Harry Potter EBooks? - Palmtop

This is a discussion on Harry Potter EBooks? - Palmtop ; "rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" wrote in message : > Uh, what centuries were those?????? Which thousands of authors were > those???? > > Even in ancient Greece and Rome, writers were paid for their writing. > They were paid by their patrons. The ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 132

Thread: Harry Potter EBooks?

  1. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "rlsusenet@NOSPAMPUHLEEZschnapp.org" wrote in message
    :
    > Uh, what centuries were those?????? Which thousands of authors were
    > those????
    >
    > Even in ancient Greece and Rome, writers were paid for their writing.
    > They were paid by their patrons.


    The intellectual property as we know it dates back about two centuries (a
    bit more, time pases...). One can give a date: 1777, and and a name:
    Beaumarchais.

    Before that, authors had no rights whatsoever after they have published
    their work. As you say, they were paid by patrons. It was by no means a
    right to be paid.

    The intellectual property laws were an improvement to the authors-publishers
    relations: publishers had now to pay the authors. It now poisons the
    publishers-public relations.

  2. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    AaronJ wrote:
    > jeff wrote:
    >
    >
    >>AaronJ wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>Is that not the definition of a Library?
    >>>I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
    >>>authors work free of charge...

    >
    >
    >>That's because the publisher gives you permission.

    >
    >
    > Yes, downloading ebooks is illegal. Nobody here disputes that.
    >
    >
    >>This is not a tough concept, folks.

    >
    >
    > Trouble is that you're not getting the concept of reality vs legality.
    > Here is the original question:
    >
    > (1) I go to the library, borrow a book, read it for free, and return the book.
    > (2) I go to the net, download the book, read it for free, and erase the book.
    >
    > *OTHER THAN LEGALITY* - what is the difference? In REALITY there is no
    > difference. In either situation you read the authors material and no one gets
    > paid.
    >

    The difference, once again, is PERMISSION. This is MUCH MORE than a
    legal difference. It involves the implied de-facto social contract
    under which most civilized people agree to function. Societies seem to
    automatically align in these ways, for the purpose of promoting harmony.

    I sense by your questions that you're not into subtlety. Here's a
    clue... Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and because of this,
    simple black-and-white answers are always suspect.

    Jeff

  3. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "AaronJ" wrote in message
    news:qffqd1pgbvu2sili9gr5aog0h290ipvmnb@4ax.com...
    > "Tim McKenny" wrote:
    >
    >>I've yet to see someone at the library photocopy an entire book. Or an
    >>entire chapter, for that matter.

    >
    > Ah. So you don't see all copyright violations as bad then. It only becomes
    > bad
    > when the quantity increases. Ok to steal a piece of candy, but not the
    > whole box eh...


    Some works may be copied in part for reference useage and one does not break
    any laws doing so. I believe that there is also an exception for quoting a
    portion of copyrighted material for review purposes. I think this was added
    to the law to protect newspapers and magazines that review books and such.



  4. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tony Clark" wrote:

    >Some works may be copied in part for reference useage
    >and one does not break any laws doing so.


    I just looked in my PC Magazine and it quite plainly says "Material in this
    publication may not be reproduced for any purpose without written permission".
    Are they just blowing smoke? Magazines seem to be a regular resident on the copy
    machine at my library, put there by the criminals I was mentioning before...

  5. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "Nicolas George" wrote in message
    news:dbirkl$10oh$1@biggoron.nerim.net...
    SNIP

    >
    > No, your reasoning is bogus. There is a quite good illustratin here: > http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons...0&mode=classic >:
    >
    > "Isn't that kind of like saying if I don't give you everything in my
    > wallet
    > I'm costing you everything in my wallet?"
    >


    Sorry but I don't agree that the reference is applicable here. You failed to
    quote the second panel in which the person refers to downloading free
    software. We are not talking about downloading free e-books here.

    > If someone has strictly decided "I read it for free or I do not read it at
    > all.", there is absolutely no way that reading it for free, either legally
    > or illegaly, may harm the author (or the publisher).
    >


    Well I think the courts have proven you wrong on this point. EG the case
    against Napster and the users of Napster.

    > Your comparaison with material goods is irrelevent: by stealing a material
    > good, you prevent its rightful owner from using it. It is not true with
    > informational goods.
    >


    I didn't make the comparison to material goods I simply stated that
    informational works produce revenue just like a job, or if you like material
    goods. So while you might not be depriving the owner of the use of the
    information you are most certainly depriving the owner from collecting
    revenue from the sale of the information. And that is what the judicial
    system calls damages which are fully recoverable in a civil suit.

    > And the point you are missing is that I'm talking ethics, not law.
    >
    >> In this case the intent and spirit of the law are identical.

    >
    > No, you are wrong. The spirit of the law is to protect authors against
    > unscrupulous publishors (and theatre actors), not to protect the publisher
    > against the public. At the time the law was designed, there was no way the
    > public could have any other economical influence than buying the book, so
    > it
    > has not been taken into account at all.
    >


    Check this link for an overview of what a copyright is
    http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

    You will notice that it not only covers the authors but also give them the
    power 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;"

    This would cover and protect publishers as well. Also note "In the case of
    works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be
    the author." So in effect the publisher can become the author if the writer
    is hired to write a book which is frequently the case.

    >> Just because the concept of "thou shalt no
    >> steal"

    >
    > Look in the law, you will not find the word "steal", you will find the
    > words
    > "copying without the consent of the author". It is a great victory of the
    > publishers to have people like you using the word steal to speak of that.
    >


    In case you don't have a dictionary here's a definition of stealing from the
    web:

    "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".

    Play whatever word games you like but reproducing copyrighted material
    without consent seems to fit the definition of stealing to me (and many
    other people too).

    SNIP

    >
    >> Just because the majority of people want something to be
    >> legal doesn't mean it ever will be.

    >
    > I thought it was the meaning of democracy. I must have been wrong.
    >


    Perhaps in a true democracy, which we don't have here in the United States
    (or anywhere else for that matter), the majority rules. In a legal system
    like the US we have controls that prevent the "tyranny of the masses". Case
    in point, the majority of people in the US were agreeable to laws based on
    legal concepts like "Separate but Equal" which discriminated against people
    base on race. The Supreme Court ruled this was violation of people's civil
    rights and the laws were struck down. The majority rules only when it
    doesn't violate another person's rights.

    >> I for one wish that book publishers
    >> would embrace some of the new technology and distribute material
    >> electronically. I believe it would actually increase their sales overall
    >> and
    >> could also increase profit margins too.

    >
    > I agree, but it does not contradict my ethical statement.
    >
    > In fact, I find it somewhat an argument ethically pro the illegal copying:
    > if the publishers do not provide the product that one wants (e-books),
    > there
    > is no way they can complain if one get it from others means.
    >

    Many people have tried to justify their illegal actions based on ethics. To
    me that's a very slippery slope. Better to work to change the law than to
    try and rationalize breaking the law. The one area that I think is somewhat
    questionable for printed material is making "archival" copies for personal
    use. This has already been covered for cable and broadcast programming (VCR
    taping), audio recordings (cassette tapes) and computer SW (making backup
    copies) but for some reason it hasn't been ruled on with respect to books
    and magazines. It would seem that there is legal precedence for this but I
    don't know that it's been tested in court.

    Cheers
    TC



  6. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "AaronJ" wrote in message
    news:i1nrd15svqp58mva7q0v41td398nm5of2g@4ax.com...
    > "Tony Clark" wrote:
    >
    >>Some works may be copied in part for reference useage
    >>and one does not break any laws doing so.

    >
    > I just looked in my PC Magazine and it quite plainly says "Material in
    > this
    > publication may not be reproduced for any purpose without written
    > permission".
    > Are they just blowing smoke? Magazines seem to be a regular resident on
    > the copy
    > machine at my library, put there by the criminals I was mentioning
    > before...


    Well you need to get back to the library and do some review on copyright
    laws, but to save you some time here is the relevant section:

    107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the 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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any
    particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
    commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
    copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
    copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair
    use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    So without knowing what people are making the copies for I can't say if they
    are or are not violating the law, but certainly there is a provision for
    people to make copies for educational purposes.

    TC



  7. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "Sky_rider" wrote in message
    news:2odrd1pi0q0ibj7o20rm8mb3i5p4l1iqnp@4ax.com...
    SNIP

    >>> So it's ok for me to allow any number of people to view a DVD or read
    >>> a book free... but a library which does exactly the same thing must
    >>> pay... which makes *no* sense whatsoever!

    >>
    >>Can you expound on this, please? I'm afraid I don't understand where
    >>you're
    >>coming from.

    >
    > The library must pay a fee to the author for permission to release a
    > book for borrowing.
    >
    >>I've never heard of a Library charging people for checking out a book or
    >>DVD
    >>(not including late fees, of course).

    >
    > They don't usually charge the borrower... tho they *can*... I'm sure
    > there's a private socialist library in Clerkenwell that charges
    > borrowers for loans... anyway... the fees are normally covered in the
    > UK (and Australia) by the local council who include the costs of
    > borrowing in the subsidies they pay the library service.
    >

    SNIP

    I don't know about Australian law but the US Copyright laws covers the
    exception for libraries as follows:

    108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and
    archives

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the
    provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a
    library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of
    their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a
    work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such
    copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if -

    (1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct
    or indirect commercial advantage;

    (2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public,
    or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or
    archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other
    persons doing research in a specialized field; and

    Take note of item (1) which expressly forbids the purpose of commercial
    advantage and (2) which states that the library must be a public library.
    Likewise the Library does not pay the author a fee for lending the book.
    They may pay, however, for acquiring a copy of the material in printed form.

    In the US Libraries are the exception to the rule, within certain
    guidelines.

    TC



  8. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tony Clark" wrote:

    >So without knowing what people are making the copies for I can't say if they
    >are or are not violating the law,


    No, you can't tell about individual patrons, but as a general rule I think it's
    safe to say that there are copyright violations happening on a daily basis at my
    local library copy machine. And they are just as guilty of a copyright violation
    as those downloading books. I think that was the point I was trying to make,
    although I forget why and to who I was trying to make it...

    >but certainly there is a provision for
    >people to make copies for educational purposes.


    I read the civil code you posted and it seems to confirm what you say. But I
    still wonder why a magazine (and it's high priced lawyers) would print that
    warning unless they thought they could legally back it up if necessary.

    "Material in this publication may not be reproduced for
    any purpose without written permission".

  9. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 02:37:25 GMT, Sky_rider
    wrote:

    >The library must pay a fee to the author for permission to release a
    >book for borrowing.


    they do ? oh yes,
    http://www.plrinternational.com/back...background.htm
    you live and learn.

    One of the key distinctions IMO between books in a library and
    electronic media is that in the former case there is one physical
    thing that can only be in one place at once, whereas with the latter
    thousands of copies can be made from one sold or licensed item.

    Phil
    --
    spamcop.net address commissioned 18/06/04
    Come on down !

  10. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tony Clark" wrote in message
    :
    > Sorry but I don't agree that the reference is applicable here. You failed to
    > quote the second panel in which the person refers to downloading free
    > software. We are not talking about downloading free e-books here.


    When one would not have bought the book anyway (and whatever anyone says,
    one knows if for oneself a given book is worth buying or not), it is the
    very same.

    > Well I think the courts have proven you wrong on this point. EG the case
    > against Napster and the users of Napster.


    Bis repetita. I am talking ethics, not law. Courts rulings do not bind
    anyone at the ethic level.

    > So while you might not be depriving the owner of the use of the
    > information you are most certainly depriving the owner from collecting
    > revenue from the sale of the information.


    When one would not have bought the book anyway, one is not depriving the
    author of anything.

    > This would cover and protect publishers as well.


    This does not disprove my point.

    > In case you don't have a dictionary here's a definition of stealing from the
    > web:
    >
    > "the act of taking something from someone unlawfully".
    >
    > Play whatever word games you like but reproducing copyrighted material
    > without consent seems to fit the definition of stealing to me (and many
    > other people too).


    Copying something does not take anything to anyone.

    > Many people have tried to justify their illegal actions based on ethics. To
    > me that's a very slippery slope. Better to work to change the law than to
    > try and rationalize breaking the law.


    You missed a point: the law is not able to judge on some criteria. Consider
    two people in fromt of their computer, who thinks (honestly, for
    themeselves):

    A: "I really want to read Harry Potter. I'll buy it tomorrow first thing.
    Hey, what do I find on this warez site? I can download Harry Potter for
    free. Cool, that will save me fifteen bucks."

    B: "Harry Potter is not bad, but I can't see the point of all that fuss. If
    I find it at the library, I may read it, but I'll have to wait, because all
    volumes at the library are borrowed. Hey, what do I find on that warez site?
    I can download Harry Potter for free. Well, I have almost finished my last
    novel, why not read it that way?"

    My entire point is that A is ethically wrong while B is ethically ok, since
    it does not change anything at all for anyone else than B.

    But for the law, the situations are exactly the same: the book is
    downloaded, read, but not bought, and A is able to lie and pretend he tought
    like B. Both situations must be either allowed or forbidden the same way.

  11. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    jeff wrote:
    > AaronJ wrote:
    >
    >> jeff wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> AaronJ wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Is that not the definition of a Library?
    >>>> I waltz in, borrow a book, and read the
    >>>> authors work free of charge...

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> That's because the publisher gives you permission.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, downloading ebooks is illegal. Nobody here disputes that.
    >>
    >>
    >>> This is not a tough concept, folks.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Trouble is that you're not getting the concept of reality vs legality.
    >> Here is the original question:
    >>
    >> (1) I go to the library, borrow a book, read it for free, and return
    >> the book.
    >> (2) I go to the net, download the book, read it for free, and erase
    >> the book.
    >>
    >> *OTHER THAN LEGALITY* - what is the difference? In REALITY there is no
    >> difference. In either situation you read the authors material and no
    >> one gets
    >> paid.
    >>

    > The difference, once again, is PERMISSION. This is MUCH MORE than a
    > legal difference. It involves the implied de-facto social contract
    > under which most civilized people agree to function. Societies seem to
    > automatically align in these ways, for the purpose of promoting harmony.
    >
    > I sense by your questions that you're not into subtlety. Here's a
    > clue... Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and because of this,
    > simple black-and-white answers are always suspect.
    >
    > Jeff


    The point is, you have to care in the first place. I make my
    justifications so I feel better about myself, then I don't care.

  12. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    AaronJ wrote:
    > "Tony Clark" wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Some works may be copied in part for reference useage
    >>and one does not break any laws doing so.

    >
    >
    > I just looked in my PC Magazine and it quite plainly says "Material in this
    > publication may not be reproduced for any purpose without written permission".
    > Are they just blowing smoke? Magazines seem to be a regular resident on the copy
    > machine at my library, put there by the criminals I was mentioning before...


    Possibly. They say that you can't reproduce it. Period. But some
    reproduction is legally permissible. But they don't say that.

  13. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "David Loftus" wrote in message
    news:1121808504.740026.133230@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
    > > if the publishers do not provide the product that one wants (e-books),

    there
    > > is no way they can complain if one get it from others means.

    >
    >
    > Ermm . . . desire confers a right?
    >
    > This is the rationale a rapist might employ for ravishing his
    > neighbor's daughter with impunity.


    his neighbour is a pimp? whoda thunk it? are daughters intellectual property
    or just plain old property? stealing a paperback from a drugstore is somehow
    equivalent to rape? how about raping an orphaned person? who gets hurt there
    and how?

    your analogy is most thought-provoking... no more downloading for me...
    (would wearing a condom make a difference?)


    michael



  14. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "AaronJ" wrote in message
    news:vqcqd1l4ankd8go9rim8o6dvs1vdi5qfnj@4ax.com...
    > "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." wrote:
    >
    >>And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
    >>your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
    >>charge.

    >
    > Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and
    > read the
    > authors work free of charge...


    No, your tax dollars go to paying for the library and all the books within,
    unless you're a child who doesn't work and pay taxes. In that case your
    mommy and daddy pay taxes so you can read books from the library.

    TC



  15. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:29:18 GMT, "Tony Clark"
    looked at Ron with an evil Grint in
    his eye and said :
    >"AaronJ" wrote in message
    >news:vqcqd1l4ankd8go9rim8o6dvs1vdi5qfnj@4ax.com...
    >> "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." wrote:


    >>>And what do you do for a living? Maybe we should all just waltz on in to
    >>>your workplace and take whatever product you are associated with free of
    >>>charge.


    >> Is that not the definition of a Library? I waltz in, borrow a book, and
    >> read the
    >> authors work free of charge...


    >No, your tax dollars go to paying for the library and all the books within,
    >unless you're a child who doesn't work and pay taxes. In that case your
    >mommy and daddy pay taxes so you can read books from the library.


    Are you saying orphans can't use public libraries?? Cos if you
    are..... !!!
    --
    Skyrider

    Visit Australian Opinion...where comment counts!
    http://www.australianopinion.com

  16. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "Sky_rider" wrote in message
    news:sf6rd1tvbmbsrf5dcnpc9g7ms2sf6q3tgp@4ax.com...
    SNIP

    >
    > In case you missed it, one post reminded people I have several years
    > worth of intellectual property open for public view at my slang
    > dictionary site (http://www.ops.org) despite it having been published.
    >
    > I have a vested interest in making the site 'fee paying' in some way
    > to persuade people to go buy the book... but I don't. It's effectively
    > available free of charge.
    > --


    Making it available was your choice as the copyright holder of that
    material. Many authors do the same at sites like Baen books.

    TC



  17. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "Nicolas George" wrote in message
    news:dblrvq$29bb$1@biggoron.nerim.net...
    > "Tony Clark" wrote in message
    > :
    >> Sorry but I don't agree that the reference is applicable here. You failed
    >> to
    >> quote the second panel in which the person refers to downloading free
    >> software. We are not talking about downloading free e-books here.

    >
    > When one would not have bought the book anyway (and whatever anyone says,
    > one knows if for oneself a given book is worth buying or not), it is the
    > very same.


    No the difference is that in the case of "free" software (or e-books if you
    like) the owner of the copyright has granted you permission to have the
    material without paying for it. When it's not free you are taking what is
    not yours.
    >
    >> Well I think the courts have proven you wrong on this point. EG the case
    >> against Napster and the users of Napster.

    >
    > Bis repetita. I am talking ethics, not law. Courts rulings do not bind
    > anyone at the ethic level.


    Let me remind you what you wrote since you conveniently snipped it

    "If someone has strictly decided "I read it for free or I do not read it at
    all.", there is absolutely no way that reading it for free, either legally
    or illegaly, may harm the author (or the publisher)."

    Whatever your ethical rationalization may be the courts have decided that
    you are in fact harming the publisher/author and they are entitled to recoup
    those damages. When people cannot agree they take their case to the courts
    to decide the matter. You could argue your ethics in front of a judge and
    you would lose just like Napster and all the people that were sued for
    downloading from Napster.

    By the way, how do you harm someone ethically?

    >
    >> So while you might not be depriving the owner of the use of the
    >> information you are most certainly depriving the owner from collecting
    >> revenue from the sale of the information.

    >
    > When one would not have bought the book anyway, one is not depriving the
    > author of anything.
    >


    Twisted logic. You want access to the material without due compensation.
    Whether you would or would not have bought the book it irrelevant. You are
    getting something (the enjoyment of reading the book) yet the copyright
    holder is getting nothing.

    SNIP
    >
    > Copying something does not take anything to anyone.
    >


    I think you meant "take anything AWAY from anyone". If that's what you meant
    to say then yes it does. It takes the revenue that would have been generated
    had you legally purchased a copy of the material.

    >> Many people have tried to justify their illegal actions based on ethics.
    >> To
    >> me that's a very slippery slope. Better to work to change the law than to
    >> try and rationalize breaking the law.

    >
    > You missed a point: the law is not able to judge on some criteria.
    > Consider
    > two people in fromt of their computer, who thinks (honestly, for
    > themeselves):
    >
    > A: "I really want to read Harry Potter. I'll buy it tomorrow first thing.
    > Hey, what do I find on this warez site? I can download Harry Potter for
    > free. Cool, that will save me fifteen bucks."
    >
    > B: "Harry Potter is not bad, but I can't see the point of all that fuss.
    > If
    > I find it at the library, I may read it, but I'll have to wait, because
    > all
    > volumes at the library are borrowed. Hey, what do I find on that warez
    > site?
    > I can download Harry Potter for free. Well, I have almost finished my last
    > novel, why not read it that way?"
    >
    > My entire point is that A is ethically wrong while B is ethically ok,
    > since
    > it does not change anything at all for anyone else than B.
    >


    Bull****... B is ethically wrong because you've decided that somehow you
    shouldn't have to wait until the book becomes available at the library. You
    have decided that you are somehow better than everyone else or more
    deserving that anyone else and should not be held to the same standards as
    everyone else. You talk about ethics yet you put forth an attitude of
    arrogance and elitism.

    If you're not interested enough to pay for the book why not borrow a copy
    from a friend when they are done reading it?

    > But for the law, the situations are exactly the same: the book is
    > downloaded, read, but not bought, and A is able to lie and pretend he
    > tought
    > like B. Both situations must be either allowed or forbidden the same way.


    They are both forbidden by law. You are trying to rationalize illegal
    behavior saying it makes no difference to the copyright holder when in fact
    it would make a significant difference. See my other post about millions of
    people downloading e-books from the Internet.

    TC



  18. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?


    "AaronJ" wrote in message
    news:u6trd1hmbhp8nu9bjsncj6u7qooslunc7e@4ax.com...
    > "Tony Clark" wrote:
    >
    >>So without knowing what people are making the copies for I can't say if
    >>they
    >>are or are not violating the law,

    >
    > No, you can't tell about individual patrons, but as a general rule I think
    > it's
    > safe to say that there are copyright violations happening on a daily basis
    > at my
    > local library copy machine. And they are just as guilty of a copyright
    > violation
    > as those downloading books. I think that was the point I was trying to
    > make,
    > although I forget why and to who I was trying to make it...


    No argument from me on that point. I am sure there are violations occuring
    frequently, although on a college campus you would hope most of the material
    is being used for educational purposes but who can say for sure?

    >
    >>but certainly there is a provision for
    >>people to make copies for educational purposes.

    >
    > I read the civil code you posted and it seems to confirm what you say. But
    > I
    > still wonder why a magazine (and it's high priced lawyers) would print
    > that
    > warning unless they thought they could legally back it up if necessary.
    >
    > "Material in this publication may not be reproduced for
    > any purpose without written permission".


    Well the day I understand half of what lawyers do is probably the day I
    check into the Funny Farm. LOL. I suspect that warning is meant to cover all
    the other instances of copyright infringement which are not covered by Fair
    Use. Maybe the lawyers charge by the word and the magazine decided to leave
    off the rest of the sentance which should say "....except in those instances
    covered by Section 107 of the US Copyright law".

    Cheers
    TC



  19. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tony Clark" wrote:

    >No, your tax dollars go to paying for the library and all the books within,


    If you're saying that the library must buy the book (and pay the author) so that
    many people can borrow it and read it for free, then likewise the person who
    scans the paper book must buy it (and pay the author) to digitize/upload it so
    that many people can read it for free.

    If you claim the person is scanning a book he got for free, or even passing on
    an ebook he got for free, then again my library does the same thing with donated
    (free) books they in turn pass on for the borrowers to read for free...

    Try as you might, other than scale and legality there is no difference...

  20. Re: Harry Potter EBooks?

    "Tony Clark" wrote:

    >There is a "real" difference you have failed to recognize. If you borrow a
    >book from the library you are the only person that can read that book.
    >Millions of people can download e-books from the net simultaneously and
    >therefore it's a matter of scale.


    Yes I have agreed from the beginning of this discussion that there is a matter
    of scale involved, and that is the reason the industry may someday have reason
    to be concerned. They can tolerate it if you get one piece of candy (library)
    but don't want you to get the whole box (downloading). I don't blame them.

    >If everyone felt that it was OK to download e-books from the Internet it
    >would create a real situation...


    Yes, if ebook reading were more popular then there might now be a problem
    similar to what the music industry is experiencing. But the truth is most people
    hate to read a book on a PDA or computer. A paper book is still a far better
    experience. So the problem is really not much of a problem yet. But I expect the
    new upcoming technology I've been reading about to change that shortly.

    >If you limit the scope to a single person, then yes, there is little
    >difference but the Internet doesn't limit access to a single person.


    There is *no* difference in the principle of what is being done, that is reading
    a book for free. Technology has simply made it easier and faster to do, and laws
    have made it illegal...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast