VisorCentral.com - for rnunnink: re: copyright

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- for rnunnink: re: copyright (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=19990)

Posted by mensachicken on 12-02-2001 02:44 AM:

for rnunnink: re: copyright

Hi,

i just read the thread on illegal e-books and now it's closed and i wanted to comment on something:

originally posted by rnunnink:

quote:

The sources quoted by visorcental as good sources of ebooks are not very good. Most noncopyrighted books are at least 100 years old and the sources of copyrighted books are few and far between.

The sources quoted (for instance, memoware.com) are excellent. Your comment that most "noncopyrighted books are at least 100 years old" is a little silly. Their age is precisely why they are in the public domain (what you call "noncopyrighted").

If you want to read neuromancer or other such contemporary books, GO BUY THEM in the media in which they are available. Or, better yet, visit your library and borrow them.

What you're suggesting (stealing the books) is wrong. The reason it is wrong is because you are not really stealing books--you're taking money from the authors who worked very hard to write the books in the first place. As someone who makes their living by creating intellectual property, an author depends on the publishing industry for survival.

If you are dissatisfied with the current state (lack of) availability of a book, you are better off writing to the publisher or author and suggesting that an e-book would be

a) benifical to them as it would provide another means of income;
b) appreciated by you as it's your preferred media.

However, I suspect that the reason that it's your preferred media is precisely because it doesn't cost you anything. (I don't think that you have ever asked yourself who it does cost.) If the Harry Potter books were available as e-books, I doubt very much that you would purchase them.

What makes me think this?

originally posted by rnunnink:

quote:

Amazon sells ebooks and it is a shame.

Why is it a shame that the author is being properly compensated for their work? How would you like it if at the end of your work day your boss said "Sorry, man. Can't pay you. Someone else has decided you don't deserve your pay."

And as for you referring to VC's practice of closing threads with links to illegal merchandise as "anti-revolutionary"... please, grow up. Stealing is not revolutionary. You're making yourself look silly by trying to paint yourself with a adjective you don't need. "Childish" or "selfish" would be more appropriate.

mc

PS My apologies for "re-opening" this thread, but as someone who makes a living as an artist, it just plain bugs the hell out of me when others attempt to condone taking money out of my pocket while they're busy appreciating the fruits of my labour.

Posted by rnunnink on 12-02-2001 03:02 AM:

thank you for responding

My point was to discuss this position and I was not happy that it was quickly closed by the moderator. In answer to your question I do currently own all the books I mentioned and I would buy them if they were available in ebook format for a reasonable price. I think it is a shame the way ebooks are sold on amazon because of the high price that is charged and the lack of palm formatted texts. Amazon charges more for an ebook then a massmarket edition of the same book. I understand your position as an artist that you want to make money and I support that. I'm just not sure how you are going to keep doing that with the growth of the internet. The current business model employed by publishers seems to be unraveling and their solutions to the problem seem to be contributing to the decline of publishing. I was actually not trying to condone stealing but I am not actually sure if it is stealing. Is it stealing if upload a book in another form if I already own the book. Right now on Kazaa there are over 500,000 people uploading files. Are they all thieves and is it just another example of the declining morality of our society. Hope this thread stays open.

__________________
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
- David Byrne

Posted by GSR13 on 12-02-2001 03:35 AM:

I would guess your thread got closed because your main topic was whether or VisorCentral should allow illegal website links. You should have realized that is not open to discussion, nor should it be.

If you would like to discuss the future of ebooks and how they are handled, that is different. That discussion would probably be okay.

Asking VC to allow any illegal activity is crazy and the thread should be closed.

__________________
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. JOHN 14:2

Posted by tstarky on 12-02-2001 04:00 AM:

Re: thank you for responding

quote:
Originally posted by rnunnink
I was actually not trying to condone stealing but I am not actually sure if it is stealing.

If it is copyrighted and you didn't pay for it, it's stealing.

Teri

__________________
If at first you don't succeed....hide all evidence that you tried...

Posted by mensachicken on 12-02-2001 04:50 AM:

Re: thank you for responding

quote:
Originally posted by rnunnink
I was actually not trying to condone stealing but I am not actually sure if it is stealing.

There's a saying: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Though I appreciate what you're saying, at the same time, VC closed your thread because it was talking about illegal activity. How many people have to tell you something is illegal before you believe it (or until you research for yourself and find out the answer)?

quote:
Is it stealing if upload a book in another form if I already own the book.

Yes. It is stealing. You do not own the right to copy the book! You do not hold the COPYRIGHT. (See where the word comes from?)

quote:

Right now on Kazaa there are over 500,000 people uploading files. Are they all thieves and is it just another example of the declining morality of our society. Hope this thread stays open.

There's another saying: "If a thousand people do a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."

Buying a book does not give you copyright.

So, yes, they are all thieves if they are uploading works (songs, books, art, movies, software, whatever!) to which they do not own the copyright.

Same goes with the vast majority of people who use services like Napster. They're sharing songs they do not own copyright to. These people always tell me things like "Well, I like MP3s." Goody! So do I. But that doesn't mean you have to steal them. Last time my MP3 player counted the MP3s on my hard drive I had 9983 of them. But I obtained them all legally so the artists got their $. If I'm going to appreciate their work, they should be compensated for it--the same way you are at your job.

If you disagree with Amazon's pricing, the way to object is to not buy the ebook from them. If everyone acts likewise, the pricing will be reconsidered by the publisher. And for the most part, it is not the retailer who decides the price of the (e)book. It is the publisher. So don't blame Amazon. Again, write the publisher and ask:

1. hey, why's the damn ebook so expensive when it costs you next to nothing to publish in this format? (no paper costs, little distribution costs, no designer costs, etc.)

2. write the author (if you can) and ask the same thing. if they're as appalled with the price as you are, they can talk to their publisher about it.

There are many ways for you to speak out about what you feel is the mishandling of the ebook publishing business. Stealing the books is the least effective and most damaging way of doing so.

mc

Posted by homer on 12-02-2001 05:02 AM:

quote:
Amazon charges more for an ebook then a massmarket edition of the same book.

Mass-market anything is always cheaper per unit. That's the advantage of mass market.

quote:
I understand your position as an artist that you want to make money and I support that. I'm just not sure how you are going to keep doing that with the growth of the internet.

What does the growth of the internet have to do with intellectual property rights holders making or not making money?

If you are saying that the growth of the internet has changes the very ways we distribute media, well, yes, of course it has. And the mass-media outlets do need to figure how to embrace the new media distribution methods as opposed to fighting them.

quote:
The current business model employed by publishers seems to be unraveling and their solutions to the problem seem to be contributing to the decline of publishing.

I'd agree in that the media conglomerates are spending WAY too much money in trying to physically prevent piracy as opposed to putting that money towards new media distribution technologies.

quote:
I was actually not trying to condone stealing but I am not actually sure if it is stealing. Is it stealing if upload a book in another form if I already own the book.

Technically, no. It is stealing once you download someone else's copy of their book.

quote:
Right now on Kazaa there are over 500,000 people uploading files. Are they all thieves and is it just another example of the declining morality of our society.

No. Only the ones that download files are technically thieves.

Is this an example of declining morality? I don't think so. This has been going on for ever and probably always will. Even though it's easy to condone you for your remarks, I'm guessing that most of us have a few illegal MP3s and a few fonts they never paid for on the very machine they are typing their replies on.

For any of us that make a living with intellectual property, it's a part of business. It is inevitable that a certain percentage of your user-base will have obtained your work illegally. It comes with the territory. Does that make it right? Of course not. But that's what copyright laws are for. Unfortunately, too many companies (software, music, etc.) focus on stopping the percentage that do steal by penalizing the legitimate users via higher price-per-unit costs and annoying physical copy-protection gadgets.

All that said, I don't think e-books will ever replace paper books. A book is a book and always will be.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by rnunnink on 12-02-2001 12:55 PM:

is it stealing?

When I said I was not sure it was stealing. I still am not sure. It is a complicated issue and not as simple as you didn't pay for it you've broken the law. I meant specifically downloading an ebook from a so called illegal website. My understanding of copywrite law and copywrite enforcement is that if I copy a book and make it available for others I am breaking the law. Many people have ben prosecuted for this. If I create a website that allows others to upload it I am breaking the law. If I upload or even beam ebook to friend I am technically not breaking the law. Or if I tell others where they can upload I am not breaking the law. All the prosecutions for this kind of copywrite violation have been against the people who created the illegal ebooks or provided means for their distribution. The actual users of Napster were never charged with a crime were they?

__________________
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
- David Byrne

Posted by MarkEagle on 12-02-2001 01:57 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by rnunnink
When I said I was not sure it was stealing. I still am not sure...

...If I upload or even beam ebook to friend I am technically not breaking the law. Or if I tell others where they can upload I am not breaking the law.

It probably isn't stealing per se... you wouldn't be charged with larceny. It is still illegal.

From the U.S. Copyright Office Copyright Basics page:

quote:

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of �original works of authorship,� including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and

In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, �Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.�

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

Technically, even if you own a book, you are not allowed to reproduce it for personal or other uses. All copyright notices contain a statement similar to:

This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission.

As for why the original thread was closed, I need not justify my reasons as they are quite obvious. If you want to discuss the merits (or lack of) of copyright law, fine. If you want to bash people for living up to their obligations, that's another story. If you want to propagate illegal activities, forget about it.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by rnunnink on 12-02-2001 04:02 PM:

is it illegal?

Thank you Mark for your posting of some of the copyright basics. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that your actions are justified if I was advocating an illegal act. It is not clear to me the simple act of posting a link to an illegal website fits the definition of breaking the law. I think your posting of the copyright basics defends my position however and I will admit that the law is very vague on this issue. It is the exceptions to the law that offer the most confusion http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#107

From my reading of the limitations noncommercial use of copywrited material is allowed. The socalled Fair use doctorine

Uploading an ebook or an mp3 file is ok as long as you don't use the upload commercially.

I believe the act is therefore not illegal and Visorcentral has erred on the side of caution by defining the act of posting links as illegal. In todays litigious world that might be the right way to go. As member of this community and an advocate of Palm technology I think that the subject should be openly discussed.

Furthur research on this topic definetly muddies the water even more. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 seems on the surface to have elimated the fair use doctrine. Here is an interesting post by a congressman on what rights we still have http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/fairuse.htm

__________________
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
- David Byrne

Posted by volcanopele on 12-02-2001 04:28 PM:

Ah, but the specific section you cite, � 107, states that "fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." So unless you use the work for school or for writing a review, it doesn't count. Since you can't guarentee that this is the only reason the work will be used, as a poster of a link or an owner of a website posting the works, this section doesn't apply. Plus, I think this is only for people who cite a section of a work in a paper or something.

Jason

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by MarkEagle on 12-02-2001 10:57 PM:

Re: is it illegal?

quote:
Originally posted by rnunnink
Uploading an ebook or an mp3 file is ok as long as you don't use the upload commercially.

I believe the act is therefore not illegal...

Only if you have the copyright holder's permission to do so.

quote:
Visorcentral has erred on the side of caution by defining the act of posting links as illegal.

I don't believe we have erred at all. It is an illegal activity that will not be condoned. It's no different than letting the fox into the hen house.

quote:
As member of this community and an advocate of Palm technology I think that the subject should be openly discussed.

Within reason and the rules of this forum, sure. Members of any community must abide by the rules (and laws) imposed upon them.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Posted by miradu on 12-02-2001 11:19 PM:

I also want to chime back into the conversation after my so nicely worded words earlier (sarcastic)....

If you ever read Slashdot, or ANY tech news you will of heard of the DeCSS case.

There are too big thigns in this case. One somebody created the software, and two, 2600.com was sued for linking to the material.

Let me repeat - and so far the courts have decided in a way that makes this true - wheather I agree with it or super-strongly-oppose it, isn't the discussion but - it is right now ILLEGAL by the DMCA to link to illegal material.

Even though DeCSS is for movies, the book industry also is a multibillion dolalr industry, and it has a lot of power. From a page talking about the history of DeCSS they add this as a postscriptum.

quote:
What we have seen in DVDs, TPMs are not primarily used to make copying more difficult, but to restrict and control what the user can do with his purchased movie. The same holds true for ebooks. While many ebooks are available in open formats, such as HTML or plain text, companies trying to turn a profit have developed proprietary ebook formats that include TPMs. One example everyone knowns from the Sklyarov case is the Adobe ebook format, but there are others.

If we start distributing books. Link books. Anything. We very likely could get into a huge lawsuit. This board is for discussing legal, kid-appropriate, Visor-Related topics. It is for asking questions when thigns break, talking abotu the latest and upcoming devices, and most of all helpignthe newbies. If you want to trade illegal ebooks, please go elsewhere - by linking-by trading you are violating our Terms of Agreement, and thus we have every right to deny you the privliges of posting on VisorCentral.com.

Keep it clean. Keep it legal. Keep it fun.

__________________
-miradu

Posted by Techie2000 on 12-03-2001 02:23 AM:

Yeah but the thing is that Adobe was in violation of Russian law with its encryption. Sklyarov was just putting Adobe in compliance with Russian law. He just got screwed by the feds because he decided to come to the US.

Posted by Toby on 12-03-2001 02:30 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
No. Only the ones that download files are technically thieves.

No. If we're talking about copyright, the people that make the copies and make them available for distribution are also 'thieves'.

Posted by Toby on 12-03-2001 02:38 AM:

Re: is it stealing?

quote:
Originally posted by rnunnink
[...] The actual users of Napster were never charged with a crime were they?

Copyright is generally civilly enforced, not criminally. The users were not sued because it would have been bad P.R., not because they weren't violating copyright.

Posted by homer on 12-03-2001 04:46 AM:

quote:
No. If we're talking about copyright, the people that make the copies and make them available for distribution are also 'thieves'.

Thanks for correcting me, Toby...I was completely wrong with my statement. The person that actually copies the work is the one breaking copyright law (they did not posses the rights to copy said work). The person that downloads the copied file isn't necessarily breaking copyright law, but they are breaking the law (receiving stolen goods?).

Where the law get's murky is in making personal copies of work you have purchased. Technically, just because you own the CD, does not mean you can make MP3s for yourself. That said, it isn't something that will probably ever be enforced (it simply can't be).

While there are laws in place, copyright is really a matter of suing and countersuing. Sometimes, those with the bigger lawyers, win (ie, Napster).
There are some interesting cases coming up that pertain to Copyright and Trademark and Patents. Disney's characters including mickey are about to enter the public Domain. Of course, Disney does not want this to happen (and, to be honest, this is one of the few times that I'd side with Disney) and with their lawyers, they'll probably succeed in getting some of the copyright expriration rules 'bent' for them.

If you are looking for an interesting read, check out this case involving Coca-Cola:

http://www.GuerrillaNews.com/cocakarma/index.html

The article is about how Coca Cola may have let their copyright lapse and how one lone ad exec is battling the company for the rights he claims he owns.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by Yorick on 12-03-2001 07:31 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
Disney's characters including mickey are about to enter the public Domain. Of course, Disney does not want this to happen (and, to be honest, this is one of the few times that I'd side with Disney) and with their lawyers, they'll probably succeed in getting some of the copyright expriration rules 'bent' for them.

It isn't the characters that are falling out of copyright. It's the short films themselves. However, changes to the copyright rules made in 1998 -- lobbied for by Disney, among others -- mean the Disney shorts actually won't start to go out of copyright until 2023. By which time they'll likely find another way to renew them.
The characters (the names and depictions thereof) are protected by trademark, which is a whole different set of rules.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by homer on 12-03-2001 01:19 PM:

quote:
However, changes to the copyright rules made in 1998 -- lobbied for by Disney, among others --

Huh. Well, there you go...bigger lawyers = law on your side. I didn't realize that Disney had already taken care of that.

As for trademark vs. copyright, yes they are different things. Thanks for clarifying that.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by rnunnink on 12-03-2001 01:22 PM:

recieving stolen goods?

quote Homer

.

quote:
The person that actually copies the work is the one breaking copyright law (they did not posses the rights to copy said work). The person that downloads the copied file isn't necessarily breaking copyright law, but they are breaking the law (receiving stolen goods?).

I think that since this is a civil action and not a criminal there are no stolen goods to recieve. The people downloading from Napster were not prosecuted because of some bias against bad PR. They were not prosecuted because there is no penalty under existing law for the actions they tooks and their actions violated no provision of the act including the stricter 1998 act.

This is the kind of discussion I hoped to foster originally when my thread was closed so quickly

__________________
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
- David Byrne

Posted by Toby on 12-03-2001 03:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by homer
[...] The person that downloads the copied file isn't necessarily breaking copyright law, but they are breaking the law (receiving stolen goods?).

I'm not totally sure about that one, but IANAL.

quote:
Where the law get's murky is in making personal copies of work you have purchased. Technically, just because you own the CD, does not mean you can make MP3s for yourself. [...]

Actually, I could've sworn that case law has upheld the right to 'format-shift' works to which you are licensed (at least where the audio medium is concerned).

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:47 AM.

Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page