IS this considered piracy?

ArticlePrince

14 years ago

Technically yes, because you created a copy.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

FREE 500 word articles, PM me for yours!
(4 days only!)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132246].message }}

grayambition 14 years ago

Yes, it's piracy. Not just "technically," unless of course the usage rights allow for making a copy. And even if that's the case, it's usually clearly stated that you're allowed to make a copy only for backup purposes, or that you are allowed to install the software on a specified number of additional computers that YOU own, often with the stipulation that you can't have the software active on more than one machine.

In your scenario, you've paid for ONE piece of software (ebook, course, whatever). The person who gets the copy (regardless of what percentage that person paid) has a pirated copy.
- Thanks
Signature

Jan Weingarten
Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very"; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be. ~Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132267].message }}

Ken Strong

14 years ago

I believe you're allowed by law to make a single copy for yourself to keep as a backup... but if you're giving that copy to someone else to use on their computer, I believe that's illegal, unless the license terms of the software you purchased say otherwise (if you bought multiple licenses, say).

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The RETURN of OBI:
Learn IM From the Experts Who Are Already Doing It!

"Sammy-approved, baby!" -- Offline Brat Pack

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132251].message }}

BrainCopy

14 years ago

Originally Posted by KenStrong

I believe you're allowed by law to make a single copy for yourself to keep as a backup... but if you're giving that copy to someone else to use on their computer, I believe that's illegal, unless the license terms of the software you purchased say otherwise (if you bought multiple licenses, say).

But technically he's not "giving" it to his friend. His friend also paid
for it as well. I don't think that would be illegal. Now if he had bought
the product with a friend and then shared it with someone else WHO DIDN'T
pay for it, then that would be illegal. Then again I'm not a judge

Best Regards,
UFG

Originally Posted by slingingshot15

If two people put up money and buy a cd, software, ebook, ecourse etc and share it with one another by 1 having the original and the other getting a copy....is that piracy? Cause some products out there might be too expensive for 1 person but if he has a friend and they are willing to split the cost then he can afford to buy it.....

Im just curious to know...

Here's a solution. Join their affiliate program and buy it through your affiliate link.

Best Regards,
UFG

Thanks
4 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133236].message }}

agc

14 years ago

Originally Posted by UFG

But technically he's not "giving" it to his friend. His friend also paid
for it as well. I don't think that would be illegal. Now if he had bought
the product with a friend and then shared it with someone else WHO DIDN'T
pay for it, then that would be illegal.

So let's extend your scenario... now we have 4 people, each paying 1/4 of the price. Did they also "pay for it"?

How about 2,000 people splitting the cost of a $20 cd? Did their penny each also cover the cost of the CD?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133255].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by UFG

But technically he's not "giving" it to his friend. His friend also paid for it as well.

Technically, neither of them paid for it. They each paid for half of it.

You could, of course, give each of them the half of the original that he paid for.
- Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133256].message }}
agc 14 years ago

Originally Posted by UFG

Here's a solution. Join their affiliate program and buy it through your affiliate link.

Geniuses like you are the reason I can't get clickbank to pay me for the 2 earned commissions on one orphaned clickbank account.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133260].message }}

Paul Myers

14 years ago

But technically he's not "giving" it to his friend. His friend also paid
for it as well. I don't think that would be illegal.

They share ownership, yes. They still don't have the right to make unlicensed copies. Note the word: copyright.

Then again I'm not a judge

Clearly...

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133277].message }}

Paul Myers

14 years ago

Steve,

The "kids" will figure out how this "borrowing" stuff should work, and for all our fluff and bluster, their solution will almost certainly be a better fit (to use the shoe metaphor again) than ours.

By which I presume you mean, "the thieves will sort it out to suit their convenience." Which brings us back, once again, to the distinction between "I have the ability" and "I have the right."

That's what this stuff all ultimately comes back to, innit?

Oh gosh, I just realised I'm about to get Myers-ed.

Ya think?

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133303].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Which brings us back, once again, to the distinction between "I have the ability" and "I have the right."

A distinction which, to be perfectly honest, is arbitrary and artificial.

The coming generations are quite firmly of the opinion that they SHOULD have the right, and with every passing year they get closer to qualifying for election to government office.

Once enough of them have been, having this right is not far behind. The status quo is changing. Like it or not, most of us will see a dramatic reduction of intellectual property rights within our lifetime... and what we now stand proudly and proclaim to be unethical and illegal will no longer be either.

That doesn't make it any less unethical and illegal NOW, of course, nor is it any more acceptable. But if your only real defence against piracy is to say "that is unethical and illegal" to someone in authority, you'd better start looking for a new one.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133335].message }}

agc

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

Once enough of them have been, having this right is not far behind. The status quo is changing. Like it or not, most of us will see a dramatic reduction of intellectual property rights within our lifetime... and what we now stand proudly and proclaim to be unethical and illegal will no longer be either.

You've read Lawrence Lessig I take it? If not... -> == Free Culture ==

While there is a LOT of interesting historical perspective in his work... ie Disney copying the work of the time, then, once successful, working furiously to lock it all down tight to prevent others from doing the same thing... It is also disturbing to see the trends in what "the kids" are thinking is reasonable and fair.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133383].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by agc

You've read Lawrence Lessig I take it?

I've met Lawrence Lessig, and actually discussed this very issue with him.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133395].message }}
- agc 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by CDarklock
  
  I've met Lawrence Lessig, and actually discussed this very issue with him.
  
  Does he actually discuss? Or just pontificate?
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133619].message }}

Kay King

14 years ago

The coming generations are quite firmly of the opinion that they SHOULD have the right, and with every passing year they get closer to qualifying for election to government office.

That was said of youth 10,20,40 years ago. What happens is most of them grow up and their views change. By the time they're elected they have law degrees and 3 piece suits....and are complaining about the ethics of the younger generation.:p

With ebooks you buy the "right to read" but you don't truly own it as you can't determine its fate after you've read it. Odd, strange and curious when you think about it...especially when you consider many of them cost far more than print books.

kay

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

Live life like someone left the gate open

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133419].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

That was said of youth 10,20,40 years ago. What happens is most of them grow up and their views change.

Forty years ago, there was no such thing as the internet.

Twenty years ago, there was no such thing as Linux.

Ten years ago, there was no such thing as BitTorrent.

Today, you can click a link and put a DVD on your hard drive in less time than it takes to watch the movie.

Now, let's take a trip back in time just over twenty years, to the Audio Home Recording Act of 1986.

This act made it perfectly legitimate and legal for owners of home recording equipment to make unlimited personal copies of all their music recordings, and even to make a small number of noncommercial copies for friends and family.

How different is it, really, to say you can do that with DVDs?

Right now, when you buy recordable DVDs for the set-top boxes that can record a DVD from cable and satellite broadcasts, you pay an extra fee to the MPAA to compensate them for the possibility that you'll record a commercial movie with it and rob them of a DVD sale.

It's just a matter of time before someone actually ends up in court saying "since I pay a license fee to the MPAA when I buy the media, don't I obviously have a license to record commercial movies with it, and then every legal right to sell that recording?"

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133518].message }}

Michael Oksa

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

It's just a matter of time before someone actually ends up in court saying "since I pay a license fee to the MPAA when I buy the media, don't I obviously have a license to record commercial movies with it, and then every legal right to sell that recording?"

Being in court says nothing about what the ruling will be.

~Michael

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"Ich bin en fuego!"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133554].message }}

CDarklock 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Michael Oksa

Being in court says nothing about what the ruling will be.

Yeah, I'm not holding my breath looking for a judge who would rule that you can pay for something, not actually get what you paid for, and be sued for trying to use it.
- Thanks
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133615].message }}

grayambition

14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

A distinction which, to be perfectly honest, is arbitrary and artificial.

The coming generations are quite firmly of the opinion that they SHOULD have the right, and with every passing year they get closer to qualifying for election to government office.

Once enough of them have been, having this right is not far behind. The status quo is changing. Like it or not, most of us will see a dramatic reduction of intellectual property rights within our lifetime... and what we now stand proudly and proclaim to be unethical and illegal will no longer be either.

That doesn't make it any less unethical and illegal NOW, of course, nor is it any more acceptable. But if your only real defence against piracy is to say "that is unethical and illegal" to someone in authority, you'd better start looking for a new one.

True dat. I had this exact discussion with my brother the other day. "Kids these days"

generally don't grok the concept of intellectual property rights. I'm not sure about the chicken and egg sequence, but IMO much of their attitude stems from the proliferation of online freebies (which is NOT, by itself, a bad thing by ANY means).

Nowadays, people expect stuff to be free. I fall into the trap myself. There's hulu for tv, a complete IM education on WF (especially if you join the War Room), free SKYPE calls, and lots of shared music and vids. If I want to learn php, my first instinct is to do a google search for free tutorials. And I'll find 'em.

Problem is, with all the free stuff that's available legally, the lines between legal/illegal, moral/immoral, ethical/unethical become blurred. MSNBC makes all their content available online, but CNN doesn't. So why shouldn't I try to find a way around CNN so I can watch what I want? (That's a hypothetical, gang - not saying it's right or that I do that.)

When I was a kid, in the days of yore, I had to buy a book or go to the library to get info. Or go to the record store for music. But those darn "kids these days" have grown up with youtube, filesharing, and the like. Warps the perspective of those poor little brains...

Just curious. How many of you who think the ethical lines re intellectual property rights are fairly black and white are older than, oh, 35-40? And how many of you who think the lines are muddy and permeable are... youngsters?

[EDIT] Wow. Active little topic. At least 5 people posted while I was writing this response. May not be so relevant anymore. But I like it, and it's staying.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Jan Weingarten
Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very"; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be. ~Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133435].message }}

Kay King 14 years ago

Saw the fellow on TV tonight who invented the original "cell phone".

His complaint about the current phones is that the features are driven by engineers and programmers - and should be driven by consumers.

His prediction for the future is that we will have a tiny cell implanted just below our ear and will be able to "call" anyone without an appliance in our hand. So that would mean we'd all be walking around talking to the person inside our heads. I know people who do that now...

kay
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
Live life like someone left the gate open
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133445].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by grayambition

Just curious. How many of you who think the ethical lines re intellectual property rights are fairly black and white are older than, oh, 35-40? And how many of you who think the lines are muddy and permeable are... youngsters?

In general, there's been this constant war going on between the commercial exploiters of content, who would ideally like to own and control all rights over that content forever... and the consumers of that content, who would ideally like to do anything they want with what they buy.

The trade-off has always been the eventual release of copyrighted work into the public domain. The only reason a copyright holder gets any rights at all over his work is to give him a fair chance of being compensated for his efforts before the work enters the public domain. (This is a point of Constitutional law and the powers granted to Congress.)

But over the years, there have been very well-funded efforts to push that public domain release farther and farther into the future - to the point that your rights over copyrighted content are likely to outlive your grandchildren.

And what's really making all of this very, very murky is the open source community... which asserts, and can quite heavily support this assertion, that you can give people the right to redistribute your work and still be compensated for it. You can essentially claim copyright, license all of your rights to everyone that gets your product, and still get paid.

This is completely blowing a lot of people's minds.

There are a lot of counterintuitive things going on in the IP world right now. We're starting to see quite clearly that the field is currently dominated by greed and selfishness, which isn't serving the public very well at all... and we're also seeing that the public backlash against this greed and selfishness threatens a lot more than just corporate profits, because stealing is stealing and once you're over the line you may as well keep going.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133599].message }}

Paul Myers

14 years ago

Caliban,

And what's really making all of this very, very murky is the open source community... which asserts, and can quite heavily support this assertion, that you can give people the right to redistribute your work and still be compensated for it.

I don't see how that makes anything murky. It simply provides an alternative approach. Note that the alternative is explicitly based on recognition of the same underlying rights.

The OS community has one advantage: They've mostly obviated the need for a technological arms race, which is always destructive to everyone involved. It's still too early to tell if that's enough of an edge to shift things their way.

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133638].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

I don't see how that makes anything murky.

Are exclusive rights necessary to secure a return?

Is a return necessary to promote progress in science and the arts?

We've assumed for nearly a quarter of a millennium that the big boys wouldn't rip off the little guy if they couldn't legally copy and distribute his creations, and that the little guy wouldn't invent things if he couldn't make money inventing them, but neither of these things is really panning out.

Note that the alternative is explicitly based on recognition of the same underlying rights.

More accurately, it's built on the foundation of the existing legal framework. There's not really an alternative to that.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133695].message }}

Paul Myers

14 years ago

Caliban,

Are exclusive rights necessary to secure a return?

Never have been. The idea is to ensure that the return is sufficient to motivate people to create. And being necessary is not the only consideration, unless you believe that the concept of rights that are inherent in one's person is a fiction. In that case, we'd have little to discuss, other than the epistemological development of a cultural ethos.

Is a return necessary to promote progress in science and the arts?

It speeds it up, at the very least. Sufficient return allows for more concentration of effort. But again, that's not the only consideration.

Paul

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133713].message }}

Paul Myers 14 years ago

Caliban,

More accurately, it's built on the foundation of the existing legal framework. There's not really an alternative to that.

Straw man. There has never, at least in the history of the United States, been anything preventing people from making their works freely distributable, including declaring them public domain.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133726].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

And being necessary is not the only consideration, unless you believe that the concept of rights that are inherent in one's person is a fiction.

First, I'm not saying it's the only consideration. I'm saying it's a consideration, and in my opinion a rather important one.

Second, intellectual property rights have never been considered inherent in the United States. They are regarded as artificial rights, established by statute alone.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Straw man. There has never, at least in the history of the United States, been anything preventing people from making their works freely distributable, including declaring them public domain.

Yep, that's a straw man all right.

Because what I actually said was that when the open source community makes their works freely redistributable, they have absolutely no choice but to do so under the existing laws. The laws themselves are not necessary for the open source community to function; the community work under the existing legal framework because it is the only thing they can do.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133775].message }}

Paul Myers

14 years ago

Second, intellectual property rights have never been considered inherent in the United States. They are regarded as artificial rights, established by statute alone.

In a strict legal sense, yes. Philosophically, there are strong arguments to be made that they're derived from the more fundamental rights inherent in each individual human. The "inalienable" rights.

As far as the OSS community, the legal framework is only relevant if it restricts them somehow. Can you suggest anything they want to do that is restricted by law?

Paul

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133792].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

In a strict legal sense, yes. Philosophically, there are strong arguments to be made that they're derived from the more fundamental rights inherent in each individual human. The "inalienable" rights.

I don't find that particularly relevant to the question of what IP law in the U.S. will be in the future.

For what it's worth, however, I do believe that IP rights are inherent rights of the creator. I also believe it is offensive to transfer them. Were the alteration of IP law in my hands, I would place a hard time limit on all IP rights (X years from creation, no renewal), and forbid the transfer of those rights from the creator. If you create something, you own the rights, end of story. I would also completely forbid exclusive licensing of any sort.

So while the creator could license rights to others, he would never be forbidden to license them further. He may certainly elect not to license them further, but no contract or license term could forbid him to do so.

As far as the OSS community, the legal framework is only relevant if it restricts them somehow.

Paul, the license has to be legal. They're allowed to do what they want to do, but they have to do it within the boundaries of the current laws. They don't have a choice. So the fact that open source licenses rest on the existing IP laws is a completely pointless observation: all IP licensing rests on the existing IP laws. It has to.

Which, yes indeedy, is a restriction.

Thanks

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133844].message }}

agc 14 years ago

Originally Posted by CDarklock

We're starting to see quite clearly that the field is currently dominated by greed and selfishness, which isn't serving the public very well at all...

The RIAA SAYS that we aren't buying the song, we're buying the right to listen to the song, and that's why a CD costs say $15 to buy, and maybe $.75 to produce.

However, I lost everything I owned in a house fire about 10 years ago.

At that time, I had well over 400 cd's that I had bought over the years.

Now since I had the smouldering ashes of my melted CD's, and a police report detailing the loss, if they were gen-u-wine about that they would replace the "media" at production cost.

Of course, we all know the odds of that already.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133643].message }}

Paul Myers

14 years ago

Caliban,

The coming generations are quite firmly of the opinion that they SHOULD have the right, and with every passing year they get closer to qualifying for election to government office.

This same argument has been made at every change in technology that makes distribution easier, and each time the length of copyright terms and the penalties for infringement have increased.

This is largely because younger people don't retain the same attitudes when they reach an age at which they've created something of their own.

That aside, equating law and ethics is a bad bit of thinking. They should be closely related, but they often aren't.

Paul

Thanks

Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133547].message }}

Floyd Fisher

14 years ago

Originally Posted by slingingshot15

If two people put up money and buy a cd, software, ebook, ecourse etc and share it with one another by 1 having the original and the other getting a copy....is that piracy? Cause some products out there might be too expensive for 1 person but if he has a friend and they are willing to split the cost then he can afford to buy it.....

Im just curious to know...

If you make a copy, yes it is piracy.

Why not just study it together instead? Now you got two heads working towards the same goal, and you can learn twice as fast.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132258].message }}

the_icon

14 years ago

I think we have ascertained that, yes, it is piracy lol

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132273].message }}

JayPeete

14 years ago

It just depends on the product.

In the case of a CD the owner would probably say that it is piracy because you made a copy that was not for yourself.

In the case of an IM product, I have heard some product owners say that it is OK to have a partner.

I guess when in doubt don't do it unless you have a way to ask for approval.

Thanks

Signature

What Misunderstood Traffic Source SUCKS In
3 Million Visitors Daily and Spits Out
$560.81 Per Day In Commissions?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132722].message }}

Hesaidblissfully

14 years ago

Originally Posted by slingingshot15

If two people put up money and buy a cd, software, ebook, ecourse etc and share it with one another by 1 having the original and the other getting a copy....is that piracy? Cause some products out there might be too expensive for 1 person but if he has a friend and they are willing to split the cost then he can afford to buy it.....

Im just curious to know...

1. You should probably ask a lawyer who's familiar with piracy issues.

2. My non-lawyer-random-internet-person opinion is that it would be a form of piracy. If you think about it, in the scenario you describe, you've paid for one copy of the course, but you've created two copies. You and the other person both got a copy of the full course for half the price.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132748].message }}

agc

14 years ago

The law is a mess and enforcement is worse...

But ethically... if you are both using the product separately and simultaneously, then yes, it's ethically wrong.

If you take turns using it, or you only use it together, then it's not ethically wrong.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132756].message }}

Paul Myers 14 years ago

If you take turns using it, or you only use it together, then it's not ethically wrong.

Ummm... That's not quite precise, but it's accurate. IF it's a hard copy product.

If it's a physical product and you give or sell the original (and any copies) to someone else when you're done with it, that's legit, legally. It's also hard to argue that it's unethical. Alternating usage is also legally acceptable, barring any licensing terms that forbid it. It's the copying that creates the legal and ethical issue.

Copyright means, literally, the right to control the making of copies.

It gets trickier with purely digital products. For instance, I have a friend who wants to learn the business, including some parts I've never learned. If I buy a product for them and delete the copy on my system when they get it, that's ethical. It's a gift, and there's only one copy out there for the single sale that was made.

But what about giving them a copy after I've read it? That's not kosher, by most interpretations of the word. It may or may not be legal, assuming you don't keep a copy yourself. If there are copies made without permission, and multiple people have access to use them at the same time, that's over the line.

Paul
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2132835].message }}
- Black Hat Cat Banned 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Paul Myers
  
  But what about giving them a copy after I've read it? That's not kosher, by most interpretations of the word.
  
  Paul
  
  Of course it's kosher, if you delete your copy after reading it. It's no different than passing on a hard copy book after you've read it.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133039].message }}

Black Hat Cat

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by slingingshot15

If two people put up money and buy a cd, software, ebook, ecourse etc and share it with one another by 1 having the original and the other getting a copy....is that piracy? Cause some products out there might be too expensive for 1 person but if he has a friend and they are willing to split the cost then he can afford to buy it.....

Im just curious to know...

No one is going to come arrest you if you and your friend get together to buy something you couldn't afford on your own.

Technically, it probably is piracy. Realistically, are you going to let that stop you? I wouldn't. It's not two friends getting together that most people are concerned about, or that is harming the industry, it's the sharing of products with hundreds-thousands of others that is the problem.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133053].message }}

Steven Fullman

14 years ago

I think we're all trying to horn old world views into a new world shoe.

Yes, the law's the law, etc.

But the laws -- when written -- had very little notion of non-physical property. Yep, the IP regulations have been around for a while, but it seems they've always been attached to a physical "thing" (a book, a record, etc...)

The "kids" will figure out how this "borrowing" stuff should work, and for all our fluff and bluster, their solution will almost certainly be a better fit (to use the shoe metaphor again) than ours.

Oh gosh, I just realised I'm about to get Myers-ed.

Gulp!

Cheers,
Steve

Thanks

Signature

Not promoting right now

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133069].message }}

CDarklock

14 years ago

Originally Posted by slingingshot15

If two people put up money and buy a cd, software, ebook, ecourse etc and share it with one another by 1 having the original and the other getting a copy....is that piracy?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Thanks

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133142].message }}

ladyspinner

14 years ago

If you copied it - there lies the problem. Piracy it is.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133231].message }}

mikemcmillan

14 years ago

Copyright doesn't just cover copying, it covers distribution as well. For whatever reason, if you distribute a copy of a digital product without the permission of the copyright holder you didn't have the right to do that. Intentions are not germane to the action.

From Copyright Basics From The U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
(title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including
literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This
protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106
of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

Two people cannot "buy" a digital product. If the money came out of your PayPal account--you bought it. If it was charged to your charge card--you bought it.

Buying a digital product, sending it as an attachment to a friend, and then deleting from your computer is (in my opinion only) is a violation of the law. Many would disagree. But the distribution of a copyrighted work is protected.

Some people used the example of buying a printed book and giving it to a friend. That's different. The book can exist in only one place at one time (quantum mechanics aside, ha, ha). But a digital product can exist in many places simultaneously. Distribution, not just copying is protected. --Mike

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I'll help you create a reputation-building evergreen product in any niche and launch it successfully!
Check it out here.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133373].message }}

Michael Oksa

14 years ago

Originally Posted by mikemcmillan

Copyright doesn't just cover copying, it covers distribution as well. For whatever reason, if you distribute a copy of a digital product without the permission of the copyright holder you didn't have the right to do that. Intentions are not germane to the action.

From Copyright Basics From The U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States
(title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including
literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This
protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106
of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

Two people cannot "buy" a digital product. If the money came out of your PayPal account--you bought it. If it was charged to your charge card--you bought it.

Buying a digital product, sending it as an attachment to a friend, and then deleting from your computer is (in my opinion only) is a violation of the law. Many would disagree. But the distribution of a copyrighted work is protected.

Some people used the example of buying a printed book and giving it to a friend. That's different. The book can exist in only one place at one time (quantum mechanics aside, ha, ha). But a digital product can exist in many places simultaneously. Distribution, not just copying is protected. --Mike

Phonorecords?

And people say the law doesn't reflect current reality.

Sorry, I had to chuckle at that particular word.

Now, off to listen to some of my phonorecords. I have to be careful the the wax cylinders don't break when I play them on the Victrola machine.

~Michael

Thanks

Signature

"Ich bin en fuego!"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2133412].message }}

Gwen_Iler

14 years ago

Originally Posted by slingingshot15

If two people put up money and buy a cd, software, ebook, ecourse etc and share it with one another by 1 having the original and the other getting a copy....is that piracy? Cause some products out there might be too expensive for 1 person but if he has a friend and they are willing to split the cost then he can afford to buy it.....

Im just curious to know...

It depends.....you can make a copy for back-up or personal use if it's yours.....but that's it....making another copies for distribution is another thing....

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134181].message }}

MassiveMarketer

14 years ago

It is piracy once you have made another copy.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134275].message }}

rosetrees 14 years ago

Have you thought of contacting the product owner and asking? My guess is that they will quite likely give you the go ahead as long as you are up front about what you want to do.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134426].message }}

ahlexis

14 years ago

The "copy for backup" rule only works out to be legal if you treat the original like a book. In other words, the copy is stored someplace "off site" and the original is passed back and forth between the two buyers. As you know, one book cannot be read by two different people unless they are sitting side by side sharing.

However, what happens to your "offsite backup copy" is the real question here!

A creative mind would store it with the second party sharing in the purchase

(Sorry, guys...I couldn't resist!)

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134499].message }}

Michael Oksa

14 years ago

Let's look at a slightly different scenario that is basically the same.

1,000 people pay a membership fee of $14.95 month. For that fee they get all of the paid items they want. The owner of the membership buys them with their own money, but says all those paying the monthly fee are doing so because they are all working together.

Just like in the OP's example, they can't afford to buy all the products they want, but they can afford the $14.95/month.

1 copy is bought and anywhere from 1 to 1,000 (depnding on individual interest) copies are distributed.

Is that piracy?

Does it matter if the members get to vote on what products are bought and shared?

For the record, I found out from somebody that one of my products was being "distributed" this way. I also found out that it was downloaded 128 times. At $17, that's up to $2159 in lost sales.

Is that piracy?

As the creator of the product, who is working hard to feed MY family...

I truly hope the creator of the site, and every single one of the members are either marooned, flogged, hung or made to walk the plank. Live like a pirate...

All the best,
Michael

Thanks

Signature

"Ich bin en fuego!"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134703].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Legalities aside, it's just a matter of common sense and ethics. You already know, I suspect that the product is intended for one person, one license. The fact that you cannot afford it is irrelevant. When I can't afford something, I don't buy it.

By some of the comments here, it would appear that you could just do the course, send it on, delete your copy ... then the next person could do the same on and on and on.

That's piracy in my book.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134805].message }}

DeadGuy

14 years ago

Just asking the question means that you have doubts in your own mind. And we always question the legality of our actions after we have brushed ethics aside.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

You are making this work at home stuff way harder than it is. Ready for some sanity? Clear your head and start over.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2134944].message }}

Paul Myers 14 years ago

Caliban,

I don't find that particularly relevant to the question of what IP law in the U.S. will be in the future.

It may not seem to be, but it's a philosophy that's shared by a lot of people as they get older (35+), which does affect voting and proposing changes to laws.

As far as the "restrictions" on the system, I understand your point. It's valid in a literal sense, but has no application in this instance, since there's nothing preventing them from doing everything they want to do.

Semantic quibbling. This kind of observation is useful for a lot of things. I just don't see how it's useful for this one. If you can show me something they'd want to do with their own IP that they're prevented from doing under current law, I might quickly change that opinion, of course.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136103].message }}

AlanGNW

14 years ago

Piracy to copy, legal to loan... ad with a DVD or similar

Thanks

Signature

Free SEO guide for beginners | Design Your Own Wordpress Themes

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2135037].message }}

MisterMunch

14 years ago

If you have a stereo speaker system, I think you will have to buy two records, since the speakers will play two different copies of your music.

Also if your girlfriend is going to watch the DVD in an other setting than you are you will have to pay for the DVD once more. I hate it when I find my brother borrowing one of my old VHS and I have to track down the different actors and directors to pay them.

When will you guys calm down? Sharing the expences of an ebook is not comparable with spreading it to P2P networks and other distribution channels.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136150].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by MisterMunch

If you have a stereo speaker system, I think you will have to buy two records, since the speakers will play two different copies of your music.

Also if your girlfriend is going to watch the DVD in an other setting than you are you will have to pay for the DVD once more. I hate it when I find my brother borrowing one of my old VHS and I have to track down the different actors and directors to pay them.

When will you guys calm down? Sharing the expences of an ebook is not comparable with spreading it to P2P networks and other distribution channels.

Condoning piracy by giving ridiculous examples that don't even apply is ... well, ridiculous.

What is to stop these outsourcers from either sharing it on a P2P site or to sell it on their own. Pirates are pirates. Just because they are YOUR outsourcers don't make them ethical.

Judging by the responses here, the majority of people think piracy is just fine and dandy, so why would they be any different?

Doesn't matter either way. It's piracy. You're either for it or against it.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136181].message }}

MisterMunch

14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Condoning piracy by giving ridiculous examples that don't even apply is ... well, ridiculous.

What is to stop these outsourcers from either sharing it on a P2P site or to sell it on their own. Pirates are pirates. Just because they are YOUR outsourcers don't make them ethical.

Judging by the responses here, the majority of people think piracy is just fine and dandy, so why would they be any different?

Doesn't matter either way. It's piracy. You're either for it or against it.

I apologize if my examples was a little ironic.

First. The question from the OP was not about outsourcers. It was about if it was piracy when two people shared the cost of a product and made a copy each.

So if you and your husband want to test "Weight loss for idiots" to lose some weight togeter before the summer; would you buy two copies? To me this does not sound right.

Say you and a neighbour are going to build solar panels on your roof. Do everyone have to buy a copy of the ebook to read the instructions or can you share it. Is it pircay to read them out loud?

Probably redicoulus examples again, but I made my point about what the OP said, and my opinion on it.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136216].message }}

Paul Myers 14 years ago

Probably redicoulus examples again

Yep. Completely ridiculous.

None of them require creating a second or further copy. Note that copyright does not preclude multiple people from using a single instance of a thing. It simply gives the creator the right to control how many copies are made and distributed.

Paul
- Thanks
Signature

.
Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136259].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 14 years ago

Originally Posted by MisterMunch

I apologize if my examples was a little ironic.

First. The question from the OP was not about outsourcers. It was about if it was piracy when two people shared the cost of a product and made a copy each.

So if you and your husband want to test "Weight loss for idiots" to lose some weight togeter before the summer; would you buy two copies? To me this does not sound right.

Say you and a neighbour are going to build solar panels on your roof. Do everyone have to buy a copy of the ebook to read the instructions or can you share it. Is it pircay to read them out loud?

Probably redicoulus examples again, but I made my point about what the OP said, and my opinion on it.

Again ... I assume the husband and wife live together, therefore they do not have to make an illegal copy to share it. If the OP and his buddy operate from the same computer, they would not have to make a copy but that's not the case. He specifically said he would make an illegal copy and distribute it to someone else.

Is it piracy to read aloud? Again, ridiculous. But it's apparent that talking about whether or not being a pirate ... a thief is ethical or legal here. There's about 5 threads going now with people asking if it's ok to steal this or that.

I'd say that's a bit disconcerting in a forum where people work hard making new products to know that so many members have an utter disrespect for intellectual property rights and don't give it a second thought to steal your products for their own purposes.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136289].message }}

agc 14 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Is it piracy to read aloud? Again, ridiculous.

Actually... not so ridiculous... the right to give a "public performance" of a work is definitely not granted by default.

I agree w/ you re: piracy though.

I once wrote:

If you have to stop and wonder if its illegal, immoral, or otherwise prohibited to do whatever it is you think you want to do.............. odds are it is.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136418].message }}

Johnny Slater

14 years ago

The most simple answer to this question is unless the product owner specifically allows group buys then it is wrong to do them.

Products are created to be purchased and consumed by a single person at a time. Unless the product owner has specific allowances written into their TOS or other publicly available legal documentation then you have no right to do it.

Omission is not permission. Regardless of personal beliefs, you only have the rights that the product owner specifically gives you. If it hasn't been specifically given to you then you do not have that right.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2136247].message }}

IS this considered piracy?

Trending Topics

A healthy fascination for Hollywood...

How did you turn it all around?

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

best high quality crypto traffic.