| Go to page (Previous) 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ... 12 ~ 13 ~ 14 |
|
|
Banester
Special user
663 Posts
|
Posted: May 3, 2011 3:11pm
I think it all falls with copying it. You can read a book or watch the DVD, but you just can't make another copy of it (including making a book into a .pdf or a DVD into another media file).
Out of print books - if you own one and want to lend it to someone you can, but that other person can not make a copy of it. You can let the whole S.A.M. charter read it just as long as nobody copies it. At least that is how I interpret it(fair use/copyright). The creator, publisher or author may not like you doing that, but I don't think legally there is anything that can be done to stop you.
Doing a search on google list's numerous ways to copy a book into a digital media. I wonder what kindle and other companies do to make it legal, possibly contacting the publisher and paying fee's/royalties? Does a book fall into public domain after a certain time?
This is all I could find on the subject:
Quote:
| Books copyrighted in the US before 1923 are now in the public domain; their copyrights have expired and it is legal to copy such works. |
|
Quote:
| Copyrighted 1923-1963
Books initially copyrighted in the US from 1923 through 1963 are still protected by copyright law if the initial copyright was renewed. The initial copyright term was 28 years and the renewal was 67 more years (formerly only 47 years). For example, a book initially copyrighted in 1923, and renewed, will pass into the public domain in 2019 (i.e., 1923+28+67+1). |
|
Quote:
| Copyrighted 1964-1977
All books initially copyrighted in the US from 1964 through 1977 have had their copyrights automatically renewed (by law) and the copyrights are still in force. The initial copyright term was 28 years; the renewal was for 67 more years. So a book initially copyrighted in 1964 will pass into the public domain in 1964 + 28 + 67 + 1= 2060. |
|
The art of a magician is to create wonder.
If we live with a sense of wonder, our lives
become filled with joy
-Doug Henning-
|
bsears
Inner circle
1006 Posts
|
Posted: May 4, 2011 12:34pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-02 16:15, truthteller wrote:
With loaning hard copies, at least, the creator has been compensated for every copy available, which cannot be said when they are scanned. Further, shouldnt a creator be afforded the right to dictate how many of his products are in existence and available?
|
|
Yes, which is why I specifically put in my example that the torrent file was deleted once the downloader decided that nothing in the file appealed to him. (akin to the borrowed book being returned and no copies made) 
|
truthteller
Inner circle
2589 Posts
|
Posted: May 6, 2011 12:33am
Except there IS a copy made - the torrent.
Your example would be akin to going into a library, Xeroxing the book, and then burning the pages if you didn't find anything.
And if you DID find something, how you would enforce compensation of the creator? Again, what if the book is out of print?
TO me it seems simple, if you want to know what's in the box, you have to pay to look.
If you're not willing to pay (or tag along on someone else's dime LEGALLY) then you don't get to look.
It seems so many people these days think they should be entitled to access to everything. Shouldn't the creator get to determine who has access and under what terms?
|
J-Mac
Inner circle
Ridley Park, PA
3006 Posts
|
Posted: May 10, 2011 2:43am
Brad,
While it may not seem right to you, nor to many, once a work is published the creator must abide by copyright law. At least in the US. E.g., if I purchase a book I do have the right to sell it once I no longer have a need for it. Regardless whether the creator wants me to have that right to sell the book I do retain that right.
I do not have a right to copy it and sell copies. However if I ignored the law and did just that it would not be considered theft and I could not be prosecuted under criminal law. Such violations of copyright are infringement, not theft, and are handled under civil law. I know you didn't state otherwise but I thought I would mention it as I see many posts offering incorrect information regarding copyright. Like Banestar posting that a DVD can be watched but not copied. Not true. DVDs can indeed be copied as long as it is for back up purposes only. If a DVD contains copy-protection it is a crime under the DMCA to circumvent the copy-protection, but copying the DVD is not in itself a crime. And if there is no copy-protection on it there is no law against copying it for personal use.
BTW I am not an attorney. (But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once...) 
Jim
|
truthteller
Inner circle
2589 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 11:22am
Jim
I am not suggesting that someone cannot sell a book they bought. My comments were in regard to bsears position on the ethics of torrents etc. He seemed to be taking a non copyright based position - one concerned with rewarding creators - and while I can appreciate that position, it falls apart when we get to out of print books. Also, I do believe that copyright law allows creators a degree of control over their releases, specifically in the number of texts available. I happen to believe torrents take away that control. While I personally believe a creator can place other requests or restrictions on their work, the question of legal enforceability is questionable - though personally I feel they should be honored. And banestar was asking about not only copying DVDs, but lending them out.
I am always amazed at the sense of entitlement in the world today - the notion that every person should have access to all information for no investment and in some cases without permission. I guess I do not feel the world should be 'consumer centric' but 'creator centric'. If you create something you should be able to dictate, within the limits of the law, how it is distributed etc.
|
jdmagic357
Special user
737 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 12:20pm
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-11 11:22, truthteller wrote:
Jim
I am always amazed at the sense of entitlement in the world today - the notion that every person should have access to all information for no investment and in some cases without permission. I guess I do not feel the world should be 'consumer centric' but 'creator centric'. If you create something you should be able to dictate, within the limits of the law, how it is distributed etc.
|
|
I to am amazed but I think the bigger picture is not why people share there ebooks but why are those ebooks worth sharing?
Value, worth, usability, may all play a part in how ones work is distributed. For instance if one felt ripped off after buying a $25 ebook that person might feel fine sharing the work using the rational, that it was of no value to him so it deserves sharing. Or perhaps the item made certain claims that just weren't true? The buyer might again feel justified in his giving it away to others. Instead of our being so concerned about the so called "creators" why not protect the buyers from false ADVERTISING? I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE BEST THINGS WE COULD DO TO PROTECT WORKS. iF ONE FEELS AS THOUGH HE GOT A GOOD DEAL AND THAT DEAL IS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE< I CONTEND THAT THEY WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO SHARE.
Cap lock got stuck wasn't yelling.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
|
truthteller
Inner circle
2589 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 2:51pm
Is that reason enough to break copyright law? Would one not be better served offering a scathing a review on an online forum, or simply informing all of their Collegues it is not worth buying? Would that not have the same effect?
And do you believe this 'robin hood revenge' is the motivation behind those who post hundreds if not thousands of magic books and DVDs on torrent sites?
There has always been disappointing books released to the marketplace, but I don't think breaking the law is justified by ones disappointment.
|
jdmagic357
Special user
737 Posts
|
Posted: May 11, 2011 4:46pm
I understand truthteller, and I'm not advocating thevery. I'm just suggesting that if creators were to put as much time into the material as they do in worring about piracy they might be in a better position ethically.
No, stealing is wrong, but in context maybe not as wrong as we'd like to think? Some might even argue that the seller who knowingly rips off the consumer is in fact the criminal?
Just another possible side of the same coin?
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
|
J-Mac
Inner circle
Ridley Park, PA
3006 Posts
|
Posted: May 12, 2011 12:53am
Hey, if you felt an ebook wasn’t worth the price paid, oh well. Like any other product it's buyer beware. Review it appropriately and resolve not to patronize that author again. Doesn’t give you any rights with his/her work though, outside those you already have under the law.
Brad, I understand your sense and I understand how creators can feel about the distribution of their works, but the law gives them certain rights over their works once published and they publish them hopefully with full knowledge and understanding of those rights. Just as the buyer must also act only within their rights. Face it, most buyers - me included - feel a certain ownership when making a purchase. Not of the content per se, but of that particular medium whether a book, ebook, CD, etc. To resell it, for example, once done reading it. An author may not appreciate me reselling his or her book after I read it but that right came with the book when I bought it. He/she knows that going in. Or should, at least.
BTW, for the record every book, ebook, CD, and DVD I own was paid for by me. Never used bit torrent except once to download a very large report from a university. Legally. I don’t actively condemn anyone else for their behavior for they must make their own bed and their own peace. But I live by my own code.
Thanks!
Jim
|
jdmagic357
Special user
737 Posts
|
Posted: May 12, 2011 8:21am
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-12 00:53, J-Mac wrote:
Hey, if you felt an ebook wasn’t worth the price paid, oh well. Like any other product it's buyer beware. Review it appropriately and resolve not to patronize that author again. Doesn’t give you any rights with his/her work though, outside those you already have under the law.
Jim
|
|
In most other situations, I could return it for a refund. Untrue with magic, as I have supposedly gotten something out of it just by reading? A sentiment I disagree with.
Just cause they say it, doesn't make it true.
|
Slide
Special user
538 Posts
|
Posted: May 12, 2011 9:26am
Sorry, just rejoined the site after a long absence and found this thread interesting but have to admit, I haven't waded through all 14 pages yet so forgive me if this has already been covered:
I picked up two points here presented by Richard: 1. There is a monetary loss to the creator when some downloads a torrent and 2. Richard states that he is proud of the many magicians who have used his material to create careers for themselves. It would seem to me then that the main issue is not the dissemination of so called secrets (obviously anyone creating material for sale is in the business of dissemination of information) but not being compensated for the loss in revenue.
This makes me wonder how the group feels about the downloading of materials that have long been out of print, or the creators and benefactors of the material long dead. Is there a moral issue, as far as this group is concerned, from downloading material that would be lost otherwise? If a book is out of print and/or the author dead, there is no monetary loss, and it would allow the material to disseminated to a group who can use it to create great careers for themselves, as Richard has stated people have done with his material.
Does the moral clause extend to OOP material? And if so, how?
|
truthteller
Inner circle
2589 Posts
|
Posted: May 12, 2011 9:48am
Jim, I never said people can't sell a book or a trick on the secondary market. Not aure where you are getting that from. My statement was that a creator should be allowed to control the number of copies in the marketplace, which copyright law provides - torrents do not.
Having said that, magi have tried to entreat buyers into various 'no sale' clauses. And as long as these are agreed to and disclosed in advance, I have no problem with them. It in essence becomes a liscense agreement. For example, if you buy a lexmark printer cartridge by opening the box they force you to agree NOT to refill that cartridge - which one would think would be an infringement of the buyers rights. Apparently not anymore.
But that's just an amusing example. In my mind, if you agree not to sell something, you should stand by your word. (likewise, if a creator claims his work is a limited edition, he must abide by that limitation too )
But I just wanted to clarify I have never said that a buyer cannot sell or lend items they buy, so long as they do not violate copyright law - which 'lending' via a torrent does.
|
jfquackenbush
Special user
Out here on the desert
580 Posts
|
Posted: May 14, 2011 10:40am
I think the real problem here is that the distribution technology has not caught up with distribution media. It's above useless to complain about people using torrents to share digital media with one another. For every Napster that get's shut down, a dozen limewires, piratebays, and bittorrents will spring up like heads of a hydra. More importantly, I think it's important to note that the people who download pirated files, if they did not do so, would probably not buy the things they are downloading anyway. I'm sure a percentage of them would, but the vast majority of downloaded pirated copies more than likely to do not represent lost sales.
So why is this a problem? Well, part of the reason is that there are a number of very large, legitimate corporations who are making a fortune off of piracy. How can I say that? I say it for the same reason that another bunch of companies made a fortune in the early eighties off of VHS piracy. Like it or not, new mediums for distribution in our society have been driven, buy and large, by adult entertainment. Anything that has made it easier to get ahold of pornography has made it's inventors a fortune. That's why VHS was successful as a consumer medium, while the technologically superior Beta format remained a professionals only medium: Sony wouldn't license the technology for use in adult video production. It just also happened that VHS was easier to pirate than Beta was, and so the market for pirated video was born.
That's what's driven the expansion of home broadband, like it or not, and that expansion has made niche copyright violation in other areas much easier to do. And the broadband companies are making a lot of money off of it.
I think there's a fairly easy solution to this problem as well, but it's one that requires a shift in thinking about what it is that is being purchased. We still tend to think in copyright in terms of an individual physical object that copies a master work. That model of copyright is no longer viable as more and more distribution takes place through the direct transfer of information digitally. What the law needs to do is transition to a model where the content is treated more like a performance than an object that is transmitted, and adjusting the payment and distribution structure to match that shift. This is not without precedent. It's exactly the sort of deal that music publishing companies and record labels came up with to deal with the problem of radio. Independent private agencies monitor performances and charge the venues that broadcast or display them a fee for their use of the copyrighted material. In various forms, that's what ASCAP, BMI, and the Harry Fox Agency have been doing for generations in the music business.
The problem of online piracy can be dealt with in the same way, but in order to do so you have to look not at the people who are downloading or whatever. They're just smart consumers doing what consumers always do in unregulated markets, and that's shopping for the best deal. If the supply is such that it is infinite, which is the case with digital information, the market will necessarily drive the price to zero. There's no use complaining about it, that's just how capitalism works. What you can do, however, is regulate the market in such a way that the people who are realizing a profit on the distribution, in this case the broadband internet companies, are charged licensing fees for the content they distribute which is then paid to copyright owners in proportion to the percentage of their work that is transferred. Broadband providers will then pass those fees onto their users based on some mechanism that will be determined by the market, and then the problem will be largely solved.
But the first step in getting to that rational market based solution is to start doing what should always be done in issues of trade and morality and follow the money. Because it's not the people who are downloading who are making any profit and going after them will never solve the problem so long as the distribution channel continues to be the place where money is being made illegitimately.
Mr. Quackenbush believes that there is no such thing as a good magic trick.
|
truthteller
Inner circle
2589 Posts
|
Posted: May 14, 2011 12:01pm
Tremendous post.
|
jfquackenbush
Special user
Out here on the desert
580 Posts
|
Posted: May 14, 2011 4:58pm
Thank you. It's something I've thought a lot about, since I'm a refugee from the music business due to the changing times. I'm relatively confident that it's a solution that will happen sooner or later because I really don't think copy protection and policing piracy are practicable solutions in the long run. In the meantime, well, we certainly do get to live in interesting times and that's worth something.
Mr. Quackenbush believes that there is no such thing as a good magic trick.
|
truthteller
Inner circle
2589 Posts
|
Posted: May 15, 2011 9:59pm
While I think you are spot on, sadly it could never work.
This would require a shift in the fundamental value system of magic - one that would jeopardize the prevailing (and on going) "hey, I saw this guy do a trick, where can I buy it" mentality.
If we think along the terms you have suggested (which are very reasonable, and would be met with little to no dissension in most artistic communities) then we make it hard for ourselves to copy tricks we see other people do. Those ARE performances, and we treat them like "things". While what you advocate is a step forward to the protection of ip sold, to take it only empowers those people who might want to protect the material they perform.
And just a few moments on this forum will convince you - NO ONE is in favor of that
|
jfquackenbush
Special user
Out here on the desert
580 Posts
|
Posted: May 16, 2011 8:48pm
Well, you're probably right. But magic is a very conservative field, and frankly this is one where magicians are going to get led by the nose by other performing artists. It may take a generation or two, but there will come a time when the new generation of magicians are so used to the solution that the movie and music industry come up with (which, I think, will probably end up looking like what I've suggested. Bono is currently pushing for something along those lines and people appear to be listening) that it will be impossible for magic merchants not to adapt if they want to have customers. It might not work out that well for middle men, but in the end I think it could mean even more money in the pockets of creators, and that can't help but be a good thing.
But then again, what do I know...
Mr. Quackenbush believes that there is no such thing as a good magic trick.
|
Dan Bernier
Inner circle
Canada
2299 Posts
|
Posted: May 17, 2011 12:21pm
I know it's been said already, but magicians are the worst offenders when it comes to exposure. If exposure is really going to be dealt with with any pro-action, the best place to start is at the root. File sharing sites are not the root of the problem, and as long as we think they are the real problem magic will continue to be exposed on large scales as dealers and creators continue to come out of the woodworks to make a few bucks by marketing effects to the general public.
Yes, there was a time when one would have to go to a magic shop, but now those days are over. Shopping online has become easy and safe. David Blaine, Criss Angel not only made magic popular again, but they helped spark a marketing revolution called street magic to attract magicians and non magicians alike to buy magic products. Websites started going up, ethics started changing so magicinas could jump on what they thought was the gravy train. Everyone wants to be a creator, everyone wants to write an ebook, even though their grammar is grade three level. Look at the market. Google magic and take a look at the names that come up. Seriously, who is really exposing magic? It's not those who are file sharing something they would never buy in the first place.
Has anyone else got tired of the line, "I am releasing this effect to give back to the community". Give back to the community? That's funny actually, and no longer believable.
I'm not knocking all the dealers, creators, or magicians, but if magic ever dies(doubt it ever will) you can count those three as the main reasons why there is over-exposure in magic.
"If you're going to walk in the rain, don't complain about getting wet!"
|
Pakar Ilusi
Inner circle
4637 Posts
|
Posted: May 18, 2011 2:28am
Magic will live.
It just will evolve.
"Dreams aren't a matter of Chance but a matter of Choice." -DC-
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Rapidshare and the rest |
|
|
| Go to page (Previous) 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ... 12 ~ 13 ~ 14 |
|
