Copyright infringement terminology

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think we should call it "Deft" that's my nomination.

Could that possibly be a portmanteau word from "digital" and "theft"? At least it's pronounceable. A shame it's already in use as an adjective.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Could that possibly be a portmanteau word from "digital" and "theft"? At least it's pronounceable. A shame it's already in use as an adjective.

Hee-Hee. You caught me.

We could "noun" it!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Hee-Hee. You caught me.

We could "noun" it!

I never heard of anyone nouning an adjective., especially where the meaning isn't the same:

He deftly defted the ebook onto his computer...

No, I don't think so!

[yekim54]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Suggestions for a new term welcome.

DADT - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The question of how to describe the act of obtaining a first digital copy of copyright material without the copyright holder's permission has frequently appeared on Mobileread.

yeah, only about a billion times.

But it's just occurred to me that there might be room for compromise. Because copyright infringement applies to any unauthorised copying. If I buy an ebook, and then duplicate it 1,00 times, I have infringed on the copyright.

Maybe, depends on what you were doing with it.

For example, Amazon's terms of use for ebooks does not grant me the right to make backup copies of content, only "to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content ". (emphasis added)

That's not copyright infringement, that's breach of contract (assuming the terms of that contract were legally enforceable). Violating the terms of use doesn't have anything to do with copyright in this case.

So what's the difference between infringing copyright by burning a copy of a purchased ebook to CD-R for back-up, and infringing copyright by downloading a copy from some dodgy server on the internet?

Neither one of those is direct copyright infringement.

Is it possible to come up with a term for the act of obtaining digital copyright material without payment or the permission of the copyright holder that both groups could agree on, that distinguishes between innocuous copyright infringement on the one hand, and actual theft on the other?

It's not clear that what you are describing above is even illegal. There are lots of scenarios where you can legally obtain digital content without either payment or permission.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Copyright law in general doesn't deal with media or technology. It deals with creative work. It's not concerend with the medium in which the work might happen to be stored or the methods available for copying it.

If the law limits your right to make copies of my latest novel, it makes no difference if the novel is published as a paper book, as an ebook, as an audio book, or as some sort of literary hologram that hasn't been invented yet. And any restrictions apply equally whether you are photocopying a piece of paper, copying a digital file, or even reading the book alound into a tape recorder.

The fact that it's a thousand times easier to copy a computer file than it is to photocopy a book doesn't change the intent of the law.

Of course, there is an argument that says that you have to copy an ebook in order to use it - if only to copy it from the computer on which you download it to your reading device. But that should be covered either by the terms and conditions on which the book is sold, or by common conventions and customs. If the law doesn't explicitly cover that case, that doesn't mean it has failed to keep up with technology.

The US basically says that incidental copying during normal use of the content doesn't count. You can't sue someone for copyright infringement because they had to load the file from their hard drive into memory, or for copying in order to do things that fall under fair use, etc.

I can't help thinking that the argument that copyright law hasn't kept up with technology is too often used as a justification for not observing the law.

Or as justification for trying to pass harsher laws. Both sides try to spin it to their advantage.

[JoeD]

I say we leave it up to the law makers. They called it copyright infringment to distinguish it from other laws like theft, why confuse matters again?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I say we leave it up to the law makers. They called it copyright infringment to distinguish it from other laws like theft, why confuse matters again?

Because the confusion helps those who wish to push an agenda.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Is it possible to come up with a term for the act of obtaining digital copyright material without payment or the permission of the copyright holder

It's Unauthorised Copying. There is no need to redefine anything or spend any time thinking about it. Either a copy is authorised, and fair use, or it's unauthorised. Simple.

The only confusion comes from the moralists, who insist on other terms. And using the terms like Piracy and Theft drives the debate into an emotive rather than logical area, which favours the darknet communities and not the proponents of fair copyright systems.

[dmaul1114]

I view the harm done as similar to theft, as a person has obtained material that is not freely available without paying for it.

But it's not exactly the same since no physical item has been taken and at best a potential sale was lost (as the person may not have ever bought the item they pirated--with a physical item if they hadn't, at least it could be sold to someone else and now can't since the item is gone).

So I'm ok with coming up with some other term to label the act of stealing/illegally downloading copyrighted digital content.

For me the key is that we as a society come to view illegal downloading as just as wrong as stealing a physical item. As we move into the digital era and eventually ONLY have digital versions of albums, movies, books etc. traditional theft will simply no longer be possible. Copyright infringement, piracy, whatever you want to call it will be the only what "theft" like activities can cost companies sales in these industries.

As long as we start treating is as wrong, as a minor misdemeanor like shoplifting, then I couldn't care less what label we put on the act. I'll leave that to the people who like arguing terminology and semantics.

And I've spent way too much time discussing such issues lately, so that's all I'll say in this thread as my views on the topic are clear.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Neither one of those is direct copyright infringement.

Now we're getting into things that differ from country to country. In the UK there is a clause in the copyright law that permits making a backup of a computer program. An ebook is not a computer program. Currently, in the UK it is not permitted to make a backup copy of an ebook, just as it is not permitted to copy a CD onto a hard disk.

Copyright in the UK specifies that copying the work requires the permission of the owner of the copyright. There are "Fair dealing" exceptions, which specify when permission is not required. None apply in the two cases mentioned, and in the UK both are copyright infringement.

It may be that you do not consider any personal digital copying to be copyright infringement. In the UK you are wrong.

But I don't think we need to get into the very fine detail of national copyright laws. If you think my examples don't apply in your country, perhaps you can think up equivalent ones yourself.

Or perhaps you think my distinction between copyright infringement of a digital file of which you already have a copy, and copyright infringement which involves obtaining a copy of a file you didn't have before, is not valid?

[DawnFalcon]

dmaul11!4-

Your "key" is the one to the door called "IP should be abolished". Step away and put the key down. By conflating completely inequivalent offences - theft is allways wrong, making a copy is necessary for the operation of computers and is often otherwise fair use, and is wrong only in certain situations you're being your own worst enemy as far as copyright goes.

Moreover, there is no appetite outside America and a few corporate boardrooms for labeling major parts of the community as criminals.

Respecting rights and sensible prices - and not worrying about a fringe movement - has proven the only effective antidote to darknets so far.


pdurrant - Equally, in the UK they're simply un-prosecutable. It's not in the public interest to chase those cases. Of course, the music industry is generously trying to use that as a starting base for negotiations, giving us the right to do what they already cannot act on rather than with the de-facto situation (i.e. they're trying to make out they're already making effective concessions, when they're not...)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I say we leave it up to the law makers. They called it copyright infringment to distinguish it from other laws like theft, why confuse matters again?

I agree that both are copyright infringement. My point was that I perceive there to be a difference between two acts that are both copyright infringement.

Having the same term for two different things leads to confusion.

[asjogren]

I think there might be another category of "copyright infringement":

Those that honor the intent of the copyright of an eBook as if it were a paper book - regardless of the attempts to:
- limit rights via licensing agreements
- artificially restrict purchases based on geography
- constrain what devices are used to read via DRM or format

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

It's Unauthorised Copying. There is no need to redefine anything or spend any time thinking about it. Either a copy is authorised, and fair use, or it's unauthorised. Simple.

No quite - I think you may have some ands and ors mixed up there.

A copy can be authorised or unauthorised.
If unauthorised, if can be "fair use" (US) or "fair dealing" (UK - much more restricted).

So a copy can be authorised, or unauthorised and fair use/fair dealing, or unauthorised and not fair use/fair dealing.

I am suggesting that there is another split in the unauthorised/not fair use class.

In the US, I agree that fair use covers most personal copying of an authorised copy of a work, and so my distinction is less needed. In the UK a wide range of acts that most would consider innocuous are not covered by fair dealing.