It's no different than going to a library and photocopying a book for personal use.
Am I wrong?
It basically is. At least, the laws against it aren't strictly enforced in any event...
sharePhotocopying a book for personal use is illegal... it's just that no one makes a fuss over it. Though, in a similar vein, libraries that have attempted to create digital copies of their books have faced massive legal backlash from publishers.
"Personal use" isn't an get out of jail free card, it's just that the publishers don't have the resources to go after small fries and force you to pay the $20 or so that they lost (usually requiring a few thousand dollars of attorneys to collect that $20.)
In 2004, 200+ people were sued for downloading music. The judge ruled in their favour and cited using a photocopier in a library as his reasoning. https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0402/p06s01-woam.html
shareDoesn't change that it is illegal in America and the EU. There is no personal use clause to copyright law outside of edge cases you find on a "christian scientist" website.
shareForget about the fact it was a Christian scientist website, because here is the same case written by other sites.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/nme-1858-1362150
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2004/03/31/Canadian-music-swappers-safe-from-suit/39651080767866/?st_rec=4993617947200&ur3=1
https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2004/03/3595-2/
But shouldn't downloading movies without paying be legal in Canada seeing how this lawsuit was tossed?
Why are you too cheap to pay a few dollars for a movie?
shareThat's not the point. The point is the double standard of photocopying and downloading movies.
sharebecause it's too easy to download
shareYes it is, you're the one who is too cheap to pay for a book so you steal it by illegally photocopying it, and the one who is too cheap to pay for a movie so you steal it by downloading it. There is no double standard, you're just too cheap to pay for the hard work of other people.
Finding edge cases online doesn't change that the problem is the person who is too cheap to pay for what legally belongs to someone else.
Doing further research, it seems like your case isn't even applicable as Canada updated their laws to make piracy illegal and actually, at one point, had a system that allowed copyright holders to send notices to the criminals who stole things online via the Internet Provider.
Doing further research, it seems like your case isn't even applicable as Canada updated their laws to make piracy illegal and actually, at one point, had a system that allowed copyright holders to send notices to the criminals who stole things online via the Internet Provider.
You don't sue people for illegal downloading, you send them letters threatening legal action... or send their university letters threatening legal action, or otherwise ruin their lives as much as you can with letters threatening legal action. As I explained, it costs way too much to sue an individual.
It isn't 2004 anymore, Canada updated their laws because criminals who refuse to pay their fair share were using outdated arguments like "I can use a photocopier in a library to steal a book, so why can't I steal a movie." Your case isn't applicable in modern times.
You don't sue people for illegal downloading, you send them letters threatening legal action...
It isn't 2004 anymore, Canada updated their laws because criminals who refuse to pay their fair share
No, "notice-to-notice" is how everyone handles small scale copyright infringement, not talking about only Canada. That you're incapable of understanding this is your problem, they'll send threatening cease and desist letters but they're not going to waste money to do anything more.
Obviously, if you weren't a criminal, you'd understand that the way companies catch people via torrent is to just observe the peers who are downloading... no one needs to upload to use a torrent. All methods of file-sharing are covered, you claiming that Canada only cares if you upload goes right against what media corporations are doing by sending notices to people who download movies.
Canadian law has changed, I get that you weren't around in 2004 but the case you keep referencing wouldn't even allow the "notice-to-notice" style antics you see now. Criminals like you are hanging onto a mythical past that wasn't even there to justify your criminal activities.
No, "notice-to-notice" is how everyone handles small scale copyright infringement, not talking about only Canada... they'll send threatening cease and desist letters but they're not going to waste money to do anything more.
Canadian law has changed, I get that you weren't around in 2004 but the case you keep referencing wouldn't even allow the "notice-to-notice" style antics you see now.
i don't know if you're wrong legally. i don't know about stuff like that.
i actually thought photocopying a book might be legally dodgy as well. that's copyrighted material, no? so copying it and reading it would be in violation of something, i'd imagine. unenforceable, of course, but still technically wrong?
basically, i think it's wrong, even though i've done it plenty in the past and have no basis for lecturing anyone. someone put a lot of time and effort into making that, and unless they've put it out in the world as an act of charity with no expectation of getting paid, taking it for free is theft.
the fact that it's intangible - electrons beamed to your laptop or whatever - makes it feel ok, i guess. but ultimately i don't think it's morally much different than eating and running or passing a bad cheque or stealing a loaf of bread. you're taking a product someone made without paying for it. seems wrong to me.
There was this Canadian case in 2004 which allowed it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCH_Canadian_Ltd_v_Law_Society_of_Upper_Canada
shareI agree. I can legally stream anything I want from YouTube (a free service) but to download it is illegal.
For personal use I don't see what the issue is. It's not like I'd make money selling this media as it's readily available to the whole world already 🤷♀️
I think if you subscribe to youtube you can download videos.
shareYou're not wrong.
shareI think fair use allows you to copy a small portion of a book. A few pages. Not the entire thing.
shareIn Canada, you're allowed to do it for personal use. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCH_Canadian_Ltd_v_Law_Society_of_Upper_Canada
But this raises another question. If I make a copy of the Mona Lisa, shouldn't that also technically be copyright infringement?
I'm pretty sure the Mona Lisa is public domain... it's over 500 years old.
shareOkay. If I am at the doctor's office and I take a picture of myself beside a painting that's 10 years old and I upload the picture to Facebook, should that be copyright infringement?
shareIt may fall under fair use. There's some pretty blurry lines when it comes to this kind of situation but I'm guessing if you had a picture of you standing in front of Rhein II you could get it shrugged off in a court of law.
Give it a shot and let us know how it works out.
I ain't no guinea pig.
share> I think fair use allows you to copy a small portion of a book. A few pages. Not the entire thing.
I'm no attorney but I can't imagine that fair use could ever allow copying an entire work. If it did, copyrights would be meaningless. "Yes, this work is someone's property, but you can have the whole thing for free without their permission and without paying for it."
it would be expensive and time consuming to copy a full book.
share