthorized copy. Yes? No? I don't think they intentionally left the law that wide open. It is also another reason we might need a real copyright lawyer to explain things to us. No offence Harmon, but you said it yourself that you are not specialized in copyright.

[pruss]

Many of the RIAA lawsuits were against people who shared music, but some were against people who only downloaded.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by pruss

Many of the RIAA lawsuits were against people who shared music, but some were against people who only downloaded.

How did they detect the music on the computers of people who only downloaded?

Although, at one point the RIAA was trying to claim it was copyright infringement to rip your own DVDs to MP3. And they threw lawsuits around like they're confetti, without any consideration about who they were targeting. I'm not really sure that earth logic has any place in a discussion about the RIAA's copyright-enforcement activities.

[Matth79]

Originally Posted by pruss

Many of the RIAA lawsuits were against people who shared music, but some were against people who only downloaded.

If it's torrent, then even if the "downloader" bailed out immediately on completion without hanging around as a seed, they will probably have also shared some segments. Unless the torrent client was a leeching cheat.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

By your interpretation of the copyright law it would not only be unpunishable to download and keep a copy of pirated book, but would also make it 100% legal to do so. Even if brought to court the worst that can happen is the deletion of that ownerless unauthorized copy. Yes? No? I don't think they intentionally left the law that wide open. It is also another reason we might need a real copyright lawyer to explain things to us. No offence Harmon, but you said it yourself that you are not specialized in copyright.

Yep, that's my reading. The hole is there, I think.

Just start with the understanding that it is not a copyright violation for you to videotape or record a program off the air. Why not? You are making a copy of the program, aren't you? How is copying a book any different? I think it's pretty clear to anyone, lawyer or not, that making a copy of something does not, all by itself, violate the author's copyright. There has to be an additional element involved for a violation to occur.

The answer seems clear enough - you have to be interfering with the author's right to exploit the economic benefits of his or her creation, and copying a book does not interfere with that right any more than reading the book without permission interferes with the right.

However, using the copy to make money does interfere with that right. So that's where the law draws the line. You, personally, won't be penalized for making an unauthorized copy, unless you do something with it besides keep it around to read yourself. And it's no different if you make an unauthorized copy of an unauthorized copy.

Where you will get into trouble is if there's any whiff of economic exploitation. It's why you shouldn't use bittorrent to download things - because the way bittorrent works (if I understand it correctly) includes redistributing portions of what you download. "Distribution" violates the economic right of the author to distribute the book him or herself. That's economic exploitation.

Remember, the law does not map precisely to morality. I'm not saying it's right, in any moral sense, to just download a copy of any book you want. In some circumstances it might be, in others it clearly isn't. Where to draw the line is open to debate. Personally, I'm comfortable with downloading a copy of a book I already own in print. That's no different than scanning my own copy. I'm also okay with downloading a book which is out of print, mainly because I regard it as having been abandoned by the owner. But I would not download a book which can be purchased from a legitimate source, even though I don't believe that doing so violates the law.

But when I read the copyright act, what I see is the very hole that you think can't be there. Moreover, that hole makes sense to me in light of what a judge would call "the overall import of the law." It also makes sense to me when I take into account the way that law behaves in other areas, and how law develops historically to suit the situation of the times it originates in. So while I'm not a copyright lawyer, I'm pretty confident of the conclusion.

[DuckieTigger]

That makes sense. Probably only never got updated since the digital age where a copy does not involve any physical means any more. And it is hard to rewrite the law without taking away rights like making a copy for yourself. Where do you draw the line.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Matth79

If it's torrent, then even if the "downloader" bailed out immediately on completion without hanging around as a seed, they will probably have also shared some segments. Unless the torrent client was a leeching cheat.

This is my understanding as well.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Just start with the understanding that it is not a copyright violation for you to videotape or record a program off the air. Why not? You are making a copy of the program, aren't you? How is copying a book any different? I think it's pretty clear to anyone, lawyer or not, that making a copy of something does not, all by itself, violate the author's copyright. There has to be an additional element involved for a violation to occur.

I am not a lawyer (I am a philosopher). But it's my impression that the Betamax Case was pretty narrow. It said that there was at least one non-infringing use of copying a TV program, namely to time-shift: to copy what was being broadcast free of charge by the copyright owner to you at one time, in order to view it at one other time. The court said:

When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.

In the case of copying of an entire book, it is typically false that the copyright owner has "invited" the reader "to see such a work ... free of charge".

The closest realistic analogy to time-shifting of TV programs would be if you borrow a book from the library, don't have time to finish it before you need to return it, and you copy the book, and then destroy your copy as soon as you finish reading it. But even that doesn't seem to me like a very good analogy, because unlike a TV broadcast, the book is intended to be read at one location at a time, while in my scenario you are potentially reading the copy at the same time as another patron of the library is reading the returned original.

There is also format-shifting. I am not sure courts have ruled on that. But I would be surprised if it would be allowed in cases where the original and copy are had by different owners.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by pruss

In the case of copying of an entire book, it is typically false that the copyright owner has "invited" the reader "to see such a work ... free of charge".

However, once a book is paid for or otherwise legally acquired, it is readable, free of charge, as many times as the owner likes. Format-shifting should be just as legal as taping a TV show.

The closest realistic analogy to time-shifting of TV programs would be if you borrow a book from the library, don't have time to finish it before you need to return it, and you copy the book, and then destroy your copy as soon as you finish reading it.

Why destroy it? You're not required to wipe your videotaped shows when you're done watching them.

But even that doesn't seem to me like a very good analogy, because unlike a TV broadcast, the book is intended to be read at one location at a time, while in my scenario you are potentially reading the copy at the same time as another patron of the library is reading the returned original.

There is also format-shifting. I am not sure courts have ruled on that. But I would be surprised if it would be allowed in cases where the original and copy are had by different owners.[/QUOTE]

Broadcasting is different from individual copy sharing, but I can see parallels. A TV show is broadcast once (let's pretend we're living in 1972) to millions of viewers, and ownership & distribution rights are maintained by the studio. However, anyone who applied VCR tech at the right time now has an extra copy, viewable many times, potentially by many people (maybe he invites the whole family over to watch the Simpsons Halloween specials). It's being viewed by people who didn't use access to the original when they had the opportunity.

The library book, which someone copies, now has the chance of its content being read by two people at the same time. I don't see a lot of difference between that and sharing a TV episode later.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why destroy it? You're not required to wipe your videotaped shows when you're done watching them.

My feeling is that Betamax did not settle whether you're allowed to keep your videotaped shows when you're done watching them.

The library book, which someone copies, now has the chance of its content being read by two people at the same time. I don't see a lot of difference between that and sharing a TV episode later.

Sounds like an argument against keeping video tapes of shows after one has watched them. :-)

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by pruss

There is also format-shifting. I am not sure courts have ruled on that. But I would be surprised if it would be allowed in cases where the original and copy are had by different owners.

Do format-shifting rules require that the original be destroyed in the process? I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Do format-shifting rules require that the original be destroyed in the process? I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows.

There are no "format-shifting rules." There are a tiny handle of case rulings, with no nice over-arching principles that would let them be applied to other situations. Also, there are contradictory case rulings from other lawsuits.

I believe that "backup your floppy discs" was ruled valid in court, and in that case, you obviously don't need to destroy the originals.