Missing titles in bestsellers list

[tompe]

Originally Posted by cmbs

This is the US Copyright Office website. You can learn about Fair Use and other copyright laws there. But of course you are not a US citizen, so your laws may be different.

http://www.copyright.gov/

This is somewhat useful but i cannot find what you mean by illegal version there. And just reading a bit I cannot find that having a version of something is covered by copyright. What I read is that distributing and obtaining things are covered.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cmbs

Fair Use never allows the use of an entire work, and it never allows use for entertainment purposes.

That is not entirely correct. It is, for example, legal to record the whole of a television programme for the purpose of "time shifting" (ie watching it at a more convenient time).

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is not entirely correct. It is, for example, legal to record the whole of a television programme for the purpose of "time shifting" (ie watching it at a more convenient time).

Harry, Fair Use is a specific set of laws, and what I said is correct.

The laws governing recording tv shows, and NOT DISTRIBUTING, would not fall under the Fair Use laws.

I am of course, still talking about US law, I don't know, nor am I going to investigate, UK laws.



Tommy,

I gave you the url, I gave you some comments. The copyright site is not hard to search. I'm not researching for you. If you're interested as you say you are, research it for yourself.

[acemccloudxx]

Could we please get a moderator to tone things down a bit? I would have to say that cmbs is getting a bit on the abusive side. There is blunt and then there is blunt force trauma.

In any case, you still have not provided a meaningful reference that gives specific information proving me wrong.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cmbs

Harry, Fair Use is a specific set of laws, and what I said is correct.

The laws governing recording tv shows, and NOT DISTRIBUTING, would not fall under the Fair Use laws.

No, I'm sorry, but that very specifically is a matter of "Fair Use", and when video recorders first appeared, movie studios tried to get them outlawed under copyright law on the grounds that the recording of copyrighted TV shows was an imfringement. The court case which decided the matter was the decision of the US Supreme Court:

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices cannot be liable for infringement.

This Supreme Court decision established the general legal principle, which has been applied more recently in file sharing court cases, that a device which has the capability of being used for copyright-infringement purposes can be legally used if it can be shown that it also has significant non-infringing uses.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by acemccloudxx

Could we please get a moderator to tone things down a bit? I would have to say that cmbs is getting a bit on the abusive side. There is blunt and then there is blunt force trauma.

In any case, you still have not provided a meaningful reference that gives specific information proving me wrong.

The US Copyright Office is THE reference for copyright laws. The fact you don't find it "meaningful" is more evidence that you don't want to know the law. That's fine, but if you're going to preach about things you clearly don't know, your ignorance will show. Another fact which is fine with me.

I'm sorry that facts hurt you. ouch.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cmbs

The US Copyright Office is THE reference for copyright laws. The fact you don't find it "meaningful" is more evidence that you don't want to know the law. That's fine, but if you're going to preach about things you clearly don't know, your ignorance will show. Another fact which is fine with me.

I'm sorry that facts hurt you. ouch.

cmbs,

Mobileread is a friendly community where we make it a point to try (not always successfully, but we do try) to keep discussion on a friendly level. People can be wrong about something - for example, I have just given you a reference to a Supreme Court decision which shows that you are wrong about TV recording and "fair use" - but there are nice ways to say "you're wrong" and there are not so nice ways. Please can you try to use the former - it makes this a much more pleasant place to be.

Thank you for your cooperation in this.

Moderator.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I'm sorry, but that very specifically is a matter of "Fair Use", and when video recorders first appeared, movie studios tried to get them outlawed under copyright law on the grounds that the recording of copyrighted TV shows was an imfringement. The court case which decided the matter was the decision of the US Supreme Court:

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices cannot be liable for infringement.

This Supreme Court decision established the general legal principle, which has been applied more recently in file sharing court cases, that a device which has the capability of being used for copyright-infringement purposes can be legally used if it can be shown that it also has significant non-infringing uses.

Yeah well, you haven't provided a link, and therefore I can't read it for myself and check if you're right or not. (don't bother, I'm not going to)

You may be right. I am not a lawyer and am not going to go researching today. I'm not doing anything illegal, or even close to illegal, so I don't have any need to.

If you are right, it still only refers to copying that is NOT DISTRIBUTED. I already said I think that's legal in the US. I didn't think it was part of the Fair Use laws, but maybe it is.

What I said still holds true for distributing copyrighted work. I am not going to go researching and quoting. Anyone interested can go learn for themselves. If you find I'm wrong, more power to ya.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If Sony deliberately leaked that coupon code, then it's not "stealing", is it? If it was only intended for new purchasers then, as I commented in the original thread on the subject, I personally considering it little short of theft (and certainly fraud) to use it.

I don't think Sony leaked the code. I think it was just stupidity to have used the same code for everyone. I think that it is possible that people compared codes and found out that they got the same code or that someone gave the code to someone else and it worked and then it was leaked that way. So (IMHO) since this is not a Sony leaked code, everyone who was not entitled to use it who did use it committed the crime of theft.

[cmbs]

Ok, here is a page on Fair Use. You got me wondering why I didn't think copying for personal use is part of the Fair Use laws.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

It doesn't mention copying for personal use. I'm not saying this proves that copying for personal use is or isn't part of the Fair Use laws. Seems like it might be.

I'm also pretty sure that I have read about copying for personal use, and that it is legal (in the US). I'm talking about making a backup copy of a cd, something you already own. I also think it's legal to use a copyright image in your home for your own personal use . . . things like that. You're not selling or distributing the work, and you obtained the work legally.

The laws are complicated and I have no reason or desire to spend hours and hours trying to understand them. I understand them well enough to be confident I'm not breaking them.

This is not meant to be an argument and I'm not going to get into it. It's only meant to show you the spirit of Fair Use. The page talks about using portions of works, for reasons such as research and education, and only in ways that are non-commercial and will not infringe upon the market for the copyrighted work (why illegal digital books are illegal; plus the fact that only a portion is considered fair use, not the entire work).

The page suggests that if in doubt, you should get permission from the copyright holder.

If you are honestly interested in learning about copyright, you'll go research it for yourself; if you're not, nothing I can say will convince you. And I'm not an expert anyway.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by cmbs

I gave you the url, I gave you some comments. The copyright site is not hard to search. I'm not researching for you. If you're interested as you say you are, research it for yourself.

What you said was;

And I specifically called the digital versions illegal: if you have any illegal versions, that is illegal, regardless of your opinion.

I accept that the copyright laws can make it illegal to obtain something or to distribute something. What i wondered was how they or they in cooperation with other laws makes it illegal to have something. I am still not convinced that it is illegal in the US.

How it works where I live is for example that stealing a physical object is illegal and if you get caught this object will be confiscated. But having the object I do not think is illegal (I cannot remeber ever hearing about such a crime and a name for it but I can be mistaken). The same thing definitely holds when the crime is not theft but making a copy.

So therefore I tought it would be nice to read about how you implement a law system were having a copy of something is illegal.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by tompe

What you said was;


I accept that the copyright laws can make it illegal to obtain something or to distribute something. What i wondered was how they or they in cooperation with other laws makes it illegal to have something. I am still not convinced that it is illegal in the US.

How it works where I live is for example that stealing a physical object is illegal and if you get caught this object will be confiscated. But having the object I do not think is illegal (I cannot remeber ever hearing about such a crime and a name for it but I can be mistaken). The same thing definitely holds when the crime is not theft but making a copy.

So therefore I tought it would be nice to read about how you implement a law system were having a copy of something is illegal.

I really have no idea. We can argue what's legal and that's a completely different thing from discussing how you're going to enforce the law. My position is if it's illegal, you shouldn't do it. Just because you're not caught doesn't magically make it ok.

As far as if it's legal to have possession of an illegal copy of something, as opposed to how you obtained it, sheesh. What is your point? Are you trying to excuse illegal activity?

If someone steals a chair, they've broken the law. If they sell the stolen chair, I think they've broken another law. If the person buying the chair has no clue it's stolen, I'm not sure if they're breaking the law. Probably so, even though they're ignorant of it. If they give the chair to their friend and the friend keeps it in his home, is it illegal for him to possess that stolen chair? I have no idea. But if it's found to be stolen, it should be returned to it's rightful owner, and certainly the original thief should be held responsible.

At the same time, if the purchaser knows they're buying stolen items, they are encouraging the illegal activity.

I am going to make zero attempt to look up the laws regarding this, because I'm not that interested, and I'm not stealing, nor am I buying questionable furniture.

Where are the books coming from? If you know the publisher isn't selling digital versions, then it's safe to assume (unless you made it yourself and have not distributed it at all) that the copy is illegal.

---------------------
I did want to add to my previous post why illegal books are illegal, in my opinion:

1. Distributing may infringe on the market value of the legal copies.
2. Only a portion is considered to be Fair Use, not the entire work.
3. "Entertainment" is nowhere near the scholarly type valid reasons for Fair Use to apply.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by cmbs

As far as if it's legal to have possession of an illegal copy of something, as opposed to how you obtained it, sheesh. What is your point? Are you trying to excuse illegal activity?

You have still not given a definition of what "illegal copy" is so it is hard to know what you mean. Do you mean a copy obtained in an illegal way? Or do you mean something else? Also the dicsussion started with the example where the copy was a copy of something you owned in another form.

My point is that you are saying things like:

Well, having an illegal digital copy of a book you own in paper form is illegal, regardless of your opinion of it. Your opinion has nothing to do with the law. Perhaps you don't see it as illegal because you're busy telling yourself lies to comfort your guilty conscience?

My only point is if you are right or not in this claim. If you are wrong then you should not claim it. And in the text it seemed like you knew the law but that was obviously not so.

[cmbs]

1. Yes I did.
2. That's ridiculous.

I gave you the link to the copyright office because I thought you were interested in the law. I got that silly idea because you said you were interested in the law. I know it can be hard to find that kind of site in another country, so I gave it to you. Now I see you are only interested in playing stupid games. Well, I'm not.

[Alexander Turcic]

Relax everyone. Copyright laws, Fair Use, DRM are all complex topics and it's cool to discuss them here; but, let's remain civil and friendly with each other.

Thanks.