Have you downloaded the Turbo Pyro Book?

[DavidF]

Mr. B, heh heh, I was attempting to re-distribute the possible guilt, instead of me being the only one to be thought of as a possible heathen.

 

Mumbles, any work removed from Pyrobin unfairly will be re-posted upon request, so there's no harm done. They explain it on the site for those concerned about it.

 

I don't know if we achieved anything in this discussion, but then I don't know what it is we might have been trying to achieve!

[starxplor]

There is also the issue of legality being different than morality. For instance, a book that is out of print and no longer available may still be under copyright. This would mean it was illegal to download a copy, but I would not consider it immoral since there is no way for me to pay the copyright holder for a copy.

 

The same goes for submitting takedown notices. Only the copyright holder is legally responsible for issuing notices (flagging content in this case), though some clearly consider it immoral to not flag if you know something is illegally available.

 

In many locations outside the US, only the provider of the work is actually committing a crime, the uploader in this case, not the receivers who download a copy. In the US, while the download is actually illegal, regardless of knowledge of its copyright status, most law enforcement only goes after the providers, as it is the most economical use of their resources (1 uploader vs 1000 downloaders, which is less costly to stop?)

[MrB]

In many locations outside the US, only the provider of the work is actually committing a crime, the uploader in this case, not the receivers who download a copy. In the US, while the download is actually illegal, regardless of knowledge of its copyright status, most law enforcement only goes after the providers, as it is the most economical use of their resources (1 uploader vs 1000 downloaders, which is less costly to stop?)

 

To "some" extent this seam to be changing. A lot of "places" have been trending to do the same thing they did in the US. Send a mail (paper copy) to the owner of a hookup, telling them they have been found "downloading" something that the mail sender (commonly a law firm) has been contracted to protect the copy rights of. And now they want to extort a bunch of money from you to let you make sure it doesn't go to court.

Apparently a lot of people actually pay, while i consider it a scam. Here in Sweden the law is crystal clear. They have to prove not that it was done over a certain connection, but that a certain person did it, and that pretty much means that as a civil court case, this has no way of flying, unless you actually openly admit. While honesty might feel good, a mail that claims YOU are responsible for downloading a movie, that you never even heard of, much less actually downloaded, and that you should now hand over $350 as a one time fee to clear any current offense of your name, or it (may or may not) go to court, is nothing short of blackmail, and scamming. Possibly even worse, if someone were to leak (Hint, the lawfirm?) the signed agreements where the recipient admits to the copyright violation, and pay's the fee, then this is now actually a piece of evidence that a criminal court can use, against the unknowing, and possibly just intimidated to pay, but innocent party, since the law doesn't have any room for "i bought my way out of this" agreements, you still admitted to a crime, and can now be prosecuted, and convicted for it, no other evidence really needed. The extortion fee, is rather small in comparison to the legal fee's, and the fine you would get in criminal court.

 

Law. It's just insane. Scary as shit.

B!

[wildcherryxoxo]

On the subject of copyright hypocrisy-

 

https://imgur.com/a/RACUR

[OldMarine]

I don't know who you are but I will do my damnedest to get you tossed from every forum I find you on. I gave credit in my original post for the origination of my questions and quotes. This is an open forum without copyright coverage.

If all you can contribute to anything is bitchery, please go away.

I do not know what your problem is but I hope you get the help you desperately need.

[wildcherryxoxo]

Slow down, soldier! I wasn't aiming that at you AT ALL! I just find it hilarious that download of copyrighted material (posted by Ned), got NO attention from Lloyd, who was such a copyright white knight, here, on apc.

 

I actually appreciated you cross posting the question about the microstars- a rising tide lifts all ships, brother!

Edited March 22, 2017 by wildcherryxoxo

[OldMarine]

I stand corrected.

[wildcherryxoxo]

No hard feelings? If we ever get to meet up at a PGI, first rounds mine! Edited March 22, 2017 by wildcherryxoxo

[OldMarine]

I'd hate to appear as more of a dick than I really am so I apologize and would drink a beer with anyone, anytime!

[DavidF]

I saw the post Wildcherry referred to. I did not have the edition that described the microstars and got right on it in case the link were to become unavailable. Last I checked it was still there. It raised my eyebrows to see the link. It raised my eyebrows to see it unchallenged by anyone. I still maintain that this is a subject discussed with no real specific purpose in mind, other than to find reason for disagreement. Now that we all know that none of us is going to do anything about copyright infringement against others, we can move on and co-exist as an interesting and diverse group.

 

EDIT: Hey, waitaminit! I just checked the link WC posted! Dude, that right there is double infringement! The people whose words you copied have no recourse, but the site owner does. But he's the guy... Well, Like B said, this shit's complicated. Maybe we should just still let each other be, on it.

Edited March 22, 2017 by DavidF

[OldMarine]

I saw the post Wildcherry referred to. I did not have the edition that described the microstars and got right on it in case the link were to become unavailable. Last I checked it was still there. It raised my eyebrows to see the link. It raised my eyebrows to see it unchallenged by anyone. I still maintain that this is a subject discussed with no real specific purpose in mind, other than to find reason for disagreement. Now that we all know that none of us is going to do anything about copyright infringement against others, we can move on and co-exist as an interesting and diverse group.

 

EDIT: Hey, waitaminit! I just checked the link WC posted! Dude, that right there is double infringement! The people whose words you copied have no recourse, but the site owner does. But he's the guy... Well, Like B said, this shit's complicated. Maybe we should just still let each other be, on it.

Dave, are you drunk or high? That is the most unreadable post I've ever read from you.

[starxplor]

EDIT: Hey, waitaminit! I just checked the link WC posted! Dude, that right there is double infringement! The people whose words you copied have no recourse, but the site owner does. But he's the guy... Well, Like B said, this shit's complicated. Maybe we should just still let each other be, on it.

 

In the US, there are copyright exemptions. These include using 'snipets', small bits of a whole product for things like educational discussion. This is how a language class instructor can distribute a copy of a page of a book to facilitate a class discussion. It could be argued that such a screenshot as mentioned above used here as part of an educational discussion about copyright could be a qualified exemption...

 

Now, if the image included the full link to the alleged infringing document, that could have been a legally problematic thing which some think shouldn't be a problem (the 'that corner has a hooker' problem).

[DavidF]

Heh heh, I was kidding around, OK? Then I kept going back and taking out language that could be offensive or factual. Then I took out any references that could be seen as personal or critical. I should have just chucked the jumbled mess, but I hit POST instead. Not my best work, that's true.

 

I hope folks get exactly what they are looking for out of the discussion. I have nothing constructive to offer really, so I'll just follow along for now

[dagabu]

What a strange thread,lol!

[starxplor]

Heh heh, I was kidding around, OK? Then I kept going back and taking out language that could be offensive or factual. Then I took out any references that could be seen as personal or critical. I should have just chucked the jumbled mess, but I hit POST instead. Not my best work, that's true.

 

I hope folks get exactly what they are looking for out of the discussion. I have nothing constructive to offer really, so I'll just follow along for now

 

I understand it was a joke. I just find the whole topic of copyright law fascinating and figured it was a good comment to illustrate a specific pair of interesting points, the ability to use parts of something legally and the weird difference between pointing to something that is illegal in the real world(hooker on corner) vs online(pdf of a book).

[DavidF]

I just called AFN and asked if anybody had contacted them to let them know that many of their publications had been uploaded to Pyrobin. He said nobody had. I let him know how to remove his material himself, just as I let everyone know here how to remove anything that is under copyright, if it concerns any of us. He was removing copyrighted material before hanging up the phone, and thanked me for bothering to let him know.

 

I'm curious about this pdf thing. Does it somehow make it OK if it's a pdf? Is Lancaster's 3rd edition pdf legal for me or anybody else to download? I have found in the past that when I start asking about specific cases- like the one Wildcherry brought up- all the copyright authorities go silent. So, I ask: if the folks that know all about this stuff are never able to be able to be pinned down on specific cases, isn't it unreasonable for them to expect us 'regular folks' to know whether or not we are purloiners (thieves)?

[Mumbles]

I'm far from a copyright authority. I happened to have researched the Davis case in the past however. The fact that it is a pdf does not change anything other than how easily it is distributed. It gets complicated in many instances. It's generally believed that anything published before 1923 is public domain. After that things get complicated. It's easiest to assume it's copyrighted unless proven otherwise.

 

That copy of Lancaster is without a shred of doubt still under copyright. The 3rd edition was published in 1998, and Rev. Lancaster is still alive. Currently, copyright protection extends for the life of the author + 70 years. That book will be under copyright until minimally 2087 under current law. It is illegal to distribute or obtain copies of pirated copyrighted materials.

 

It doesn't do any good to sit here and discuss it. If someone is concerned it should be brought up directly with Ned, and ideally in private.

[calebkessinger]

Man.. quite a huge amount of conversation here!

 

Quick observations

 

Turbo pyro - designed to sell tools and consumables and intended to be shared as much as possible!

 

Stealing books.. - well pretty self explanitory if they are in print and being sold somewhere ( whether they are trying to steal from the consumer on the price is debatable )

 

neds new series - intended for all interested parties to help with the understanding and advancement of pyro's. ( he's trying to keep the later series from newbies to protect both himself and them from the dangers of more advanced projects would be my assumption ) any redistribution of the first two parts 101, 201 are publicly posted already and meant for the masses.

 

 

I only comment cause it makes me feel important.

[lloyd]

Cal,

Correction -- 201 was NOT intended for "free distribution", only 101.

 

Ned sells 101 and 201 on mem-sticks.

 

Lloyd

[dagabu]

"Copyright law does not contain any caveat that allows unauthorized parties to make personal copies of copyrighted products. However, under the doctrine of "fair use," individuals may be permitted to make backup copies or archival copies of some materials as long as certain conditions are met. Creating a copy of a copyrighted work for your own ease of use is likely to be considered copyright infringement. But if you are making a copy so that you may use a copyrighted product in case the original is stolen, damaged or destroyed, your conduct may fall within the doctrine of fair use."

 

I am free to copy the pages I use in the shop from a book I purchased. I can't sell or distribute them but I can copy portions of the book under fair use.

[calebkessinger]

I see Lloyd.

sorry about that.

[starxplor]

I just called AFN and asked if anybody had contacted them to let them know that many of their publications had been uploaded to Pyrobin. He said nobody had. I let him know how to remove his material himself, just as I let everyone know here how to remove anything that is under copyright, if it concerns any of us. He was removing copyrighted material before hanging up the phone, and thanked me for bothering to let him know.

 

I'm curious about this pdf thing. Does it somehow make it OK if it's a pdf? Is Lancaster's 3rd edition pdf legal for me or anybody else to download? I have found in the past that when I start asking about specific cases- like the one Wildcherry brought up- all the copyright authorities go silent. So, I ask: if the folks that know all about this stuff are never able to be able to be pinned down on specific cases, isn't it unreasonable for them to expect us 'regular folks' to know whether or not we are purloiners (thieves)?

 

Something being in PDF form, or any other form, makes no difference for copyright. Copyright is about the content, not the format. If a copyright holder has not granted you permission to make copies, it is illegal by US law (other jurisdictions may be different). In addition to the actual law, there is the issue of being caught. Like idiots who speed on the highway, many people only care if they feel the repercussions, and in cases like this, it is unlikely an individual who downloaded it would be charged or suit filed against her/him, and if so, they could claim they didn't know it wasn't put there by the copyright holder unless they have posted in this thread. While the copyright law allows a max of 150K USD per infringement, the settlement is often much less, usually on the order of 100-1K per infringement. I am sure you could get less if you went to court to claim you didn't know and got jurors who sympathize with the 'unreasonable expectation' claim, but the lawyers will cost more than the settlement would have been.

 

Did this answer the question? If not, let me know and I will try again.

[dagabu]

The issue is much more complicated than that StarX, working the school system for decades now, we have some defined rules about copies, there has never been a fine issued to any district I have worked in because of copyright infringement but that is mostly due to intent, not the letter of the law.

 

Guidelines for fair use and copies of copyrighted materials.

 

• A chapter from a book (never the entire book).
• An article from a periodical or newspaper.
• A short story, essay, or poem. One work is the norm whether it comes from an individual work or an anthology.
• A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper.
• Poetry
  • Copies of a poem of 250 words or less that exists on two pages or less or 250 words from a longer poem.
• Prose
  • Copies of an article, story or essay that are 2,500 words or less or excerpts up to 1,000 words or 10 percent of the total work, whichever is less.
• Illustrations
  • Copies of a chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon, or picture contained in a book or periodical issue (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. 6).

What should be avoided?

• Making multiple copies of different works that could substitute for the purchase of books, publisher's reprints, or periodicals.
• Copying and using the same work from semester to semester.
• Copying and using the same material for several different courses at the same or different institutions.
• Copying more than nine separate times in a single semester (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. 7).

When is permission required?

• When you intend to use the materials for commercial purposes.
• When you want to use the materials repeatedly.
• When you want to use a work in its entirety, especially when it is longer than 2,500 words (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. 7).

[dagabu]

More importantly, the climate of copyright vs fair use is changing, in 2014, Google won an won an eight-year copyright battle with the Authors Guild over the scanning of over 20,000,000 books from libraries. All were copyrighted works, all are available online.

 

Currently under challenge is the medium of a copyrighted work. For example, if you purchase a Kindle book from Amazon (*.azw, a proprietary format created by Amazon) but turn it into an ePub file, you haven't changed the "medium" under this interpretation. Also in the courts now are thousands of challenges to archival copies which are very likely to be wadded up and thrown at the US Supreme Court within the next decade for a decision.

 

In the end, MY gut feeling is that if I want to copy a page from a book, manual, etc that I purchased and want to use that in the shop as a working copy, it would indeed fall under fair use, this does NOT make it legal, it is just an exception under 17 U.S.C. § 107.

[DesertCatUSN]

From what I've read on the law, if you procur (buy, gift, etc) the copyrighted material, you can use it for yourself in any manner you want. Copy it all you want for your workshop, but it can only be for your use, is the key. If you use a page, poem, etc, as you said earlier, you're supposed to reference where the item came from, so the author can get proper attribution, plus it helps market the author and full source. I've had instructors that copy all sorts of copyrighted material for use in their courses, and repeat every semester. Some authors have a note in the front that copying parts of the document for educational purposes is okay, but most that I've seen say that you have to write for permission first. So if the author says no, and you didn't get permission, it's definitely wrong, doesn't matter if it was for education, should have bought the source document for each student, but that's expensive , so the rules get ignored. I too have never heard of prosecution for that, probably because the Feds were too busy going after pirated music downloads and pirated movies. Those darn kids.... . Also doesn't matter if it's an electronic copy, it's still copyrighted. Don't know how Google won that case, unless they agreed to pay the authors something - undoubtedly not much, for each use. Musicians are having the same problem now with radio stations/satellite radio, as they only get pennies each time their song is played. The only way they make big money is through concert tours.