Re: Re: What kind of pirate am I?

From: "Mary E Tyler" 
> On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:05 PM, joseph harris wrote:
> 
>> From: "Mary E Tyler"
>>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Kirk McElhearn wrote:
>>>> On Oct 13, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Barry wrote:

<snip>
>> Format shifting is
>>> allowed just as time shifting is allowed.
>>
>> Again I disagree, and would like to see the the facts about where  
>> the permission for it comes from. I should have asked Brenna the  
>> same thing.
>>
> 
> This is a really old decision here in the US. It may not be so in the  
> UK, but I believe that format shifting comes from the old betamax  
> decision. It's been the law of the land for most of my lifetime. IIRC,  
> format shifting was affirmed within the last decade or so.

So, apart from the fact I am far less certain than you about the law in the US, and the impact of the relevant case law in these respects, I must point out this leaves the impression that it is alright for Americans to ignore the fact that in European jurisdictions these permissions do not exist in law or case law. Are you saying that the US is not prepared to honour its membership of the Berne Convention? In other words you will not make it clear that copyright is international, and these rights are not automatic?

While the UK is less stern than some of the nations of the western EU, it still has not approved format shifting. And, as I pointed out, there is a failure to distinguish that some formats are not equal to others. 

> 
>> Personal uses have far more
>>> leeway than commercial, especially when they are truly personal. Yes,
>>> I CAN rip my tapes/CDs to MP3s and OCR my books to ebook.
>>
>> I am not discussing non-book publishing, but please again what is  
>> the actual nature of the permission to OCR?
> 
> I don't believe that it has been litigated, but I would think that  
> it's format shifting: paper to ebook. A lot of things never get  
> litigated b/c people think they cannot win.

That's a bit loose Mary. ;-) I would say a lot of things do not get litigated because often there is not the money to pursue a case. But I would say neither gives an answer. Again OCR is specifically not legal in the UK in the way mentioned. So how would Americans view OCRing a book of mine?

> 
>>> I have to agree with Barry....it is my long experience that authors  
>>> and
>>> publishers get VERY emotional over copyright issues
>>
>> Now hold on. If I have something stolen I am going to get emotional;  
>> and so would you. Give me  a real proposal for an alternative, and I  
>> can talk about it. Just tell me you are going to take my things  
>> because you want them and I am going to get really, really annoyed.  
>> If people want a logical argument start it. Don't accuse others of a  
>> reaction without being clear about the specifics.
>>
>> By the way in the piracy discussions I use stolen and stealing and  
>> theft because I see this as a moral matter, and I mean the basic  
>> morals. Details of law are another matter.
> 
> See, I don't necessarily see this as a basic moral matter. I see it as  
> a matter of law. And that may have to do with the differences in the  
> law. In Europe they have moral rights. Here in the US, we don't.

I am not referring to 'moral rights', but to basic morals. The two are quite different concepts.

> 
> My charge of emotionalism is based on non-net experience discussing  
> this matter with authors/publishers. They get positively hysterical  
> about the matter, especially as I continue to calmly disagree with  
> them as a matter of written and case law.

Well, you didn't make that plain - you appeared to be accusing me of emotionalism.

> 
> Every article I have every read about "piracy" and "theft." Most  
> industry articles I have read seem to espouse this line of  
> "reasoning," which uses loaded words to produce an emotional reaction  
> not based in the law.

That isn't the answer I asked for. You have that impression, but it needs concrete examples for discussion to see if I accept your impression. Some articles are quite probably like that - but there msut be a very large number that ar probably not. It seems to me too broad a brush, and again special pleading, since you were answering a point I made - and that point did not cite articles of any sort.

> 
> That's not the point, because you don't get it. 

I get it very well. And I responded to the point. That I disagree with what is said is neither emotional, nor a failure of understanding. Colloquial english may well have a deal of words from Germanic sources. The English language is very mixed and has a grammar which is more or less unique to english. It certainly does not have German grammar, nor Latin, nor Greek (another important contributor).

My etymology primer offers this development: low German (from c450) - though Latin was around with the Romans from 55-400; some Celtic and Latin derived terms like 'port' survived; by 800 some Hebrew via Greek and Latin, some Latin and some Greek; Icelandic group of Scandinavian; Norman conquest brought a version of old Norse with French, and Latin via Roman Catholic influence; the Norman language became Anglo-Norman; Central French; modern French; from around 1500 Greek via Latin, Italian, Spanish, East-Indian, Russian, Turkish, Hungarian; and there can be found words from almost every language on earth.

Even if there can by, by some narrow count, a majority of Germanic-origin words [and I lack a reference to confirm or deny it] there is every evidence to show that English, which is more or less dated from Chaucer in its modern form, is hardly a Germanic language.

Etymology is a notoriously difficult study. My point was, and remains, that just as Barry chose a questionable comparison, so - in my opinion - he chose poor companions for his case. And I repeat, the personal case he finally revealed is a strong one for some action in his favour.

<snip>
> 
>> When you say it is not analogous to physical property, I think you  
>> are wrong. Physical property is as dependent on the laws of the  
>> society for the term and tules as is IP. Both are agreements between  
>> the amorphous bodies of owners and of society through its elected  
>> representatives. Both are decisions of the body politic. Bot h  
>> confer rights of control on that property.
> 
> Ah, but prior to the law, there was no intellectual property, moral or  
> not. Prior to the law, intellectual property was thought to belong to  
> everyone and it was generally the publisher who profited, not the  
> author.

*Never* that I have ever been able to find. Please give references for this assertion. I will state categorically that there is no time in western culture that creative work 'belonged to everybody'. Even where Jewish tradition continued the universal education of the Hebrews, the actual writing of the books was controlled utterly, and the religious scribes had to follow an exact layout - and still do incidentally. As non-religious books began to appear they were not controlled in Jewish life.

But the creation of the Roman Catholic Church from the Jewish Jesus Sect led to an enormously tight control. The Vatican did not encourage education and learning, and there was no freedom generally in Europe for non-church controlled creative work till around the 13th or 14th century, when plague changed the social balance of power towards the former Serfs.

States also became more powerful in relation to The Vatican, and there was ferment for freedon of religious practice. It was in this atmosphere that Henry VIII created the Church of England and broke from Rome. (He also broke education from the churches by starting the 'Grammar Schools' in England.)  When printing reached Europe its activities were by permission of sovereigns, and the individual printers jealously guarded both their skills and their royal privilege; this is probably where copying outside Jewish or RC scribes began. Perhaps the identifiable begining of copyright.

As the ability to make copies by printing developed, creative writing began to appear, and Shakespeare and his contemporaries were a flowering of Henry's  breaking religious control of creative works, especially plays. But the 'Stationers', the printer publishers, controlled copyright. The Queen Anne Act changed that to give the copyright to its creators. Over a hundred and fifty years after that the Berne Convention was again a correction in favour of the creator against the business interests.

If you are alert to the moves you might realise that Google and others are again trying to give business the ownership [de facto at first] over copyright. 

> 
> So I am going to have to disagree here. And you will undoubtedly  
> disagree with me. And I'm tired of talking about it. Barry delisted  
> and we've been through this many, many times before. I still haven't  
> changed your mind that infringement is "theft" and you still haven't  
> changed my mind that it's not. Do we REALLY need to bore everyone with  
> this AGAIN?
> 
> dej

I have stated quite clearly that legally it is as you say. In basic morals, and the Ten Commandments give a useful summary of those, it is stealing. Stealing is taking what does not belong to you. Whether it hurts anyone else is irrelevant. Moral guidance applies to everything.

If you wish to abandon morality as the backbone of society, then society will fail.

Joseph


------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/