Funny I don't feel like a criminal

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

And a theft of bandwidth by linking directly. :P

I know you're joking, but people have actually tried to claim that in the past. Most famously Rupert Murdoch.

[clockworkzombie]

Originally Posted by kennyc

AH, but I didn't "take it" from the owner, I just "linked" to it.

Actually I was referring to the OP with my comment. It just happened to have multiple targets, apparently.

[darylbrayman]

To Harry T. Yes I deleted the book from my reader and computer but that is just to save space. I bought the book at the Sony store so anytime in the future I could re-download it. But what would be the point, I've already read it. I do reread books but I usually go a few years between readings. At this point and time the only copy, within reason, is on my mothers ebook reader, and of course her computer.

My mother actually asked me the other day if she could join my Sony account. I had to say no, bad son! I already share my account with my wife. 2 X ereaders, 2X computers. I work offshore so I authorize and de-authorize my work computer. That's five of my six devices. Sorry mom.

Regards, Daryl

[guyanonymous]

I know.

Having a past involvement with professional photography, I'm very aware of image 'theft' (copyright infringement in itself, despite being ubiquitous), bandwidth 'theft' and misuse of image-rights.

Obviously Kenny doesn't see those types of theft as significant or "wrong" or morally repugnant.

I didn't let it bother me, perhaps because it affected me only minimally and I based my business on charging for service, not for anticipated future prints/sales etc. I also recognized that that was reality and there wasn't much that I could do about it. I adjusted my business model accordingly to deal with reality, not how I wished reality was based on my own immeasurable and uncomparable morality.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

In order for that to work (somebody else police it), you'd have to criminalize all copyright infringement. That's probably a really bad idea.



The value of what? You're talking about uploading, or downloading? It's debatable whether downloading (receiving content from somebody else who is infringing on the right to distribute) is even illegal, let alone the technical hurdles that make it fairly impossible to even monitor.

If you are proposing to explicitly criminalize downloading, that is going to have a MUCH bigger impact than I think you realize. It would effectively kill off the internet.

I don't think so. And maybe the angle to prevent it is to criminalize the uploading of copyrighted material and not focus on the downloaders.

But either way I don't think downloading/uploading copyrighted material being criminalized would kill the internet. I use it perfectly fine with no downloading of copyrighted books, music, movies, images etc. I use forums, read news sites and blogs, watch streaming video on official sites like the network sites hulu etc.

As for whether downloading/uploading copyrighted material should be illegal, we've had that argument a million times on here, so no real point in it again. I think it should be as its the closet way you can get to theft and losing sales with digital content. You and other's don't and neither is going to change our minds so no need to bore the forum with another fruitless debate over that.


Oh and by value I meant what the retail value of that digital content is. If it's a $1 song, the penalty would be $1.25. (Value +25%). $10 e-book? $12.50 penalty.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But either way I don't think downloading/uploading copyrighted material being criminalized would kill the internet.

Uploading, no. Downloading, absolutely.

Oh and by value I meant what the retail value of that digital content is. If it's a $1 song, the penalty would be $1.25. (Value +25%). $10 e-book? $12.50 penalty.

My point was, there's a big difference in the "value" when uploading vs downloading. Do you only fine someone the value of a single copy when they are distributing without permission?

[Krystian Galaj]

On the subject of copies being made, in memory and on hard drives, let's not forget about content of the printed book transformed into light waves so they can reach your eyes and let you read it - a transformation often caused by the reader by turning on the light. That's a copy as well.

Edit: Or might It call it format-shifting?

[guyanonymous]

Thank you for carrying things to the extreme...and I agree 100%. What's worse - what if multiples sets of eyes are involved. Reading over the shoulder of another is criminal!

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Uploading, no. Downloading, absolutely.

Still don't see why. I'm on the internet all the time and I don't download anything illegally. I hardly download anything period. Beyond reading text on web pages, most content I consume is streaming (and all legal).

My point was, there's a big difference in the "value" when uploading vs downloading. Do you only fine someone the value of a single copy when they are distributing without permission?

Uploaders pay that fine for each copy they've had downloaded from their site, torrent etc. Downloaders would pay it for each copy they've downloaded.

But I'd be ok with the law just focusing on uploaders as if you kill the supply the demand is moot. It will never be killed, but you can at least reduce it if we get better systems to monitor illegal uploads, and clear (and reasonable) penalties that fit the crime.


I think eventually it will all be moot. We'll get to a digital future were we don't own anything and just pay for unlimited access to materials on networks. No more paid discs or downloads of movies, stream them etc.

That will kill piracy and the used market, and it's what the big publishers, studies and labels will do eventually when the technology and infrastructure is there. Thankfully, that's a long ways off. But I think that's pretty inevitable to happen by the end of this century.

[guyanonymous]

The uploaders are all the law, in the US and Canada, at least, focuses on currently.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

The uploaders are all the law, in the US and Canada, at least, focuses on currently.

True. Though it kind of gets both when we're talking about limewire (if that's even still around) torrents etc. since the people they are getting are big uploaders and downloaders.

But yeah, I don't think they're going after the people who just download from torrents, p2p file sharing programs etc. while not contributing their files to others.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Still don't see why. I'm on the internet all the time and I don't download anything illegally.

How do you know? Do you personally research with every link you click on that the host has been granted permission from the copyright holder? If not, you better start as soon as they criminalize downloading. Any link you click on is potentially copyright infringed material. You've probably just been assuming that anything you download up to this point is legal, and you'd probably be right. However, if it becomes a criminal offense to be wrong, you'd better start doing your research. Of course, it's going to be nearly impossible to find that information out.

I hardly download anything period. Beyond reading text on web pages, most content I consume is streaming (and all legal).

Reading text on a web page is also downloading copyrighted material.

What you probably meant to say was downloading with the specific intent of receiving copyright infringed material should be criminal, but intent is a very tricky thing in court. That's not going to be nearly as clear cut and easy to distinguish as you might think.

Somebody could make a post on here and cut/paste copyrighted material into it. If you read that post... guess what... you just downloaded copyrighted material without permission of the rights holder. Would you say that you are now a criminal, or have even done anything illegal?

That's exactly why copyright law talks about distribution of content, not receiving it. Putting the responsibility on the person receiving the content is unworkable.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

True. Though it kind of gets both when we're talking about limewire (if that's even still around) torrents etc. since the people they are getting are big uploaders and downloaders.

They're getting them for uploading, the downloading is irrelevant.

But yeah, I don't think they're going after the people who just download from torrents, p2p file sharing programs etc. while not contributing their files to others.

They can't really go after them.

[clockworkzombie]

Speaking of format shifting. I have a multitude of paperbacks and I was thinking of purchasing a book scanner to scan in my treasured books to keep reading them in what ever digital device I use. What are the legalities there?

Whilst I was downloading the free versions of the EE Doc Smith stuff i found text files of the entire lensman series and downloaded these too. Some of these are not available for free.

I cannot purchase these books new. Could I treat it like my CDs? I copy my Cds into iTunes then pack the discs away, I feel a little uneasy about downloading these files and packing my books. I am happy to keep the paperbacks if I can pack them into boxes and not have them invaded by insects etc.

It is interesting I would have no qualms if I scanned them in myself. I understand I should keep my paperbacks that I format shift.

A pity there is not a pay for use publishing industry service to accept my books and giving me a digital copy instead. The first copy of any older book would have to be scanned in but the rest would have greater profit and the paper books could be destroyed or sold in a giant second hand book store where they would make even more money from luddites sneering at our new fangled readers.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by clockworkzombie

Actually I was referring to the OP with my comment. It just happened to have multiple targets, apparently.

Hee-Hee!