Abandoned copyright… I would have zero moral qualms.
Not exactly the right impression for either. IANAL but copyright law generally allows for fair use and backup.
Ripping for personal use or backup is fine.
Downloading I have no idea but they wouldn’t know who downloaded under fair use even if it applied. Seems like you’d still have to defend yourself after the fact if caught.
The usual method of getting a file is filesharing. It’s both downloading and uploading. If you go a route like using a torrent site you ARE infringing rights by making copyrighted work available to people without license to them. You become a pirate in the eyes of the law. That has held up in court even for those that claimed ignorance.
I have absolutely no moral qualms about availing myself, for personal use, of any intellectual property that the private sector declines to offer to an accessible marketplace.
IIRC Disney realized they caused themselves issues when the law (which they’d supported) got passed. They had projects based on or using copyrighted material that were expected to be public domain soon. The mouse being protected was obviously still more important to their bottom line but it cut both ways.
Right. The law currently makes no provision for “use it or lose it”. Given that, one cannot legally pirate anything under copyright protection - whether in or out of print. Oh, I can clearly see the problems this stance leads to, especially in acedemia. I can also see the problems with a too low speed limit, but that argument won’t hold up in court…
Again, whether “use it or lose it” would pass Constitutional muster (like the 2nd amendment, there is room for interpretation in them there words) is a whole 'nuther debate.
And for all those claiming “abandoned copyright”, I would ask “how do you know?”
This has been touched on. A lot of it comes down to what constitutes a good faith effort to find a copyright holder. I think that’s worthy of a whole thread on its own but yes, if use of an abandoned copyright was permitted there would need to be a legal definition and framework.
I don’t think that would be even close. The lawyers defending such a statute would just point to the Constitution and say, “See?”
Under the current law, that’s exactly the problem, isn’t it? There IS no way of knowing for sure, shy of communicating with and getting a response from every human and corporate entity that could have possibly acquired ownership to the rights of a work.
This is why a copyright law that doesn’t require periodic renewal of copyright is fundamentally flawed.
Copyright law is a broken mess anyways. I feel that once an author/publisher has ceased publication of their work, there should be a very short leave before they either print it for circulation again or it ends up in the public domain.
Case in point: video games. Let’s say I want to play the old SNES Buster Brothers. What are my options? Well, I could go hunt down a used copy second-hand…
…Yeah, that’s kind of it. It’s not like Nintendo is selling the damn thing any more. I have absolutely no moral qualms about pirating it whatsoever. It’s no longer for sale? How could this possibly be theft?
IP law needs an overhaul. As such, I see no problem violating what is clearly a broken set of laws.
I still find it a self-contradicting argument. The fact that you loved the book enough to steal it shows that it has value. By stealing the book, you took away the possibility of somebody exactly like yourself being able to read that book.
Oh, I’m not disagreeing with those observations. I do disagree with the folks who say “I don’t agree with it so I can violate at will”. Law doesn’t work that way.
Old games are an interesting example, there used to be a huge abandonware scene, but companies, such as gog.com sprung up, paying the usually low fees to the rightsholder, optimising them for new PCs and selling to paying customers.
SWIM hasn’t pirated a game in five years.
SWIM pirates a lot of films and TV series, but not games.
Well, it works that way a little. Laws which large numbers of people – good people – won’t obey tend to be bad laws. The old nationwide 55 mph speed limit is, perhaps, an example. It’s bad governance, as it pits human nature against the concept of the rule of law. It also pits legislation against the constitution, in some cases. (Which is why we have the constitution, to prevent popular ideas from infringing on the rights of unpopular minorities.)
Look at the number of expired laws on the books, where so many people disobey them, the authorities don’t even bother to enforce them. There was a period of time when anti-sodomy laws were extant in some states, but gay rights activism made it all but impossible for those laws to be enforced. On the rare cases they were, there was a very strong backlash of public opinion.
Part of this is that laws tend to change slowly…and technology changes faster than lightning. Social values also change rapidly.
You’re certainly right in principle. But in practice, you can start to have the “ordinarily cautious man” problem. Such a person knows to drive through a traffic signal that is permanently stuck on red: the law doesn’t expect us to stop there forever. When the women’s bathroom at the stadium is terribly crowded, and the men’s bathroom isn’t…it’s not unreasonable for the women to invade the men’s room. Sometimes we get to violate the law when it may seem unreasonable to obey it.
(I recently actually called 911 on a traffic signal that wasn’t turning, and the emergency operator told me to just run it…as safely as possible.)
My gut reaction is, “Well, if the owner doesn’t want to make a buck by keeping it in print, then doom on them–I’ll be a pirate.”
Gets interesting if I wonder about why it’s not in print. Maybe the owner of the intellectual property no longer wants it distributed for some reason (Boston should do this with all albums after Don’t Look Back)
I really detest people who pirate content that can be purchased, but this hypothetical is admittedly my soft spot… If someone slipped me a multi disc set of Tom Chapin’s old TV show, “Make a Wish”, which is otherwise unavailable, I would likely watch it without qualms.
It wouldn’t even occur to me not to — nor can I grasp why people waste their lives worrying about other people getting stuff for free. Not every transaction needs to include rent.
I will never download, or take in any way, anything from which someone is demanding payment currently. That includes films, games and books. Anything else is free game. If only because after a while everything becomes part of the cultural commons — and is liable to destruction if not helped to be preserved.
I have never willingly watched Dr. Who, but many like it: in the past the custodians of this as a cultural construct. the BBC, willingly destroyed many episodes — and would have prosecuted anyone who illicitly recorded such. In which case the pirate would be a saviour.
There are some grey areas. Earlier I was looking up Richard Whittington, half saint half sinner and I noticed someone I had never heard of, Sir William Gore Ouseley — 1797 - 1866, an English diplomat who pointed out an earlier Persian variant of Whittington and his Cat. Sir William, who married into the American aristocracy, was against slavery, and wrote Notes on the Slave Trade‚ with Remarks on the Measures Adopted for its Suppression in 1850.
It was still in print in 2007, and still may be. Now Archive has a copy for download by accident ( accident defined as to what people see to add ), and it is obviously free from all copyright, patent or trademark — lawyers thrash themselves into shark-frenzies over the differences of these — yet suppose the in print edition was the only one available ? Personally I would acknowledge their right to profit from their copies, but should deny any more right to own the mere writings any more than that another could sequester the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth and deny them to the world at will, or by the toll of paying a price.
Sir Williams’s paintings are quite nice.
[ And pace**Bridgeman vs Corel,** I would maintain the right of anyone, as universal heirs to art to place photographs of any art ( as slavish copies ) anywhere, rather than that the current owners, such as museums, can demand rent for an artist who died years ago. ]
Are you sure about this? Yes pdf files can contain .exe files, but I was pretty sure they could only run if you opened the pdf in full Acrobat not in Reader which is the free program almost everyone uses. It is also my understanding that internal to browsers, pdf reading is sandboxed and even more protected.
Amazon will sometimes allow you to purchase a Kindle book at a greatly reduced price (usually $1.99 or $2.99) if you’ve already purchased the dead-tree version from them. And they will usually give you an MP3 album for nothing if you purchased the equivalent CD from them, even if it was years ago. So they sort of agree with your thinking there.
The proper and ethical thing to do would be to locate the author’s email address and ask him/her/other for their royalty details and send a cheque on their home address at least. This way you are paying the person who has put in the massive effort into the book and more importantly your conscience is clear.
