'Runes' pirated

[Edge]

I suppose it's a compliment of sorts...

ROTE is now available for download as an illegal e-text.

[dlbpharmd]

I've pm'd Romeo so that SRD can be notified - perhaps something can be done. Thanks, Edge!

[Romeo]

Thanks for the heads-up.

Edge - PM or email me the link, and I'll pass it on.

[kevinswatch]

Ah oh...they're on to me...

Heck...I think I'm still on page 160 of Runes. I suck. Hehe.

Seriously though, if there is piracy going on, that's lame.

The people responsible should be beaten with the Staff of Ra.-jay

[Sheol]

But we have to find Indiana Jones first, only he knows how long the staff is.

[Tom]

This brings up an interesting question....

I own the entire TC collection, most in hardcover AND paperback.

I am now commuting to a new job everyday on the train and am trying to pack as lightly as possible.

If I "find" e-texts on the 'net for books I already own, and download them to my PDA to read, is that piracy?

I read many of my favorites over and over, so this would not only be for my TC collection.

NO... I haven't done this yet.

Tom

[Myste]

If the version you're reading is pirated, then yes, it's piracy--whether or not you own the books already. Since you do own the books, it's not really a heinous crime, but technically it's still piracy--the author isn't getting paid for the pirated version you're reading, even if he did get paid for the hard copy you purchased.

[wayfriend]

If the version you're reading is pirated, then yes, it's piracy--

... even if you don't say "Arrr!" when you read it?

[Creator]

If the version you're reading is pirated, then yes, it's piracy--whether or not you own the books already. Since you do own the books, it's not really a heinous crime, but technically it's still piracy--the author isn't getting paid for the pirated version you're reading, even if he did get paid for the hard copy you purchased.

What I find amusing is SRD mentioned that HE downloaded pirated copies of his earlier work to make his research efforts easier.

[Variol Farseer]

If the version you're reading is pirated, then yes, it's piracy--whether or not you own the books already. Since you do own the books, it's not really a heinous crime, but technically it's still piracy--the author isn't getting paid for the pirated version you're reading, even if he did get paid for the hard copy you purchased.

Careful; it may not be that simple. Case law has established that if you own a copy of a book, you can scan it to make an electronic version for your own personal use (usually research, but other things also fall under the Fair Use doctrine). If you own the book, you can ask someone else to scan it for you, provided that only you keep the scanned version when it's finished. (This is very useful for people with impaired vision who want to read a book that does not come in an audio or large-print edition. Once the book is on the computer, you can magnify the font to any size you like for easy reading; or if that isn't enough, you can display it on a Braille terminal.) If you and another person both own the book, and one of you scans a copy and shares the files with the other one, that begins to get into a grey area. IANAL, but I don't believe there are any really solid precedents one way or the other.

So it is not 'technically still piracy', because the technicalities haven't yet been worked out to that point. As for me, I consider it a useful labour-saving device. By having a scanned and OCR'd copy on my computer, I can quickly search the material, which is a tremendous help when a book has no index. By getting the file from someone else, I save myself the labour of scanning the book and converting the graphics to text. That really is a tremendous pain; it takes several hours to properly OCR an average-sized book.

The person providing others with his OCR'd copy is violating copyright law, unless he makes absolutely certain that he only shares it with people who own a physical copy of the book. The person who downloads the file is certainly breaking the law if she does not own a copy of the print edition, but probably isn't breaking any established law if she does.

It's all too easy to throw around words like 'piracy', but keep in mind, this is an emerging field in jurisprudence. The only thing that is technically piracy is highjacking a ship at sea. It's acceptable in colloquial English to call copyright violation 'piracy', but it really isn't the proper legal term.

I myself have downloaded several copies of books I already owned. To try and keep on the right side of the law as completely as possible, I only use them when I want to do a search for a particular word or phrase in the text. Once the computer has found it, I go to the printed book and read it there. This is really very practical in any case, because monitors still have very poor image quality compared to print, and I find it tedious to read large amounts of text off a screen.

[Myste]

Careful; it may not be that simple. Case law has established that if you own a copy of a book, you can scan it to make an electronic version for your own personal use (usually research, but other things also fall under the Fair Use doctrine). If you own the book, you can ask someone else to scan it for you, provided that only you keep the scanned version when it's finished. (This is very useful for people with impaired vision who want to read a book that does not come in an audio or large-print edition. Once the book is on the computer, you can magnify the font to any size you like for easy reading; or if that isn't enough, you can display it on a Braille terminal.) If you and another person both own the book, and one of you scans a copy and shares the files with the other one, that begins to get into a grey area. IANAL, but I don't believe there are any really solid precedents one way or the other.

I agree that scanning a copy for oneself or even having someone else scan it for one's own personal use is not a copyright violation. But from his description, it sounds as though the particular e-text file Tom accessed is providing Runes free of charge to everyone. Since there's no way of preventing people who haven't purchased personal copies of the book from downloading this particular file, it seems to me that it falls into roughly the same category as music file-sharing, which has been declared a violation of copyright law--there's your precedent.

So it is not 'technically still piracy', because the technicalities haven't yet been worked out to that point.

I'll refrain from using the word "piracy" in this context--I certainly don't want anyone to think I'm referring to hijacking ships at sea. And I'll grant that borrowing etexts of books one already owns is not the same thing as hijacking ships. But while the boundaries, definitions, and protections involved in electronic distribution of copyrighted material are still in flux on a federal level, I can say from my own experience that individual publishers have extensive definitions of the various electronic incarnations their products can take, and are becoming very specific about the rights to electronic distribution of any copyrighted text they have under contract.

Under the definitions of electronic distribution rights that I'm personally familiar with, distributing etexts of books without reference to whether or not the downloader already owns a copy of said book is a violation of copyright. You're right to remind me to be more specific. The distributor of the texts Tom downloads is--under the terms as the company I work for defines them--violating copyright. Whether Tom, who only downloads etexts of books he already owns, is violating copyright law or not is still gray area.

Whether Tom is a pirate or not depends roughly on how many times a day he says "Arrrr," calls people "Matey," or hijacks ships at sea.

[Variol Farseer]

Under the definitions of electronic distribution rights that I'm personally familiar with, distributing etexts of books without reference to whether or not the downloader already owns a copy of said book is a violation of copyright. You're right to remind me to be more specific. The distributor of the texts Tom downloads is--under the terms as the company I work for defines them--violating copyright. Whether Tom, who only downloads etexts of books he already owns, is violating copyright law or not is still gray area.

Agreed. But related case law on time- & media-shifting of TV programs suggests that he may well come down on the right side of the law. My hunch is that it will be resolved in such a way that retroactive prosecution is really not an option. Ethically, I have no difficulty with what Tom is doing. It's not as if he were acting as a fence or otherwise rewarding the copyright violator. And it's not as if he could go and buy a legitimate electronic edition of the work. The specific rights he may be violating are not being exercised, and as far as I know nobody is planning to exercise them. He has paid for the work to the very best of his ability.

De minimis non curat lex, as they say: which as we all know is Sanskrit for, 'No harm, no foul.'

Whether Tom is a pirate or not depends roughly on how many times a day he says "Arrrr," calls people "Matey," or hijacks ships at sea.

Or gets called 'Briny' by the French, yes.

[Myste]

Do the French call pirates "Briny?" I thought they used "briny" to refer to Giants.

[Variol Farseer]

Do the French call pirates "Briny?" I thought they used "briny" to refer to Giants.

Yes, but the full name of that Giant, as I recall, was 'Briny the Pirate'. QED.

[Myste]

Oh, that's right. Briny the [giant] Pirate. Poor Foamfollower.

[Khat]

Edge how did you find out about this?

[Edge]

I was curious, so I checked. And I'm not going to say exactly where, because I don't want to publicise it.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Makes sense.
Great that we have a network to catch this stuff fast, on the watch
Nothing else to say about this, except to add that pirates are great. d'argh.

[Dawngreeter]

Great that we have a network to catch this stuff fast, on the watch

Runes has been available for illegal download for around 5 months now.

[I'm Murrin]

Yes, and Edge noticed it 8 months ago - which is definately fast.