Eastern European Police proudly closes legal online Library

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Again in the UK, that is correct, you cannot legally do those things. I don't know if it's the same elsewhere in the EU or not. Of course, nobody is ever, or has ever, been prosecuted for it. But technically it's illegal.

In Spain it's completely legal, and because of that you pay more when you buy a DVD, a DVD-Recorder, a hard disk or a scanner (even a phone with MP3 player).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by charleski

Best not to feed the troll.

Agree Completely!

Thanks for the notice!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

No, it's not illegal, you can't find any law to condemn it.

You yourself said:

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan View Post
I know it. But the problem is that laws are slower than technology, and the second pass is not illegal (it doesn't mean that it's legal, only there's a void).

Clearly implying the illegality.

[pietvo]

Originally Posted by Geppetto

You are just saying nonsenses. Spain and Bulgaria are European Union countries: they MUST FOLLOW European Union directives on copyright.

You are not allowed to make a reproduction (even partial) of a copyrighted work if you don't have explicit permissions from the copyright holder. Full stop.

Well, the Dutch copyright law allows you to make electronic copies for non commercial, private use.

The EU allows these kind of private copies if there is a levy system in place to compensate authors. Currently in Holland the levy is only applied to empty CDR's and DVD's. But each country much choose: levy or forbid.

[pietvo]

Originally Posted by Hadel

Article 24 (...changed 2002): (1) Without the agreement of the copyright holder and without payment is permitted [the following]:

9. (...changed 2005) reproduction of already published artworks by publicly accessible libraries, teaching or other educational establishments, museums and archive institutes, with aim to study or store of the artwork, if this is not used for commercial purpouses
...
11. giving of access to private individuals to artworks that are in the collections of the organization from point 9, under the condition that it is used for scientific purpouses and does not have commercial nature

(10 doesn't apply to this case).
The way I read this is that it is allowed to collect copies in a `library', if not for commercial purposes, and second that the copies may be made available only for scientific purposes and not commercial. I think in the original case the copies were also made available for general purposes, not only for scientific ones. I think that makes a big difference. Unless you can convince a judge that reading a book is a scientific exercise. Maybe a good lawyer can convince the judge.

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Uh, No. Illegal is illegal.

a void is a void

if there is no law precisely forbidding something it is allowed
analogous appliance of law is only allowed in favour of the deliquent, not against him.

everything else would be against

• nulla poena sine lege and
• in dubio pro reo

and thus contrary to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6 (2) & 7 (1)
(I'm pretty sure, that the common law contains these elemental principles as well, but since it is not my domain I will not comment on this - especially because it is of no importance for the case presented since the country in cuestion is not covered by the common law.)

you have already proven your enormous ignorance as far distinguishing between differences in legal terminology by persisting on a theft definition for infridgement.

the only thing you achieve with such unreflected and uninformed postings is:

1. making a fool of yourself
2. making everybody with just a iota of legal education (or 3 handfulls of common sense) bleeding from their eyes when they read this rubbish.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

a void is a void

if there is no law precisely forbidding something it is allowed
analogous appliance of law is only allowed in favour of the deliquent, not against him.

everything else would be against

• nulla poena sine lege and
• in dubio pro reo

and thus contrary to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 6 (2) & 7 (1)
(I'm pretty sure, that the common law contains these elemental principles as well, but since it is not my domain I will not comment on this - especially because it is of no importance for the case presented since the country in cuestion is not covered by the common law.)

you have already proven your enormous ignorance as far distinguishing between differences in legal terminology by persisting on a theft definition for infridgement.

the only thing you achieve with such unreflected and uninformed postings is:

1. making a fool of yourself
2. making everybody with just a iota of legal education (or 3 handfulls of common sense) bleeding from their eyes when they read this rubbish.

Stop with the personal attacks it is forbidden by the forum rules.

Your understanding of the copyright law is wrong. They allow only certain uses of covered property. You've got the concept exactly backwards.

[charleski]

Originally Posted by pietvo

I think in the original case the copies were also made available for general purposes, not only for scientific ones. I think that makes a big difference. Unless you can convince a judge that reading a book is a scientific exercise. Maybe a good lawyer can convince the judge.

Well, the term 'study' is really pretty general. While I have no doubt that the majority of people who downloaded stuff from this archive did so purely for reasons of entertainment, it's not hard to concoct a story that you were analysing the changes in popularly-perceived threats as presented by thriller writers over the two decades since the end of the Cold War.

The law was clearly introduced with a noble aim: to make it easier for real libraries to do their job of preserving cultural heritage without having to waste money tracking down authors who have abandoned their work. But it's very difficult to get the formulation right so that it can't be abused. We've seen several efforts fail in the US and other European countries. One obvious deficit here is that the clauses don't contain any language relating to the distribution of the copies (apart from 'giving access').

[Dr. Drib]

Freeshadow (and any other Member who may be on the attack):



Refrain from personal verbal attacks and insults. It is uncalled for.

Read our POSTING GUIDELINES if you have any questions.


Don
(Moderator)

[LCF]

Originally Posted by pietvo

(10 doesn't apply to this case).
The way I read this is that it is allowed to collect copies in a `library', if not for commercial purposes, and second that the copies may be made available only for scientific purposes and not commercial. I think in the original case the copies were also made available for general purposes, not only for scientific ones. I think that makes a big difference. Unless you can convince a judge that reading a book is a scientific exercise. Maybe a good lawyer can convince the judge.

Here is the original, Allowed without permission from the copyright owner is:

9. (изм. - ДВ, бр. 99 от 2005 г., в сила от 10.01.2006 г.) възпроизвеждането на вече публикувани произведения от общодостъпни библиотеки, учебни или други образователни заведения, музеи и архивни учреждения, с учебна цел или с цел съхраняване на произведението, ако това не служи за търговски цели;

My translation:

reproducing of already published works by public accessible libraries, <sum name for schools, universities, etc.> and other educational institutions, museums and archiving institutions, with educational purpose or with the purpose of preservation of the work, if this doesn't serve commercial goals.

[Freeshadow]

Your understanding of the copyright law is wrong. They allow only certain uses of covered property.

of which copyright law? the spanish one where therisa has clearly shown that there is a void?

let the liking of this fact aside, due to the quoted human rights convention you can use any void until the legislative closes it.
the iudicative cannot make anything about that, and as therisa also stated the legislation processes are usually slower than technical development. (and this is not only in spain a matter of fact)
I admit it might be not intended but this is how legislative systems work.

[omk3]

@LCF
This is a sad case you are describing, but not surprising.

There was a popular site in Greece, nothing to do with books, that was accused of pandering. The accusations were false, but that was for the court to decide. The first step of the police was to confiscate all the servers, and detain the webmaster. The webmaster is now free, but his whole computer equipment is still in the hands of the police, two years later. The trial has been postponed two times already.

Why I bring all this up: Is it maybe the case that the police has to act on any accusation, and then await trial? I would think the opposite would make more sense, but maybe not in urgent or dangerous situations. If that's the case, maybe the impromptu library will be found not guilty in the end.

What is certain is that there is still regrettably a huge void in the law about everything to do with the digital world, and sometimes even the police or the courts are at a loss on how to tackle the issues that arise.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by omk3

....
What is certain is that there is still regrettably a huge void in the law about everything to do with the digital world, and sometimes even the police or the courts are at a loss on how to tackle the issues that arise.

Yes, the digital age has thrown many laws for a loop, particularly the intellectual property laws. Unfortunately it may be some time (if ever) until it is in better shape to protect the authors while still allowing proper access to their work.

The situation described in the O.P. is just one more example of what is taking place in this brave new world and what is necessary to bring the laws, the creators, publishers, sellers, etc. into it.

[Freeshadow]

this is a pre- digital problem its about tech development in general and not copyeight specific.btw, it happens all the time.

just because now it happens more often due to exponential speeding up of tech-development people outside legislation realize it actually
just to take an quite older example:

germany needed a special sub § in the poenal codex to get what a layman would call "electricity theft" poenalized. it was not covered by the common theft, since electricity is uncorporeal... etc., pp.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes, the digital age has thrown many laws for a loop, particularly the intellectual property laws. Unfortunately it may be some time (if ever) until it is in better shape to protect the authors while still allowing proper access to their work.

The situation described in the O.P. is just one more example of what is taking place in this brave new world and what is necessary to bring the laws, the creators, publishers, sellers, etc. into it.

In that, I totally agree with you.