I'm torn, do I mark this political or hobbies? I'm going to mark it hobbies because it's about books and I consider reading to be a hobby.

I know that the downloading of pirated material is illegal, as Copyright infringement since the artists, authors and others that make copyrighted material don't get their dues from sales of said material. Where does that leave second-hand book sellers? As far as I know, they don't pay royalties to the authors and artists whose work they buy and re-sell. I understand that me buying a book from HPB or Goodwill or any other second hand store goes to help support the people that work there and any good causes that particular establishment endorse, but from the perspective of the RIAA and the MPAA and whoever else has their hands in it, the musicians, authors and other artists that are re-sold aren't getting their due from the sale, and that could (in a broad sense) be considered copyright infringement. What I want to know is, how is me going to the second hand book store any better than Joe Shmoe down the street illegally downloading the same book/CD/whatever? You can call this "justifying the illegal download of materials" all you want. I'm not doing that as I do go to HPB and Goodwill for my books and some of my music, I'm just curious as to how this all mingles together in a way that isn't illegal.

Way I see it is the original purchaser paid the royalties on the book. I dont know of any cases where the author keeps collecting royalties after that except maybe in the case of the book being made into a movie or play.

A simplified version of it is that the hard copy/print copy/original CD also acts as a single license of the material contained in/on it. Yes that single copy license can be legally sold to someone else, as long as you don't retain a copy of it.

The 2nd hand stores are really just transferring the license and not selling you a new license. However, there are ongoing attempts by the industries ( RIAA, MPAA, writers guild, etc ) to outlaw this practice and only grant the original purchaser the license.

You are also paying for the 2nd hands store's 'value added' 'skills and resources' since they went out and got the book for you in theory, and warehoused it.

( unless i mis understood the question )

[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 05-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: A simplified version of it is that the hard copy/print copy/original CD also acts as a single license of the material contained in/on it. Yes that single copy license can be legally sold to someone else, as long as you don't retain a copy of it.

Take it a step further (with what Roger said as well), and apply that to "illegally" downloaded materials:

If you download something from a torrent, then in essence, you are downloading something that someone else already paid for. One could say that in essence, most torrents are posted by the users who purchased the item, and FREELY redistribute it over torrent sites, which would be like someone buying a book (or "single license") and giving it to a friend, who in turn gives it to another friend, then another, ad infinitum. Only difference between that and torrenting is that torrents distribute to millions of "friends" in a shorter period of time.

This is how I look at it. Although I don't usually keep the stuff I download (be they legal or not). So IMHO, I don't see myself as a "pirate". The term "pirate" con notates an idea that one is taking something illegally to hoard or sell to make profit. So essentially, since the downloading stops at me and I don't redistribute anything I download, I'm not a "pirate".

*flame suit on* And now for the naysayers and "holier than thou" types to chime in and flame me for "stealing" *flame suit on*

------------------
****Disclaimer****: For those of you politically correct so-and-so's, who have to crap on everyone's parade, the above post was made entirely in jest, as are most of my posts. Life is too short to take things so seriously, and as such, I will not spend valuable time or energy arguing semantics, politics, religion, etc. when I can utilize that energy for something more constructive.

As the author of the above post, I do not suggest that you commit or participate in such actions (in the event that the above post suggests any actions/activities), unless of your own free will or character. That is all, now bugger off.

"I AM A SATANIST! BOW DOWN, FOR I AM THE HIGHEST
EMBODIMENT OF HUMAN LIFE!"

"I am not going to sit on my ass as the events that affect me unfold to determine the course of my life. I’m going to take a stand. I’m going to defend it. Right or wrong, I’m going to defend it."

"It’s only after you’ve lost everything that you’re free to do anything."

[This message has been edited by Xerces_Blackthorne (edited 05-09-2011).]

yes, as others mentioned - the material was not duplicated.

but, I do see the problem: the auther never receives any coin from the 2nd (or 3rd, etc) readers.

or, at least that we know of. do the books get "checked in", barcodes read, and royalty payments go out?

quote Originally posted by Xerces_Blackthorne: The term "pirate" con notates an idea that one is taking something illegally to hoard or sell to make profit. So essentially, since the downloading stops at me and I don't redistribute anything I download, I'm not a "pirate". *flame suit on* And now for the naysayers and "holier than thou" types to chime in and flame me for "stealing" *flame suit on*

i agree on the 'pirates profit' concept, tho it doesn't today change the laws and wont be a popular statement around here

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: A simplified version of it is that the hard copy/print copy/original CD also acts as a single license of the material contained in/on it. Yes that single copy license can be legally sold to someone else, as long as you don't retain a copy of it.

That kinda makes sense.

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: The 2nd hand stores are really just transferring the license and not selling you a new license. However, there are ongoing attempts by the industries ( RIAA, MPAA, writers guild, etc ) to outlaw this practice and only grant the original purchaser the license. You are also paying for the 2nd hands store's 'value added' 'skills and resources' since they went out and got the book for you in theory, and warehoused it. ( unless i mis understood the question )

If they get it to where only the original purchaser has the "license", are they going to make you sign an EULA to that effect?

I made mention of the second hand retailers vestment in it, my question was solely about the "licensure" and legalities of selling something second hand without giving the author/musician/whoever else their due.

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: If they get it to where only the original purchaser has the "license", are they going to make you sign an EULA to that effect? .

Yes, and they will find ways to lock it down so that another person cant use it ( think DRM )

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: i agree on the 'pirates profit' concept, tho it doesn't today change the laws and wont be a popular statement around here

Not the first time I've made a statement regarding my views on something, that didn't go over well here. And certainly won't be the last

And I'm quite proud of it

[This message has been edited by Xerces_Blackthorne (edited 05-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Xerces_Blackthorne: Take it a step further (with what Roger said as well), and apply that to "illegally" downloaded materials: If you download something from a torrent, then in essence, you are downloading something that someone else already paid for. One could say that in essence, most torrents are posted by the users who purchased the item, and FREELY redistribute it over torrent sites, which would be like someone buying a book (or "single license") and giving it to a friend, who in turn gives it to another friend, then another, ad infinitum. Only difference between that and torrenting is that torrents distribute to millions of "friends" in a shorter period of time. This is how I look at it.

That's one way to look at it I guess--assuming of course, that the only data being downloaded is from the source of a legal original purchaser, and has the LEGAL permission to FREELY distribute it.
IOW, that NONE of the torrent downloads are "2nd hand", and that each and every person distributing the torrent has the legal permission to do so.


Do they?

(edit)
/\
Poorly worded.

You can buy a book, then legally give it away, sell it or whatever. You CANNOT, make a copy of a copyrighted book and make the copies available for free distribution or resale. Not individuals, printers, or even libraries. Remember Google's plan to copy millions of literary works and make them available online? The courts said--"NOPE-you will not do so". IF, they had full permission from the copyright holder, it would have been different.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-09-2011).]

Depends on your definition of "2nd hand".

And as you pointed out, there is the issue of being given the rights to redistribute it.

With torrents, one cannot know for certain. But as I stated, if one isn't keeping the items downloaded, and one isn't redistributing them for profit, etc., then one shouldn't have to worry about the ramifications.

[This message has been edited by Xerces_Blackthorne (edited 05-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: That's one way to look at it I guess--assuming of course, that the only data being downloaded is from the source of a legal original purchaser, and has the LEGAL permission to FREELY distribute it. IOW, that NONE of the torrent downloads are "2nd hand", and that each and every person distributing the torrent has the legal permission to do so. Do they?

Depends on the sitaution. i have some music where redistribution by the fans is actually encouraged, and i did buy the CD. ( to her, music should be free, but you need to pay to go see it performed live or get it on pretty media ) Those cases are rare in the grand scheme of things i agree, but the point was its not totally nonexistent.

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: Depends on the sitaution. i have some music where redistribution by the fans is actually encouraged, and i did buy the CD. ( to her, music should be free, but you need to pay to go see it performed live or get it on pretty media ) Those cases are rare in the grand scheme of things i agree, but the point was its not totally nonexistent.

Biggest on I can think of off the top of my head that actually advocates the same idea is Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails.

There was a youtube vid posted here some time back explaining his idea on the music industry and how he feels things like this should be handled. I'll have to see if I can find it and re-post it.

Books are bad. K

quote Originally posted by Xerces_Blackthorne: Biggest on I can think of off the top of my head that actually advocates the same idea is Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. There was a youtube vid posted here some time back explaining his idea on the music industry and how he feels things like this should be handled. I'll have to see if I can find it and re-post it.

Kristin Hersh is the artist i was speaking of.

This issue seems the reason you can't buy a paper copy of Double Your Dating by David DeAngelo, for example. You get to risk downloading it, but if anything goes wrong during the download, you lose your money and your reading material you paid for. I won't buy for that one reason, no matter who the author or what the subject.

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: Depends on the sitaution. i have some music where redistribution by the fans is actually encouraged, and i did buy the CD. ( to her, music should be free, but you need to pay to go see it performed live or get it on pretty media ) Those cases are rare in the grand scheme of things i agree, but the point was its not totally nonexistent.

I did say "has legal permission" to do so, and have added an edit to further elaborate.

And, not only, in the case of torrents--do you "never know", few if any ever bother to ask, find out, or even "want" to know---and there's a reason for that.

Anyone want to say why that is? (no matter--we all already know)

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I did say "has legal permission" to do so, and have added an edit to further elaborate. And, not only, in the case of torrents--do you "never know", few if any ever bother to ask, find out, or even "want" to know---and there's a reason for that. Anyone want to say why that is? (no matter--we all already know)

Well, we all know my attitude on the subject

The concept of copyright has been seriously perverted from it's original intent, which was to protect ownership for a period of time before it went into the public domain. The original law allowed for a 14 year term with one 14 year renewal option and covered a fairly restricted range of works. Music was added in 1831 and the term was bumped to 38 years plus 14 year renewal. In 1962 the term was extended again, then in 1978 it was extended to the creator's lifetime plus 50 years. For all intents and purposes current copyright law is indefinite, almost nothing produced in our lifetimes will ever become public domain.



Baen publishing posted an article by Eric Flint with an interesting take on the subject:

http://www.baen.com/library/

Baen Books is now making available — for free — a number of its titles in electronic format. We're calling it the Baen Free Library. Anyone who wishes can read these titles online — no conditions, no strings attached. (Later we may ask for an extremely simple, name & email only, registration. ) Or, if you prefer, you can download the books in one of several formats. Again, with no conditions or strings attached. (URLs to sites which offer the readers for these format are also listed. )

Why are we doing this? Well, for two reasons.

The first is what you might call a "matter of principle." This all started as a byproduct of an online "virtual brawl" I got into with a number of people, some of them professional SF authors, over the issue of online piracy of copyrighted works and what to do about it.

There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!

Alles in ordnung!

I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:

more at link above

My opinion parallels Baen's to some extent. I've discovered many new authors after having been given an electronic copy of their book to read, and conversely I've read many "pirated" books which weren't worth the electrons they were printed on and am glad I wasn't suckered into wasting my money buying a P-book. I've got my own disagreements with some authors WRT epublishing costs and marketing, but that's a separate issue.

In a literal sense, it's illegal unless you paid for it or it was given to you by someone with redistribution rights such as the publisher (see free book link above).

[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 05-09-2011).]

Some interesting viewpoints and equally interesting parallels.

So, what I'm getting from this is the only real difference is the scale of said (re)distribution?

. covered above

[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 05-09-2011).]

laws on music are odd
a library buys a book and can rent or loan it unlimited times or resell it
a movie can be rented

but when a buddy with a used record store
tryed to rent music CDs
the RIAA had a chit fit and threatened to sue for BIG BUCKS

so you can rent a movie of a given bands concert
but not the music on a tape or CD of the very same show WITH THE EXACT SAME MUSIC


I would not mind so much IF the artist got the full cash payments earned by their work
but most goes to the CORPrats and the manager/producers
the RIAA are thieves who steal from the artists for the CORPrats

quote Originally posted by ray b: laws on music are odd a library buys a book and can rent or loan it unlimited times or resell it a movie can be rented but when a buddy with a used record store tryed to rent music CDs the RIAA had a chit fit and threatened to sue for BIG BUCKS so you can rent a movie of a given bands concert but not the music on a tape or CD of the very same show WITH THE EXACT SAME MUSIC I would not mind so much IF the artist got the full cash payments earned by their work but most goes to the CORPrats and the manager/producers the RIAA are thieves who steal from the artists for the CORPrats

Finally something we can agree on.

quote Originally posted by Xerces_Blackthorne: Take it a step further (with what Roger said as well), and apply that to "illegally" downloaded materials: If you download something from a torrent, then in essence, you are downloading something that someone else already paid for. One could say that in essence, most torrents are posted by the users who purchased the item, and FREELY redistribute it over torrent sites, which would be like someone buying a book (or "single license") and giving it to a friend, who in turn gives it to another friend, then another, ad infinitum. Only difference between that and torrenting is that torrents distribute to millions of "friends" in a shorter period of time. This is how I look at it. Although I don't usually keep the stuff I download (be they legal or not). So IMHO, I don't see myself as a "pirate". The term "pirate" con notates an idea that one is taking something illegally to hoard or sell to make profit. So essentially, since the downloading stops at me and I don't redistribute anything I download, I'm not a "pirate". *flame suit on* And now for the naysayers and "holier than thou" types to chime in and flame me for "stealing" *flame suit on*

Okay, where's my flamethrower?

Here's where I disagree. A book or other hard copy item historically, by their very nature, was only capable of being accessed at one place at any one time. Therefore, the original copyright holder could be certain that every (legal) copy was originally bought and paid for, and licensed. If you give me your favorite book on Satanism, and I give it to a friend, we can't ALL be reading it at the same time. It's a "point-of-use" license, like a seat license for software. So the author is happy with that. More people get to read his work, and he still gets paid.

Enter the digital age. Or, actually, the Xerox/cassette tape age, but that was so limited as to not be a big problem. Once we got the ability to make a thousand friends on the internet, and distribute stuff across the globe, suddenly that "one place, one time" access assumption falls apart. Now, there are thousands, if not millions, of illegal copies out there. If everybody got theirs directly from an original purchaser who paid for it, and no two people are actually reading it at the same time, no harm no foul.

But do you actually believe that fairytale? No, you're more realistic than that. You know that when I E-Mail you a cool song, it's not properly licensed and paid for. And if the artist was standing in the room, he'd go, "Dude! Where's my 4 cents?" And you'd probably give him a dollar. Because it is a cool song. Even if you hated it, you'd probably give him his 4 cents. But he's not in the room. So we don't care about him. Or the nice girl that works for the record company. Or your friend who wants to work at the music store.

Whose sig line was that? "Screw them, I'm not paying. I'm not gonna get rich by paying for things."

FULL DISCLOSURE: I own an MP3 player. My brother bought it for me, and filled it before giving it to me. Did I make sure he owned legal copies of every song on there before I listened to them and ripped them to my Hard Drive? Of course not. But was anything I added legally acquired? Yes. Besides, his taste in music is, well, questionable. And mine is downright weird.

So, I'm no better than you. But if I do something wrong, I know the difference. Don't narrow down the definition to get yourself clean. "I don't profit from it." or "It stops with me." are nice. That's like saying "I stole a dollar from your wallet when you weren't looking. But I left the twenty, so you probably won't figure out it was me." A "pirate" is anyone who takes what they are not supposed to. And almost all artists say, "Hey, don't do that." If it's a freebie, they'll tell you.

If your favorite singer/author/actor was in the room, would you tell them "Screw you." to their face?

(Can I borrow your flame suit for a minute?)

quote Originally posted by Zeb: If your favorite singer/author/actor was in the room, would you tell them "Screw you." to their face?

I would have no problem telling them i didn't pay for their CD but instead bought tickets to their shows, and bought a paper version of their book, or donated money directly to them to avoid the RIAA tax on their income.

( tho it turns out that my 'favorite' artists are all independent, but you get the idea )

quote Originally posted by Zeb: That's like saying "I stole a dollar from your wallet when you weren't looking. But I left the twenty, so you probably won't figure out it was me."

No, it isnt.

[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 05-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: No, it isnt.

QFT

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: I'm torn, do I mark this political or hobbies? I'm going to mark it hobbies because it's about books and I consider reading to be a hobby.

Mark everything political. As soon as one person posts anything political, certain whiners cry about the thread not being marked political. It also has the added benefit of being invisible to those same whiners since they have politics turned off.

With regards to your view on second hand books, the difference is that selling a book or CD second hand is perfectly legal because it was bought legally. You cannot legally take a book to a copier and make 100 copies of it and distribute it to all of your friends. Also, selling the CD is legal but making copies of it for your friends and neighbors is illegal.

This is not that hard to understand.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 05-09-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Mark everything political. As soon as one person posts anything political, certain whiners cry about the thread not being marked political. It also has the added benefit of being invisible to those same whiners since they have politics turned off. With regards to your view on second hand books, the difference is that selling a book or CD second hand is perfectly legal because it was bought legally. You cannot legally take a book to a copier and make 100 copies of it and distribute it to all of your friends. Also, selling the CD is legal but making copies of it for your friends and neighbors is illegal. This is not that hard to understand.

Understand and agree are 2 different things

An author writes one book.
Only one person can buy it and read it.
So he hires someone to run off 1,000 copies so he can sell the same work 1,000 times.
The same with music.

But when an artist paints a painting, there is only one.
And everyone is welcome to copy it.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: An author writes one book. Only one person can buy it and read it. So he hires someone to run off 1,000 copies so he can sell the same work 1,000 times. The same with music. But when an artist paints a painting, there is only one. And everyone is welcome to copy it.

Technically, "art" falls under the same copyright restrictions.

Remember when tape was a big deal and the same arguments were made about “stealing” from artists? Once there was a very real possibility of a tax being paid on every blank tape (audio and video) and CD-R’s to pay royalty fees. Canada still has that type of tax so I guess it’s legal to download and record copyrighted material there? I don’t know if or how they tax digital recording media.

The problem with all these laws about copying is that technology has made most of them obsolete and unenforceable.

quote Originally posted by Nurb432: No, it isnt.

Yes, it is.
No, it isn't!
Yes, it is!
Wait, is this The Argument Clinic?
Sorry, just couldn't stop myself.

And your favorite artist would tell you you're being a jerk. If I were them, I'd record a bunch of stuff you don't like, and play it all at the next show I see you at.

You do the math. I'm betting that by sending out copies of their work to ten people, the lost income is NOT made up by you going to a couple of shows.

If you appropriate an artist's work, they lose money. They lose enough, they leave the business. Then we all lose.

How would you like it if your employer "copied" your work, and you only got paid for 29 days out of 30? Wait, that's called "offshoring", and we get paid ZERO days out of 30. Sucks.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: An author writes one book. Only one person can buy it and read it. So he hires someone to run off 1,000 copies so he can sell the same work 1,000 times. The same with music. But when an artist paints a painting, there is only one. And everyone is welcome to copy it.

yes there are even museum authorized stamped copys
my brother got permission to paint on site at a french museum
but only for out of copyright works [old]

but etchings prints and posters can be sold under copyright

I had to stop in and return Xerces' Flame Suit. I didn't really need it, you guys were gentle on me. But, man, is that suit Top Quality. I knew if i'd borrowed yours I'd be safe!

Thanks!

quote Originally posted by Xerces_Blackthorne: QFT

True.
It's more along the lines of "borrowing" the dollar from the wallet, (Or even borrowing with his permission) then conterfieting another from it (or a million), returning the original to the owner and keeping the conterfiet dollar(s).

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Mark everything political. As soon as one person posts anything political, certain whiners cry about the thread not being marked political. It also has the added benefit of being invisible to those same whiners since they have politics turned off. With regards to your view on second hand books, the difference is that selling a book or CD second hand is perfectly legal because it was bought legally. You cannot legally take a book to a copier and make 100 copies of it and distribute it to all of your friends. Also, selling the CD is legal but making copies of it for your friends and neighbors is illegal.

/\ QFT
And, there was pirating of music going on long before cassetes and 8 tracks. In the 50s-60s, you could buy a little machine that would cut a vinyl record from any source, either thru a mic or thru cable jacks right from another record player playing the master. Not very big, looked like a large portable turntable. My neighbor, a musician, had one. He used it legitimately to cut a few of his own records, but not everyone used them for that. It would have been a laborious process to make a bunch of them tho.

Reel to reel tape recorders were popular in the early 60's. You could tape off the air or copy a vinyl record with ease.

quote Originally posted by Zeb: I had to stop in and return Xerces' Flame Suit. I didn't really need it, you guys were gentle on me. But, man, is that suit Top Quality. I knew if i'd borrowed yours I'd be safe! Thanks!

Lol, only the finest I buy. Top quality, straight from Uzbekistan

Hey, at least its not Chinese

Although I did notice its a bit tight around the stomach on ya Zeb...Wha, You's been eatin' too many canoli's from the 'Shore lately?

[This message has been edited by Xerces_Blackthorne (edited 05-10-2011).]