PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[Nifft]

Hence, most. As in, not all.

However, if you sat down and started copying verbatim a book, I think even Barnes & Noble would have problems with that.

I've seen people sit there for hours and hours, with a stack of papers that could be a verbatim copy. The bookstore doesn't look at what you're writing down, so they cannot tell the difference. One dude might very well be making a "verbatim copy".

But hey, the rest of us are only speaking from experience.

Cheers, -- N

PS: (Pssst! If you go into any library, you'll see photocopy machines! You must destroy all of them for the moral health of humanity!)

 

[Scribble]

I've seen people sit there for hours and hours, with a stack of papers that could be a verbatim copy. The bookstore doesn't look at what you're writing down, so they cannot tell the difference. One dude might very well be making a "verbatim copy".

But hey, the rest of us are only speaking from experience.

Cheers, -- N

PS: (Pssst! If you go into any library, you'll see photocopy machines! You must destroy all of them for the moral health of humanity!)

I think for the most part, (especially in the big chains) the guy getting paid low wages to lug books around doesn't really care what you're doing, so long as it doesn't get him in direct trouble (and especially if doing something about it will create more work for him.)

The guy who is that guy's boss, and spends most of his time in his office doing paperwork, might have more to say about your sitting and copying the book verbatim.

but who really knows.

 

[pawsplay]

The reason you guys are getting pushback is because reasonable statements like yours appear to be the first in a long chain of argumentation that seems to go like-

1. Its not theft, its infringement. That is totally different.
2. Blah blah blah
3. Blah
4. More blah
5. Steal underpants
6. ...
7. WOOKIES! On ENDOR! That doesn't make any SENSE!
8. Therefore its ok to download copyrighted stuff we haven't bought, or at least its wrong to criticize people who do.

I haven't made that argument. I am just refuting the equally silly argument that leads to, "Therefore, it's okay to threaten teenagers with prison time and $100,000 judgments for sharing files with their friends under circumstances that in many countries qualifies as equivalent to the doctrine of fair use."

You wouldn't shiv someone's grandma, would you? Then why would you LET SOMEONE READ A PDF OVER YOUR SHOULDER WHO HASN'T PAID FOR IT? Deviltry, no less.

I'm really tired of people equating absolute morality with what are necessarily arbitrary prerogatives created by copyright law. There are ways to talk about what should be done that don't devolve into "Infringing is stealing, exactly like stealing, and stealing is wrong, therefore every C&D letter is holy writ."

 

[AllisterH]

I've seen people sit there for hours and hours, with a stack of papers that could be a verbatim copy. The bookstore doesn't look at what you're writing down, so they cannot tell the difference. One dude might very well be making a "verbatim copy".

But hey, the rest of us are only speaking from experience.

Cheers, -- N

PS: (Pssst! If you go into any library, you'll see photocopy machines! You must destroy all of them for the moral health of humanity!)

Um, that's a weird argument.

If this was legal, then you could go down you your local kinko's and get any book in its entirety photocpied.

There's an implicit understanding most publishers of books work under. Namely, that their readers will and do copy a few pages out of any published work.

It's wholesale copying of a book which any publisher will frown on.

 

[jeffh]

Um, that's a weird argument.

If this was legal, then you could go down you your local kinko's and get any book in its entirety photocpied.

There's an implicit understanding most publishers of books work under. Namely, that their readers will and do copy a few pages out of any published work.

It's wholesale copying of a book which any publisher will frown on.

Who said anything about whether it was legal? All anyone is saying is that it's (a) possible, and (b) in practise, unlikely to get you kicked out of a B&N or other big chain bookstore.

Bad enough so many people here are confusing what's legal with what's moral, without people confusing what's legal with what's possible as well.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

At least in Germany, but I think in most countries, there are regulations that add some cost to CDs, DVDs or video and audio cassettes that is used to pay off the potential of people multiplying and sharing copyrighted work, be it by recording TV or burning a CD copy for a friend.

An approach for dealing with copyright in the future might be to extend this, too. In Germany, I think this is sometimes to refered as a "culture flatrate".

Everyone pays a monthly or yearly fee that is used to pay off IP creators, and everyone can freely share. Of course, the challenges are ensuring that there is a fair way to determine how to split the money, and that the fee is large enough to cover all the IP creators. So it might remain problematic, but I am not that familiar with the specific suggestions. I think there are still concepts for paying for individual products - like a CD in a music shop. And some say it would just be a supplementary system and live a fringe life.

I generally thing that subscription based services to _access_ downloads might be the way of the future for digital media. You pay a fee each months and can download X media titles per month. One you downloaded them, they are yours. Maybe if you somehow lose them, you can get them back even if you no longer pay for the service (or you repay for the service and already downloaded packages do not count against your limits).

The challenge of every approach is to balance the chance for the creators of IP to get payed for their work and the interests of the customer for easy access.
Especially since probably both customer and the IP creators want too much for themselves.

 

[Baron Opal]

I'm really tired of people equating absolute morality with what are necessarily arbitrary prerogatives created by copyright law.

I'm really tired of people denying that they aren't downloading libraries of books, music and movies from the internet so they can play without paying.

*sigh*

Here's the thing:

I'm sure that there are several* people who are obtaining files just to give them the once-over, like browsing in a bookstore. I don't have a problem with that. I know that there are several* people who are obtaining files so that they don't have to pay for them. That I have a problem with.

The number of files downloaded is so massive I find it disingenuous to hear that it has no effect on sales. For the PHB 2 the number of download is an order of magnitude greater than the books sold. Again, I'm sure there a number of people who just previewed it. Some downloaded it just to stash in a hard drive next to their copy of Corel Draw and Oracle that they never use either. I don't particularly like that, but they're an example of Imban's "not a lost sale".

Then there are the people who download it because they didn't want to pay retail price. They use the data and they found a way around paying for it. That's wrong. Those are lost sales.

Photocopying a couple pages out of a book for reference out of a library? That's fine.

Downloading an entire, just published text so that you don't have to pay the cover price? Not okay.

Where do you think the line should be?

* For some value greater than 1 and less than "most".

 

[jgerman]

The number of files downloaded is so massive I find it disingenuous to hear that it has no effect on sales. For the PHB 2 the number of download is an order of magnitude greater than the books sold.

You can find it disingenuous all you want, but you're doing so despite evidence to the contrary. You've been linked to studies earlier in this thread that indicate that file sharing has no effect on sales, and a few that indicate that it has a positive effect.

You don't know what effect it had, you're making assumptions that aren't grounded in fact.

 

[Nikosandros]

At least in Germany, but I think in most countries, there are regulations that add some cost to CDs, DVDs or video and audio cassettes that is used to pay off the potential of people multiplying and sharing copyrighted work, be it by recording TV or burning a CD copy for a friend.

In Italy there is a similar tax.

 

[Baron Opal]

You've been linked to studies earlier in this thread that indicate that file sharing has no effect on sales, and a few that indicate that it has a positive effect.

That's a good point. I'll give them a critical look. Part of my job is evaluating studies to screen for special interest bias so this should be interesting.