Piracy of "The Valley of Frozen Tears"

[marketingman]

Ok the industry has to be the one to stand up and say no more. enough.
Form a volenteer watch dog group to investib=gate and find the pirate whale, track down hackers and the ike. Find out who did the uploads.

The current bodies involved inthe industry are well know for inaction. Why not take this point and become and Electronic Publihsers Association or e-PA All the resources are already in place for the fight to start we just have to day enough.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

Roommate decides to upload it, without telling he person who bought it.

This is countered by the fact that ignorance without mental incapacitation is not an excuse.

Customer's computer is hacked, due to poor security or trojan, and the file stolen.

In which case the "victim" needs to prove this occurred, otherwise it is nothing but lip service. Even then, the "victim" could still be held accountable due to negligent behavior.

The customer gives a copy to a gaming table friend, who uploads it.
etc...

The library concept doesn't apply to digital material. This was long ago established in the case law that developed in the early years of the PC industry. Under the law, giving a copy to your friend without permission is in fact an act of counterfeiting.

In all three instances, the original purchaser can easily be held accountable.

 

[Cergorach]

This is countered by the fact that ignorance without mental incapacitation is not an excuse.

In essence the roommate/sysadmin 'stole' it, no court is going to hold the original buyer reponsible. The 'stealer' would be fair game however.

In which case the "victim" needs to prove this occurred, otherwise it is nothing but lip service. Even then, the "victim" could still be held accountable due to negligent behavior.

Negligent behavior? When more than 95% of the internet users don't know anything more about computers than on/off button, pointy-click, again, there's no court that's going to hold a computer user responsible for a trojan or virus that did illegal things on his pc. Unless it could be proven that the user knew the trojan was on there and what it was doing. Something that's very difficult to do.

The library concept doesn't apply to digital material. This was long ago established in the case law that developed in the early years of the PC industry. Under the law, giving a copy to your friend without permission is in fact an act of counterfeiting.

Yup, you can't give a copy to a friend, maybe the original (with you not holding onto any copies). But a printed version would be ok to loan.

In all three instances, the original purchaser can easily be held accountable.

There's also the possibility that the original buyer sold his copy to someone else, i haven't seen anywhere that, that can't be done...

 

[Cergorach]

Crap the EU accepted the patent proposal.

I'll bow out of this 'discussion' it has strayed to much away from it's original intent...

 

[Eosin the Red]

Don't feel bad, I can't even keep up with who is on what side or advocating what position.

I would post a challenge of sorts to those who believe that a law suit / legal action is the proper course of action and also to those who cannot sit by and "do nothing, allowing evil to triumph." Let your checkbook do the talking, donate to the VoFT piracy fund or to the RIAA anti-copytheft fund. I find all too often that when people advocate such an expensive position what they really advocate is others spending the money to oppose evil - rather than doing it themselves. The cynic in me says that no signicant money will be gathered for such a cause but the True Believer hopes I am wrong. The realist knows that currently the situation is 100% unstoppable and wants to know who is willing to throw money at it anyway

Weird, I want to pe proven wrong.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

In essence the roommate/sysadmin 'stole' it, no court is going to hold the original buyer reponsible. The 'stealer' would be fair game however.

Cergorach, you live in Europe. When are you going to learn your incorrect input is useless in a discussion about US law? Right now, there are lawsuits pending through the RIAA on this very issue. Some kids were using their grandparents' computer to serve some 14,000 tracks over a P2P network. The case has not been thrown out on the basis of the grandparents not known what was going on.

Negligent behavior? When more than 95% of the internet users don't know anything more about computers than on/off button, pointy-click, again, there's no court that's going to hold a computer user responsible for a trojan or virus that did illegal things on his pc. Unless it could be proven that the user knew the trojan was on there and what it was doing. Something that's very difficult to do.

Right... Tell that to all the people in jail for manslaughter because they accidentally shot and killed someone the very first time they ever had the opportunity to handle a loaded gun. Ignorance is not an excuse for anything under the law.

Yup, you can't give a copy to a friend, maybe the original (with you not holding onto any copies). But a printed version would be ok to loan.


There's also the possibility that the original buyer sold his copy to someone else, i haven't seen anywhere that, that can't be done...

This is true. However, the seller would have the burden of proof in this instance and need to provide a receipt or some other proof of sale.

Now, getting back to my statement about your incorrect input in a discussion about US law. So far, I haven't seen a single European publisher partake of this discussion. We're all US publishers. This means that under the Berne Copyright Convention, as the plaintiffs, the laws of the nation we live and work in will be the ones applied, regardless what other BCC-signing nation the perpetrator may reside in.

 

[mroberon1972]

I would post a challenge of sorts to those who believe that a law suit / legal action is the proper course of action and also to those who cannot sit by and "do nothing, allowing evil to triumph." Let your checkbook do the talking, donate to the VoFT piracy fund or to the RIAA anti-copytheft fund. I find all too often that when people advocate such an expensive position what they really advocate is others spending the money to oppose evil - rather than doing it themselves. The cynic in me says that no signicant money will be gathered for such a cause but the True Believer hopes I am wrong. The realist knows that currently the situation is 100% unstoppable and wants to know who is willing to throw money at it anyway.

Already did something. Placed a button on the site that says "If you downloaded it and liked it, give me what you thought it was worth..." Net gain: $0.00

I guess most file traders don't even come by the website... Why bother? They already have it.

Oh, and Dana? You might be right legally, but remember this: You sue the kinds of people I mentioned, and NOBODY will buy your books for fear of being sued once it gets out. See how that helps your sales... Oh, and a few pirates out there would make you thier little 'crusade', and hurt you any way they can.

Do what you will, but I've seen the writing on the wall.

It ain't pretty.

 

[Psionicist]

People like you make me laugh and make me sick at the same time.

That's interesting, because I feel the same about you.

Whether or not the original copy is still in possession of the creator is immaterial. If you obtain a copy under any condition without paying for it, it is stolen merchandise. The law does not make any exceptions to this on the basis of anything being a copy. Under counterfeiting laws, you're still accountable for the lost revenues the manufacturer did not earn on your illegally produced duplicate.

Nor does the law account for lost sales vs. lost revenues. If anything, the claim of "I never would have bought it anyway" does nothing but pile up more evidence of an outright intent to steal to begin with."I never would have bought it in the first place" has never been used as a successful defense against copyright infringement or counterfeiting or possession of stolen property.

Exactly what are you trying to prove? That you have the law on your side? Everyone already know this, including the pirates. But the pirates (obviously) do not care about law. So reading law books etc. will not help you at all, at least I don't think so.

I would like you to answer this question: If we assume piracy didn't exist, do you really think you would have sold the 800 copies of your BB book? I don't care about if you can prove it in court or not, what the law says etc, I want to know your personal opinion.

 

[Henry]

People like you make me laugh and make me sick at the same time.

That's interesting, because I feel the same about you.

Ladies and Gentlemen...let's please keep the tone civil, all right? There are ways to discuss this that DON'T involve name-calling.

Just because I thought it bears repeating. All insults, no matter the source, need to cease. Thank you.

 

[BryonD]

People like you make me laugh and make me sick at the same time. Whether or not the original copy is still in possession of the creator is immaterial. If you obtain a copy under any condition without paying for it, it is stolen merchandise. The law does not make any exceptions to this on the basis of anything being a copy. Under counterfeiting laws, you're still accountable for the lost revenues the manufacturer did not earn on your illegally produced duplicate.

Nor does the law account for lost sales vs. lost revenues. If anything, the claim of "I never would have bought it anyway" does nothing but pile up more evidence of an outright intent to steal to begin with."I never would have bought it in the first place" has never been used as a successful defense against copyright infringement or counterfeiting or possession of stolen property.

Please quantify the exact financial losses you have suffered due to piracy.

This can always be achieved for "stolen merchandise". It can not be achieved for copyright infringement.

I agree with your general premise. But you are letting your attachment to the issue cloud your assessment.

Copyright infingement is a bad thing. But it is, in a wholely tangible sense, very significantly different than stealing.