Piracy Issues

omega12596 said:

Technically, yes. According to the DMCA one can't make a copy of a digital work, with certain exemptions in place. So, IF you lend only the original copy you purchased from a legal source, like sharing the flash drive, as I pointed out above, it would be perfectly legal, as far as I can find.

Click to expand...

It would depend on the copyright provisions of the specific book. That's one reason why many ebooks use creative commons licensing.

It would also depend on any additional EULA from the publisher.

Ebooks straddle software and books.

Medievalist said:

It would depend on the copyright provisions of the specific book. That's one reason why many ebooks use creative commons licensing.

It would also depend on any additional EULA from the publisher.

Ebooks straddle software and books.

Click to expand...

What provisions? If a publisher adds in some 'other' provision, without legal benefit or precedent, those addendum provisions would be subject to the courts determination of legality. If I don't copy or alter the format of the ebook, I wouldn't be in violation of any DMCA/Copyright law.

And EULA's are not necessarily enforceable in the US. Depending on the court where said theoretical litigation may occur, the EULA of the publisher could be tossed out, period. Based on the cases I've read where EULA has been negated, I'd guess that a publisher specifically disallowing a purchased ebook to be stored on a flash drive at the time of initial purchase would likely cause said EULA to be revoked by the court.

Given these factors, I'd say the legality of sharing an ebook, via a contained portable product, is legal. To be honest, the sale of one under the same circumstance would also likely prove legal, but as this has never come before the court, there is no precedent to cite.

Medievalist said:

Not a lot, honestly. Aside from my basic premise that most people are honest, and that good data drives out bad.

Every time I testify or am deposed I'm faced with appalling ignorance on the part of both attorneys, the judge, and the jury.

For instance, the assertion that digital copies are identical.

Well, no, actually, they aren't. There are small differences. You need an expert to find and present those tiny wave-form differences, but they are there--much the way that even cloned cells do have minute microscopic differences at the DNA level. This is roughly comparable to the "xerox effect."

There's the fact that while I do object to the loss of income to rights holders--no matter how small--part of my objection is the proliferation of bad data.

I note that the first digital copyright case I know of (Harlan Ellison v. Stephen Robertson et al., 357 F.3d 1072 9th Cir. 2004) part of the testimony was about Ellison's outrage that the poorly scanned and proofread files introduced errors, and dropped pages of text.

That aspect--introducing bad editions--honestly bothers me more than the monetary loss to authors and publishers.

And then the strong correlation between illegal digital copies and malware makes it even more worrisome for me.

Click to expand...

I think Ellison v. Robertson is the first. LOL, it's the first I could find that referenced digital copyright infringement. And I agree - that bad copies are somehow preferred is illogical to me. The same regarding piggy-backed 'bad' files. I can't logically understand 'bad' file sharing, when the chances of negative impact to my personal technology is so high.

Although, I'm laughing over here. I have sky dived, highway surfed(PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS YOUNG PEOPLE. IT IS THE HEIGHT OF IDIOCY.) rafted down class four rapids. I'm all over risking my body. But my computer? Are you CRAZY?!

Checksum is your friend if you download files from anywhere

omega12596 said:

I never said file sharing should be legal. I said the difference between file sharing and libraries/lending is the physical product. The paper. That's what the law boils down to. One doesn't have to like it, but I believe it illuminates why the law is so gray when it comes to IPT of digital property. And why recompense is so difficult to receive.

Click to expand...

File sharing is creating digital copies. The copyright is the exclusive right to create copies.

Lending/used books is the transfer of a physical chattel. No copy is created. The right of first sale, the right to sell or lend a book you own, is well-established. It does not include a right to duplicate or copy the work.

These things are very different.

Medievalist said:

You do not have to prove loss of income. All you have to do is prove violation of copyright. If the work is registered then the penalties are substantially higher. If an ISP or server owner does not comply within the time limits of the DMCA to a proper DMCA notice, then there are again, automatic schedules of fines.

The DMCA can be obscenely wrenched out of all reason--see the fines the RIAA has been able to collect in cases that actually went to court. They are unreasonable in the extreme.

This is just one reason why I think the DMCA is idiotic.

Click to expand...

This is what happens when legislation is written by industry lobbyists.

djf881 said:

File sharing is creating digital copies. The copyright is the exclusive right to create copies.

Lending/used books is the transfer of a physical chattel. No copy is created. The right of first sale, the right to sell or lend a book you own, is well-established. It does not include a right to duplicate or copy the work.

These things are very different.

Click to expand...

Yeah. If you're trying to sway me, LOL, you don't need to. I know what copyright is and how it's applied. I should, since I have a bunch of digital books floating around cyber space, LOL!

Instead of going back and forth about this again, how about I put it a different way. If copyright infringement is copyright infringement, and regardless of form a 'book' is a 'book', then why are copyright infringers of physical books afforded a 'virtual safety' in the law due to de minimis non curat lex?

Why? Because when dealing with a physical book, making a copy and giving it away has so little effect on the copyright owner the law cannot be bothered with addressing it. Moreover, it's quite difficult to prove this sort of infringement, unless it's on a mass scale.

The same cannot be said of infringement on a digital level. And while de minimis does protect file sharers as well, it's only to a degree. 10 or more copies of a single or more works downloaded/uploaded in 180 days is grounds for a felony charge.

Again, the way the two objects - which are IMO equal to one another - are handled is clearly different. They are different not because they are truly different things, but because they way they are packaged changes the way violators are punished. If I make ten physical copies of a book and pass them out, my impact on the bottom line of the copyright holder would fall under de minimis and so the question of legality is moot.

If I make ten copies and convert them to digital files, or if I make ten copies of a digital file, and put them on the internet, the argument is being made that I've had more impact and thus I wouldn't be able to claim de minimis. And in fact, I could suffer severe penalty.

These things are very different.

An interesting read about copyright-as-use vs. rights to payment came up on Techdirt today:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100820/00543610697.shtml

It's a good article and makes a good point. And the jist of it is spot on - there's no way to move forward when use=money is the standard 'right'. Use doesn't equal money and copyright is intended to help the progress of things, not guarantee payment for things.