Am I doing something illegal? Libary downloads

[ctc]

>Morally, I agree IF the publisher keeps their material available.

THAT’S the sticking point for a lot of fans, but legally it’s still cut and dry. They’re under no obligation to reprint, print, copy, maintain or any thing else. Although your point SOUNDS innocent, what you’re basically saying is that if the publisher DOESN’T put their stuff out there, YOU will. You’ve taken their control over their own property away from them. Tying in to this:
>when my choice is illegally downloading free scans from original printed sources, or paying A LOT of money for reproductions I absolutely hate - I feel like I'm left without a real option.

There IS a third option: don’t read them. Sad but true, that’s the only legal.... and essentially moral one. I say moral, since if the owner doesn’t want the material out there you’re going against their wishes by copying it.

>if I legally buy these back issues the publisher gets nothing too, so, how is it legal or moral to resell these books

Intent. It’s understood that when you publish something it’s gonna be sold, and that once you’ve sold it, what happens to it is out of your hands. The only real control the creator has is over production: they decide when, how many, numbers....

Same with lending copies.... like at a library. Those copies go out with the intent they’ll be loaned. (I’m not sure if libraries have to pay extra for that though.) I’m sure a publisher can DENY libraries their works.... with a caveat relating to copyright and storage of said works at the National Library. (But my knowledge of such things is 20 years old....)

>I believe this kind of ambiguity is the reason people are so ambivalent towards copyright laws right now.

Well.... it’s not actually ambiguous and I suspect the REAL reason folks are ambivalent has more to do with what they WANT over what they think is right. Check out #1; it applies:

5 Reasons It's Still Not Cool to Admit You're a Gamer | Cracked.com

>The legal system wants to protect digital material as property - without the benefits of tangible property - and most people don't see the difference. I don't.

It’s called “intellectual property” and it’s kind of a big deal. If you have an idea, it’s yours. Period. The concept is the basis of the whole copyright notion. Trick is getting some tangible proof thereof. The medium doesn’t matter. Otherwise it’d be cool to make Batman radio plays ‘cos radio is different from comics, movies and tv.

>I just assumed that we are 'normal', and that 90% of the folks that enjoy films and music do the same - ?

No doubt.... but that doesn’t make it legal. But we ALL look the other way, especially if it’s something we really want or see the victims as faceless organizations. The only reason this sort of thing doesn’t get prosecuted more is ‘cos of what a huge pain doing so would be. (Remember when Metallica tried it a few years back?) The result isn’t worth the cost, time and bad feelings. So yeah; I don’t believe in keelhauling someone who dubs a tune off the radio or somesuch, but I think we have to accept that it IS wrong.

>YES it is ILLEGAL...sheeesh!! ...So is tearing off that little manufacturer's tag from your mattress!!
Actually.... it’s illegal for the SELLER to remove the tag. Once you get it home it’s perfectly fine.

Don C.

[cjefferys]

It's interesting that younger generations seems to accept copying and downloading the stuff as normal and find nothing wrong with it, it will be very difficult to change that attitude. And some organizations aren't helping themselves with such bad publicity, i.e. the RIAA (suing "little old ladies" for hundreds of thousands of dollars) and Sony (root kits), that it almost makes people want to break the law just to give them a big FU.

[david_b]

Technically you're copying copyright protected material - which is illegal. But:

A) you're not distributing it - so I don't see how you'd ever get caught.

B) those companies made their money off that material several times over by now.

Personally, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it!

Yes, Brazoo, I'm on your bandwagon as well. It's the nature of the 'beast' when you're dealing with recordable media (audio, video).

If it was a big enough issue, neighborhood rummage sales and eBay would have to be first on the chopping block (a bag of Star Trek DVDs for a quarter..? Why, SURE..)

As with internet pirate sites, you take risks into your own hands (imbedded viruses, etc..). I've downloaded media that I typically will turn around and buy at Target (DVDs for $5 like 'Blues Brothers' this last weekend..), or I had purchased at one point as a child but no longer have a turntable (like SGT Pepper on Mono..). No profits are being earned.

The ONLY time I turned a profit on-line was buying a Doctor Who VHS set off eBay for $10 and selling it on Amazon for $80. 'Seeds of Doom' was the 2-VHS set.

I equate it to buying a boxed Mego back in '75 for $3.99 and selling it for a $500 now? Again, it's not creating/distributing copyrighted stuff out of your basement for profit.

As for artists being ripped off.., that's more on their negotiations with their record companies, who know full-well copying will always cut into profits. Not that that severes the moral responsibility argument, just an industry-wide problem for many generations. I watched the History Channel programs on how the Beatle bootlegs helped bring down the Soviet Union and Communism.. Eh, it was certainly a lot of things, but it was the youth movement that gave strength and substance to the internal struggles.

Trust me, as what I've seen over in Kuwait and a lot of 'un-regulated' countries, bootleggin's worse than you can imagine. Not that that makes it right, just keeping perspective.

Don C., you're totally right on the 'knowing it's wrong' argument. We don't need music companies suing folks and copyright infringement laws to tell me when something I'm doing is not right.


david_b

[Brad]

Actually if you copy music for your own use it is NOT illegal. Not sure about books. Here is some info on this topic;

"There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster."

You can read the entire article here;

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Many people get up in arms about copyright infringement but they break the law quite often. It applies to far more then books and music. Technically you automatically own the copyright on everything you write, even your shopping list. So I am pretty sure there are a lot of folks that copy stuff that they don't own the copyrights to from the media or net.

And I laugh when I see folks point the finger towards the "young kids" for copying music when many of us (I am included) would copy albums to cassette tapes years back.

[TrueDave]

I see kids at the library reading comics who could NEVER afford them at todays prices.

I think the screwing goes both ways. We make illegal copies, they charge us more for less. ( commercials on paid cable?)

Business is war for money.

Personally I think it wont be long before we have to listen to songs and commercials simultaniously. I wanted to get these songs before they cant be had commercial free.

I am happy I have a weeks worth of music without constant commercials. I watched three years worth of Twilight Zone recentlly and it wasnt cut short , nor were there commercials or text along the screen and the credits werent cut off for more advertising.
I have to watch animated billboards all along the highway while Im trying to drive. I cant stand in a checkout line with out a TV overhead blaring constant commercials . I cant eat in many resturants without Tvs distracting my meal.

Illegal is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe I'm just being a smart consumer. ?

( I buy all my clothes from the Thrift store too. Wonder how Tommy Hillfinger feels about my "%50 percent off day" Goodwill jeans?)

[TrueDave]

We have waited how many decades? Warner brothers is just messed up. You have tried and waited as have we all. The 66 Batman is the only bootleg I own. we have no choice? Do without? Is that fair? Theres a lot of people on teh forum who probably love 66 Batman more than Star Trek TOS.
Buy the set . You are forgiven.

I I really have no answers but I must admit it has been hard to forgo the Batman TV series by purchasing it on bootleg.

[huedell]

I think the screwing goes both ways. We make illegal copies, they charge us more for less. ( commercials on paid cable?)

One "screwing" can land you in court and one can't.

Illegal is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe I'm just being a smart consumer. ?

Depends how you define "consumer" but the breaking of the law
is illegal in "anyone's eye".

Hey... I'm just illustrating a point... 'cause it really doesn't matter one
way or the other to me what people do to get what they want
regarding the subject matter here (it's essentially harmless)
... proceed at your own risk...
but to flaunt being a "rebel" in this fashion on a public board just
comes off a bit brash and/or cheesy to me.

Especially the part of saying that illegal things are legal. There ARE
standards of humility IMHO.

[david_b]

We have waited how many decades? Warner brothers is just messed up. You have tried and waited as have we all. The 66 Batman is the only bootleg I own. we have no choice? Do without? Is that fair? Theres a lot of people on teh forum who probably love 66 Batman more than Star Trek TOS.
Buy the set . You are forgiven.

Agreed, and Amen..!!

Waiting for Batman '66 on Blu-Ray, anyone..???

Sheesh, for all the years I had to watch it on B&W television as a kid, or on a fuzzy, snowy channel using a roof-top antenna pointing in the right direction, trying to make out who Batman's punching.., watching the TV Land eps on 7 DVDs with menus on my PC at work is a dream come true.

Content..?? I'm 'over-the-moon'.

Do yourself a favor, Adam West, and we promise not to turn you in..

[ctc]

>if you copy music for your own use it is NOT illegal

Well.... that's a sticking point too. It IS; unless you're copying something you've already paid for, for your own personal use. I can make as many copies of a CD that I want, provided I'm the only one going to be listening to them. It SOUNDS pointless, but it means you can make your own mix CD off your own storebought CDs. (Or books, or software, or whatever.)

Odd bit: It's not illegal to OWN a bootleg; just to make, sell or hand them out.

>Illegal is in the eye of the beholder.

Not so far as the courts are concerned. What saves most people is that it's usually not worth tracking them down, putting a case together and taking them to court. Like we were discussing in the customs forum; usually they'll send you a C&D, you'll pack it in, that'll be it.

Don C.

[Brazoo]

>Morally, I agree IF the publisher keeps their material available.

THAT’S the sticking point for a lot of fans, but legally it’s still cut and dry. They’re under no obligation to reprint, print, copy, maintain or any thing else. Although your point SOUNDS innocent, what you’re basically saying is that if the publisher DOESN’T put their stuff out there, YOU will. You’ve taken their control over their own property away from them. Tying in to this:
>when my choice is illegally downloading free scans from original printed sources, or paying A LOT of money for reproductions I absolutely hate - I feel like I'm left without a real option.

There IS a third option: don’t read them. Sad but true, that’s the only legal.... and essentially moral one. I say moral, since if the owner doesn’t want the material out there you’re going against their wishes by copying it.

It's a sticking point because A LOT of people think that's wrong. Copyright laws were never suppose to allow copyright holders to yank work out of culture indefinitely like that. It directly violates some of the laws core intentions.

Clearly defined limits were suppose to protect culture and society from that. Some of those limits include lengths of time companies could hold copyrights for. These limits have been extended and extended - and the original intent of the law has been corrupted. Works are suppose to fall into the public domain - that's why the public domain exists in the first place. To protect culture - to ensure creative growth - to make sure influential work is available for future generations.

The biggest problem with copyright law now is that whoever has the most money wins. And I can show you countless examples - but we're also going into other areas of that law, like fair-use.

(Hey, wait a second, I though you suppose to be the big anti-corporate guy on here? )

>if I legally buy these back issues the publisher gets nothing too, so, how is it legal or moral to resell these books

Intent. It’s understood that when you publish something it’s gonna be sold, and that once you’ve sold it, what happens to it is out of your hands. The only real control the creator has is over production: they decide when, how many, numbers....

Same with lending copies.... like at a library. Those copies go out with the intent they’ll be loaned. (I’m not sure if libraries have to pay extra for that though.) I’m sure a publisher can DENY libraries their works.... with a caveat relating to copyright and storage of said works at the National Library. (But my knowledge of such things is 20 years old....)

Yeah - but isn't understood that digital media is going to be shared too? How is that different?

I can't put legally purchased MP3s I don't want anymore on eBay. That's confusing to people - and I don't think it's just confusing because it's just a convenient excuse either. Again, I'm on your side for currently available published material - but I can legitimately see how a lot of people are confused.

I thought a lot of publishers offer libraries discounts - actually. I'm not sure about publishers denying sales to libraries - I thought they couldn't do that now - but I couldn't find anything in my quick searches online.

>I believe this kind of ambiguity is the reason people are so ambivalent towards copyright laws right now.

Well.... it’s not actually ambiguous and I suspect the REAL reason folks are ambivalent has more to do with what they WANT over what they think is right. Check out #1; it applies:

5 Reasons It's Still Not Cool to Admit You're a Gamer | Cracked.com

I don't think that fully applies to me, because I'm actually fairly moderate on the spectrum of people who question currant copyright laws. I don't think people should copy works that are still in print.

I agree that some people have an entitlement complex, but I think the corporations have an entitlement complex as well. Can you imagine if a corporation held copyrights to the works of Shakespeare? It's cultural robbery.

>The legal system wants to protect digital material as property - without the benefits of tangible property - and most people don't see the difference. I don't.

It’s called “intellectual property” and it’s kind of a big deal. If you have an idea, it’s yours. Period. The concept is the basis of the whole copyright notion. Trick is getting some tangible proof thereof. The medium doesn’t matter. Otherwise it’d be cool to make Batman radio plays ‘cos radio is different from comics, movies and tv.

Intellectual Property law is not the same thing as copyright law. IP laws are basically used to limit how ideas are used.

First of all, it's use as a defense is brand new. Secondly it's very controversial because it's been used to overwrite and in some cases extinguish the legal limitations on copyright holders.

Copyright law strictly protects copyright holders from getting their works reproduced - it doesn't protect ideas at all. Trademark laws protect brands - that's why "Batman" the comic couldn't be turned into "Batman" the radio play without legal recourse before IP laws.

The whole original intent of these laws was not to set limits on ideas - which is why IP laws are so controversial to so many people.

>I just assumed that we are 'normal', and that 90% of the folks that enjoy films and music do the same - ?

No doubt.... but that doesn’t make it legal. But we ALL look the other way, especially if it’s something we really want or see the victims as faceless organizations. The only reason this sort of thing doesn’t get prosecuted more is ‘cos of what a huge pain doing so would be. (Remember when Metallica tried it a few years back?) The result isn’t worth the cost, time and bad feelings. So yeah; I don’t believe in keelhauling someone who dubs a tune off the radio or somesuch, but I think we have to accept that it IS wrong.

Don C.

I'm with you to some degree here, but the limits are still very ambiguous.

Music publishers fought to prevent CD purchasers from duplicating CDs they bought and use them on their own iPods - for example. They wanted the purchasers license to be limited to the medium they bought it in - the same way software licenses are limited to one computer. The courts threw that out. Legally consumers are allowed to back-up information they purchase.

This makes a mess of previous copyright laws which prevented people from making copies of published works.

What's the difference between backing up a CD, and backing up a comic book? Then extend that to what's the difference between lending a comic and lending a digital file?

How do you explain the differences to younger generations that see no difference between physical and digital media?

Should laws be allowed to make criminals of 90% of a population?

I'm not onside with people who think everything should be free - I just don't think the laws are black-and-white either.

[Brazoo]

Odd bit: It's not illegal to OWN a bootleg; just to make, sell or hand them out.

Yeah - but there's this blurry line between bootlegs and counterfeits too. Counterfeits are technically illegal to buy and sell - I believe.

EDIT: I'd hate to put an idea out that I'm not more clear on - I can't trust my lousy memory - and I can't confirm this in the time I have today. One article I looked at said counterfeits were illegal to buy - but I can't validate that with a better source right now. Anyone know for sure?

[ctc]

>Copyright laws were never suppose to allow copyright holders to yank work out of culture indefinitely like that.

They came about originally ‘cos publishers ended up holding all the cards, and could screw the artist out of any fiscal compensation. They were originally applied to literary works.... you can see how, even TODAY musicians get boned by big companies, and it wasn’t that long ago that “creator owned” became a selling point for then mainstream comics.

>Some of those limits include lengths of time companies could hold copyrights for.

AHA! This comes about as the back-and-forth goes on. Copyright once died with the holder; or, after a set period of time. (When I got mine, 25 years back, it was 50 years after the death of the holder.) Corporate copyright added a new wrinkle, since the holder wouldn’t die. The IDEA was that if you could prove you were still using it, you could renew it. THIS one gets kinda murky, but suffice it to say.... nobody here is ever gonna own Batman. This is where TRADEMARKS come in. They’re different from copyrights, more ironclad, and can be renewed forever.

>To protect culture - to ensure creative growth - to make sure influential work is available for future generations.

That’s what a lot of folks say, but really: no. It’s all strictly fiscal. Does it REALLY matter if folks can make their (literally) own version of “The Count of Monte Cristo” or if they HAVE to slap spaceships in it and call it something else? Not really.

>The biggest problem with copyright law now is that whoever has the most money wins.

Yeah and no. On the UP-side, the technical age can make it EASIER to prove ownership without registering since I can put my stuff out on the net for free. Ta-dah! I got here first, I win! BUT that makes it more rife for ripoffs (the original point we were discussing) and isn’t as concrete as actually registering. (Or better yet; trademarking.) The most money doesn’t always win in these cases. (Look at “Clonus vs The Island.”) But often the sneakiest does.

>Hey, wait a second, I though you suppose to be the big anti-corporate guy on here?

HAW! I’m not actually anti-anything; except maybe stupid.... and the corps tend to excell at stupid. (One of us isn’t as dumb as ALL of us.)

>Yeah - but isn't understood that digital media is going to be shared too?

Yes and no. It depends what you’re considering “shared” to mean. If you want to give your friend a digital copy of a song, you’re still copying the code. It’s STILL piracy, and something is still being illegally replicated. There’s a clause on most store-bought software referring to how many computers you can legally run the software on at one time. So.... I can sell my old copy of Windows ‘95, provided I’ve removed Windows ‘95 with THAT serial number from MY system prior. Otherwise I’ve illegally copied code.... even if I did so backwards from how we normally think of stuff as being copied.

>I can't put legally purchased MP3s I don't want anymore on eBay.

THAT’S an odd one. The argument THERE is that the copy you’re selling isn’t technically the same copy you downloaded: even if it’s completely identical. Software on a disk can be passed on ‘cos I can sell the actual, original disk. I’m DEFINITELY selling the specific, individual version. The stuff on my computer is a copy of THAT; but remember: I can legally make as many copies as I want for my own use. The one on my computer falls into that category; and the note from the company about how many individual computers I can legally run that copy on is an extra condition of sale. A download exists as a burst of data; and it’s thought that any OTHER burst of data isn’t the same one. So I’m not sending you my specific copy of the song; I’m sending you a NEW copy. (Kinda how some folks surmise that the transporters on Trek aren’t actually sending YOU to the planet, but are sending an exact copy at the same time they destroy the original.)

Now; there ARE ways of setting things up so’s you could do this in a legal and verifiable way, bit it’s not worth it for folks like Apple to bother.

Don C.

[ctc]

>I thought a lot of publishers offer libraries discounts - actually.

I’m sure some do. The library thing goes a bit far afield for me, since I’m pretty sure no library would EVER be interested in anything I”ve produced. I know of some weird twists as far as libraries are concerned.

>I'm not sure about publishers denying sales to libraries - I thought they couldn't do that now -

They might. One of the confounding issues here is that a lot of folks reading this are probably thinking in terms of US copyright; which up until recently was different from everyone else’s. Here in Canada you’re SUPPOSED to send a copy of your stuff to the national library for archival purposes, and the actual rules for copyright place no other requirements on what you do with your stuff or how you distribute it.

>I agree that some people have an entitlement complex, but I think the corporations have an entitlement complex as well.

Definitely. That’s why the pendulum swings.... as each side manages to scream “GIMME!!! GIMME!!!!” louder than the other....

>Can you imagine if a corporation held copyrights to the works of Shakespeare? It's cultural robbery.

....depending on what you think of Shakespeare.... Funny thing; a LOT of his stuff was.... let’s say “appropriated” from other writers.

>Intellectual Property law is not the same thing as copyright law.

>Copyright law strictly protects copyright holders from getting their works reproduced - it doesn't protect ideas at all. Trademark laws protect brands

They actually all go together. Intellectual Property refers to the product of imaginative endeavors. Batman IS intellectual property. Copyright is the legal process by which USE of that property is enacted. If I had invented Batman, I would hold the copyright. (Unless I was dumb enough to sell it to some big company....) Copyright exists wether it’s formally documented or not; although it’s probably a good idea to get it legally registered. Trademarks are a more specific and rigorous form of copyright, in which your intellectual property is given a very specific and substantial legal presence. If I created Batman and didn’t sell the rights I could make his outfit pink and still own the copyright. If I had trademarked him and then made his outfit pink, I would hold the copyright on pink Batman but not necessarily the trademark unless it was established during the registry that being pink was somehow a facet of the character. ‘Course, YOU couldn’t make Batman pink and claim him as your own ‘cos I still have copyright. Unless you did so for satirical purposes (which falls under “fair use”) or for review or critique. (Also fair use.)

The ambiguity comes in when fair use is disputed, or when someone makes something that’s pretty close to something someone else already created.

>They wanted the purchasers license to be limited to the medium they bought it in

GIMME GIMME GIMMEEEEEE!!!!!!

>Legally consumers are allowed to back-up information they purchase.

Yup. Like the Windows example. Hence why the courts threw it out. Copying a CD I bought onto MY ipad doesn’t violate copyright.

>This makes a mess of previous copyright laws which prevented people from making copies of published works.

Not really.

>What's the difference between backing up a CD, and backing up a comic book?

Nothing. And you can legally make as many scans of your comics as you want. BUT:

>Then extend that to what's the difference between lending a comic and lending a digital file?

‘Cos that digital file ISN’T the original work you paid for. You MIGHT make an argument if you lend the comic, ‘cos the comic is coming back to you. (Theoretically....) ‘Course, at this point it probably isn’t worth it for the copyright owner to track down who has what, for how long, what their intent is.... But if you put your copy on a website so’s ANYBODY can “borrow” it, there’s more in it for them to shut you down ‘cos the potential damage is immense. On your own, you can really only pass that comic around to SO MANY people....

....which doesn’t make it RIGHT; it’s STILL illegal, but it’s not worth enforcing. (Which you could argue isn’t right either; but this is where practicality meets ideology....)

>there's this blurry line between bootlegs and counterfeits too.

Nope. They’re two different names for the same thing.

>Counterfeits are technically illegal to buy and sell - I believe

Illegal to sell; not buy. (Unless you intend to RE-sell them....) Hence why 90% of the population escapes punishment.

Don C.

[TrueDave]

I honestlly didnt mean to seem like I was bragging or something. What I really intend to say is more people should get out there and support the public library.
I just came back from the library. I ran into one of the doctors at the practice I go to. I said hello and we compared stacks of Cds we were borrowing!

My librarian asked me if I copy them . I went slack jawed. She said it's okay She just couldnt see me listening to that many CDs that quick. We had a long talk and I will redouble my efforts to check out and order as mucgh stuff from them as possible.
The Cincinnatti Public Libary has had some serious financial problems in the past decade. Branches closing, hours cut , WORST is this means Jobs lost.

People have to sort out and deliver this stuff between branches, she told me thier jobs are particlly dependant on the amount of activity they get so I am helping.

Hey guys check out your libaries! That means more money for Megos!

I LOVE THE CINCINNNATI PUBLIC LIBARY! :-D

[TrueDave]

Oh, as a libarian of course she likes to see books go out regularlly too. I have alreadty read my branches entire SCI FI collection. So I ask for recommendations from teh Book Club lady. Opras boook club has some nice family drama fiction I've enjoyed.
You can never go wrong with Biographies. And I always have a couple of research books out. Right now a Back Care Mind-Body theory book and a book on Teaching English to speakers of forien languages.
I can recommend some great stuff to start out with if youre not big rbook folks. ( Start with HG Wells or Jack London's short stories!)