Libary eBooks and DRM

[Martin Harran]

The library service in Northern Ireland now has a fairly extensive
range of eBooks available which can be borrowed for 21 days. I don't
know how this works in other libraries but in NI, the eBooks can be
read online or downloaded as an epub. Unfortunately, the downloadable
epub can only be opened in Adobe Digital Editions.

I'd like to read the books on my Kindle but copying them to the Kindle
would require me to remove the DRM. Would I be breaking any copyright
or other law by doing so?

I suspect there may be there may be two answers to this, one applying
to the original 21 day borrowing period and one after that as removing
the DRM removes that limitation.

[Norman Wells]

On 26/07/2018 08:56, Martin Harran wrote:
> The library service in Northern Ireland now has a fairly extensive
> range of eBooks available which can be borrowed for 21 days. I don't
> know how this works in other libraries but in NI, the eBooks can be
> read online or downloaded as an epub. Unfortunately, the downloadable
> epub can only be opened in Adobe Digital Editions.
>
> I'd like to read the books on my Kindle but copying them to the Kindle
> would require me to remove the DRM. Would I be breaking any copyright
> or other law by doing so?

Yes.

See Section 296ZA of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

> I suspect there may be there may be two answers to this, one applying
> to the original 21 day borrowing period and one after that as removing
> the DRM removes that limitation.

I think the same answer applies to both.

[Andy Burns]

Martin Harran wrote:

> the downloadable epub can only be opened in Adobe Digital Editions.
> I'd like to read the books on my Kindle but copying them to the
> Kindle would require me to remove the DRM.

I've downloaded ebooks from the library (does require Digital Editions)
and transferred them to a Kobo, can you not do the same with a Kindle? I
can't remember if I used Calibre, or just copied them over USB.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:12:07 +0100, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

I can easily transfer them to Kindle using Calibre with a plugin to
remove DRM, I'm just asking is it legal.

I have no knowledge of Kobo but I doubt if you did a simple transfer
without also removing DRM.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 09:03:57 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 26/07/2018 08:56, Martin Harran wrote:
>> The library service in Northern Ireland now has a fairly extensive
>> range of eBooks available which can be borrowed for 21 days. I don't
>> know how this works in other libraries but in NI, the eBooks can be
>> read online or downloaded as an epub. Unfortunately, the downloadable
>> epub can only be opened in Adobe Digital Editions.
>>
>> I'd like to read the books on my Kindle but copying them to the Kindle
>> would require me to remove the DRM. Would I be breaking any copyright
>> or other law by doing so?
>
>Yes.
>
>See Section 296ZA of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Par 3 in that section says:

===================================================
The following persons have the same rights against B as a copyright
owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright—

(a) a person—

(i) issuing to the public copies of, or

(ii) communicating to the public,the work to which
effective technological measures have been applied; and

(b) the copyright owner or his exclusive licensee, if he is not
the person specified in paragraph (a)

===================================================

I am not looking to issue copies to anyone else, I simply want to
convert the format for my for my own personal use.

[Andy Burns]

Martin Harran wrote:

> I have no knowledge of Kobo but I doubt if you did a simple transfer
> without also removing DRM.

I though it left the DRM intact, because it only gave me a fixed number
of days to read it.

[Norman Wells]

'B' is the copyright infringer, ie you. That Section is specifying who
can sue you. The person issuing copies to the public is the library.
It means the library can take legal action against you as well as the
copyright owner.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 11:50:27 +0100, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

O, perhaps Kobo can handle the .ascm format used by Adobe Digital
Editions for downloading the books.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 12:04:58 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>

I am no legal expert but ISTM that that section is also defining what
counts as a copyright infringement viz. distributing to other people.

[Yellow]

In article <frto6p...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

>
> On 26/07/2018 11:43, Martin Harran wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 09:03:57 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 26/07/2018 08:56, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>> The library service in Northern Ireland now has a fairly extensive
> >>> range of eBooks available which can be borrowed for 21 days. I don't
> >>> know how this works in other libraries but in NI, the eBooks can be
> >>> read online or downloaded as an epub. Unfortunately, the downloadable
> >>> epub can only be opened in Adobe Digital Editions.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to read the books on my Kindle but copying them to the Kindle
> >>> would require me to remove the DRM. Would I be breaking any copyright
> >>> or other law by doing so?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> See Section 296ZA of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
> >
> > Par 3 in that section says:
> >
> > ===================================================
> > The following persons have the same rights against B as a copyright

> > owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright?
> >
> > (a) a person?

> >
> > (i) issuing to the public copies of, or
> >
> > (ii) communicating to the public,the work to which
> > effective technological measures have been applied; and
> >
> > (b) the copyright owner or his exclusive licensee, if he is not
> > the person specified in paragraph (a)
> >
> > ===================================================
> >
> > I am not looking to issue copies to anyone else, I simply want to
> > convert the format for my for my own personal use.
>
> 'B' is the copyright infringer, ie you. That Section is specifying who
> can sue you. The person issuing copies to the public is the library.
> It means the library can take legal action against you as well as the
> copyright owner.

Given access to the work has been paid for via council tax and that all
that is being done is to change the machine on which it can be read,
would the copyright holder not to show a loss to them over and above the
money they have all ready received for making access available on an
alternative machine?

And if not, why not?

[Norman Wells]

No it doesn't. What counts as copyright infringement is set out in
Section 17.

[Norman Wells]

The illegality lies both in the removal of the DRM, and in the making of
a further copy of something he does not own and is not authorised to copy.

[Yellow]

In article <fruq84...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

So it is a criminal offence?

[Fredxx]

The law does allow you to transcode onto another device, otherwise
playing a DVD would be illegal too.

[Fredxx]

I thought there might be a civil liability, and even then loss might be
difficult to prove.

Only piracy is criminal, ie copying for profit.
>

[Tosspot]

Just joining in fwiw;

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201014950

Limitations. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell,
rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any
rights to the Kindle Content or any portion of it to any third party,
and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on
the Kindle Content. *In addition, you may not attempt to bypass, modify,
defeat, or otherwise circumvent any digital rights management system or
other content protection or features used as part of the Kindle Service.*

[Norman Wells]

Only if you own the original, and only if you do not remove the DRM,
neither of which applies here.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:23:57 +0200, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Just joining in fwiw;
>
>https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201014950
>
>Limitations. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell,
>rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any
>rights to the Kindle Content or any portion of it to any third party,
>and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on
>the Kindle Content. *In addition, you may not attempt to bypass, modify,
>defeat, or otherwise circumvent any digital rights management system or
>other content protection or features used as part of the Kindle Service.*

That's a contractual limitation, though, not one imposed by criminal
law. If you breach this contract then Amazon can take action against
you (in reality, the most likely would be to terminate your account).
But you haven't committed a crime.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:56:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The library service in Northern Ireland now has a fairly extensive
>range of eBooks available which can be borrowed for 21 days. I don't
>know how this works in other libraries but in NI, the eBooks can be
>read online or downloaded as an epub. Unfortunately, the downloadable
>epub can only be opened in Adobe Digital Editions.
>
>I'd like to read the books on my Kindle but copying them to the Kindle
>would require me to remove the DRM. Would I be breaking any copyright
>or other law by doing so?

Breaking DRM[1] is a breach of copyright. But, unless done for
commercial reasons or in a manner that is significantly prejudicial to
the rightsholder's interests, it is a civil matter rather than a
criminal offence. So it would be up to the rightsholder (or other
interested party as defined by the CDPA) to sue.

> I suspect there may be there may be two answers to this, one applying
>to the original 21 day borrowing period and one after that as removing
>the DRM removes that limitation.

To win the case, they would need to show that your actions caused, or
were likely to cause, loss. So yes, I would expect that it would make
a difference as to whether you abide by the 21 day limit. If you do,
then it would be very hard for them to argue that they have suffered,
or were likely to suffer, any loss. Since you would have borrowed the
book in a Kindle format if you could, they would still have received
the Public Lending Right payment on the loan. So there is no actual
loss, and no potential loss.

If you keep the book for longer, though, then they have suffered loss
as they have missed out on the royalties they would have received on a
sale. At least, they have missed out on the royalties they would have
received on the sale of a new book. If you bought one from a
secondhand bookshop, of course, none of the rightsholders receive a
penny. So you might be able to mitigate their claim by arguing that
you would not pay full price for a new copy, but you might be willing
to pay a typical secondhand price. But then, how much have they lost,
if you would only buy a copy that earns them nothing?

That would make for an interesting test case if it ever went to court,
and I for one would follow it closely :-)

However, in practice, I suspect that, provided you only make the copy
for personal use, and don't redistribute it, then, even if the
rightsholders became aware of your actions (which is improbable
enough), they would consider it de minimis. At least, they probably
would unless you make a habit of it.

It's worth noting, of course, that this issue has been around for a
while. Back in the day, record companies were much exercised by the
prospect of people borrowing CDs (or, before that, vinyl records) from
a library and taping them. But, while some people undoubtedly did
engage in that, in reality it was never a major threat.

[1] More specifically, what is prohibited is circumventing "effective
technological measures" (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
section 296ZA). But that leads to a rather interesting philosophical
question of what counts as "effective". If something can be routinely
and easily circumvented, then clearly it is not effective and
therefore has no legal protection. But how hard does it have to be
before it is protected by law? That, too, would make for an intriguing
test case, should it ever go to court.

Mark

[Yellow]

In article <tg1mld59sjhbu7294...@4ax.com>,
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...

It is also worth remembering that libraries allow books to be renewed
and borrowed again, and I often have books for far longer than the
initial 21 period.

>
> That would make for an interesting test case if it ever went to court,
> and I for one would follow it closely :-)

It would, and me too.

>
> However, in practice, I suspect that, provided you only make the copy
> for personal use, and don't redistribute it, then, even if the
> rightsholders became aware of your actions (which is improbable
> enough), they would consider it de minimis. At least, they probably
> would unless you make a habit of it.

But also we are back to the age old argument of asking - would you have
ever bought the book if it were not available through the library?

I go on their catalogue to see what they have and that it what I borrow.

>
> It's worth noting, of course, that this issue has been around for a
> while. Back in the day, record companies were much exercised by the
> prospect of people borrowing CDs (or, before that, vinyl records) from
> a library and taping them. But, while some people undoubtedly did
> engage in that, in reality it was never a major threat.

What has been shown is with music, that people who tape, and now
download, spend more money than those who don't and getting a book at
the library and enjoying at least gives the author a chance that the
reader will read more of their work directly in the future. Even if they
do remove the DRM and/or keep it longer than 3 weeks.

>
> [1] More specifically, what is prohibited is circumventing "effective
> technological measures" (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
> section 296ZA). But that leads to a rather interesting philosophical
> question of what counts as "effective". If something can be routinely
> and easily circumvented, then clearly it is not effective and
> therefore has no legal protection. But how hard does it have to be
> before it is protected by law? That, too, would make for an intriguing
> test case, should it ever go to court.
>
> Mark

Interesting post. :-)

[Norman Wells]

On 27/07/2018 14:14, Yellow wrote:
> In article <tg1mld59sjhbu7294...@4ax.com>,
> use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...

> But also we are back to the age old argument of asking - would you have
> ever bought the book if it were not available through the library?

That's not relevant. A copy will have been made in contravention of the
author's and the library's rights. If they would have charged for that
that is what they have lost. You can't just take a pint of milk and
say, when caught, that you wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's worthless.

>> It's worth noting, of course, that this issue has been around for a
>> while. Back in the day, record companies were much exercised by the
>> prospect of people borrowing CDs (or, before that, vinyl records) from
>> a library and taping them. But, while some people undoubtedly did
>> engage in that, in reality it was never a major threat.
>
> What has been shown is with music, that people who tape, and now
> download, spend more money than those who don't

That doesn't justify anything, even if they'd like it to.

> and getting a book at
> the library and enjoying at least gives the author a chance that the
> reader will read more of their work directly in the future. Even if they
> do remove the DRM and/or keep it longer than 3 weeks.

But that is not for *you* to decide, it's for the author. He doesn't
want or need you to decide what's good for him.

[Yellow]

In article <fs0qqa...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

>
> On 27/07/2018 14:14, Yellow wrote:
> > In article <tg1mld59sjhbu7294...@4ax.com>,
> > use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>
> > But also we are back to the age old argument of asking - would you have
> > ever bought the book if it were not available through the library?
>
> That's not relevant.

You did not answer my previous question, but if indeed this is outside
of criminal law as I suspect, a judge would have to decide what losses
were incurred by the author as a consequence of a library ebook being
borrowed and kept beyond 21 days as against the book, in one form or
another, being purchased.

Another question occurs which is - how are authors compensated when they
agree a library can stock there book?

Are they paid a lump sum? An amount per borrow? Or do they get an amount
for time the book is spent borrowed ?

> A copy will have been made in contravention of the
> author's and the library's rights.

Which brings us back to - so what are the author's losses?

> If they would have charged for that that is what they have lost.

Again - what are the author's losses?

> You can't just take a pint of milk and
> say, when caught, that you wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's worthless.

That analogy only works if the book is unavailable to be *purchased* by
someone else while the copy of the borrowed ebook, which is now
available for someone else to borrow, is retained.

> >> It's worth noting, of course, that this issue has been around for a
> >> while. Back in the day, record companies were much exercised by the
> >> prospect of people borrowing CDs (or, before that, vinyl records) from
> >> a library and taping them. But, while some people undoubtedly did
> >> engage in that, in reality it was never a major threat.
> >
> > What has been shown is with music, that people who tape, and now
> > download, spend more money than those who don't
>
> That doesn't justify anything, even if they'd like it to.

I did not say it justified anything it does however show that the issue
is multi-faceted.

> > and getting a book at
> > the library and enjoying at least gives the author a chance that the
> > reader will read more of their work directly in the future. Even if they
> > do remove the DRM and/or keep it longer than 3 weeks.
>
> But that is not for *you* to decide, it's for the author. He doesn't
> want or need you to decide what's good for him.

Then it is up to the author to take court action to recover his losses.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 14:14:18 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <tg1mld59sjhbu7294...@4ax.com>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>>

>> If you keep the book for longer, though, then they have suffered loss
>> as they have missed out on the royalties they would have received on a
>> sale. At least, they have missed out on the royalties they would have
>> received on the sale of a new book. If you bought one from a
>> secondhand bookshop, of course, none of the rightsholders receive a
>> penny. So you might be able to mitigate their claim by arguing that
>> you would not pay full price for a new copy, but you might be willing
>> to pay a typical secondhand price. But then, how much have they lost,
>> if you would only buy a copy that earns them nothing?
>
>It is also worth remembering that libraries allow books to be renewed
>and borrowed again, and I often have books for far longer than the
>initial 21 period.

Library ebooks often have a lending queue; you have to indicate your
interest in a particular title and then you get access to it when a
slot becomes free. And then the slot automatically expires at the end.
You can't renew without making another request, and you may not be the
next in the queue for that particular title.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:07:56 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

Yes, but it's relevant to the question of how much financial loss has
been caused to the rightsholder by the infringement.

The starting point for compensatory damages is the amount that would
be "what the parties would have agreed as willing licensor and willing
licensee"[1], which, in the case of a retail product such as a book,
is never going to be more than the current RRP and may well be
substantially lower.

There can then be additional damages based on unfair profits and moral
prejudice. But if the DRM-buster makes no financial gain from the
extended retention of his ebook, then the former does not come into
play. And "moral prejudice" is a difficult argument to prove; it
requires the claimant to demonstrate that they have suffered losses of
a form which cannot be quantified financially. ECJ case law so far[2]
suggests that this is primarily about the effect on the rightsholder's
reputation caused by an unauthorised use of a work (eg, when it is
used in a context which potrays them in a bad light). Again, this
would not come into play on a cracked DRM ebook.

So we're left with the fact that the only thing the rightsholder can
sue for is what the infringement actually cost them. But if it can be
shown that it cost them nothing (if, for example, the infringement
triggered an expenditure on the rightsholder's products that exceeded
the loss on the infringing work), then there is nothing to sue for.

[1] As quoted in Absolute Lofts South West London v Artisan Home
Improvements [2015] EWHC 2608 (IPEC)

[2] eg, Christian Liffers v Producciones Mandarina SL C-99/15.

Mark

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:23:57 +0200, Tosspot <Frank...@gmail.com>
wrote:

In this case the DRM removal would not be part of the Kindle Service,
it would be removed before the ebook gets onto the Kindle.

[Martin Harran]

The book has been borrowed to make the copy so the loss of any Public
Lending Right payment on the loan does not arise.

>So there is no actual
>loss, and no potential loss.
>
>If you keep the book for longer, though, then they have suffered loss
>as they have missed out on the royalties they would have received on a
>sale.

No, the removal of the DRM is on the copy, not the original so the
loan will still lapse and the original become unavailable after 21
days unless renewed.

[Norman Wells]

On 27/07/2018 19:16, Yellow wrote:
> In article <fs0qqa...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...
>>
>> On 27/07/2018 14:14, Yellow wrote:
>>> In article <tg1mld59sjhbu7294...@4ax.com>,
>>> use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>>
>>> But also we are back to the age old argument of asking - would you have
>>> ever bought the book if it were not available through the library?
>>
>> That's not relevant.
>
> You did not answer my previous question, but if indeed this is outside
> of criminal law as I suspect, a judge would have to decide what losses
> were incurred by the author as a consequence of a library ebook being
> borrowed and kept beyond 21 days as against the book, in one form or
> another, being purchased.
>
> Another question occurs which is - how are authors compensated when they
> agree a library can stock there book?
>
> Are they paid a lump sum? An amount per borrow? Or do they get an amount
> for time the book is spent borrowed ?

What we were asked is whether the proposed copying would be "breaking
any copyright or other law". Your considerations as to degree are
irrelevant to that.

>> A copy will have been made in contravention of the
>> author's and the library's rights.
>
> Which brings us back to - so what are the author's losses?

As the owner of the copyright, he is entitled to sell copies to whom he
likes and for however much he likes, and is perfectly entitled to refuse
outright to do so if the purchaser is unwilling to pay what he asks. It
is not possible therefore to put an exact price on it.

>> If they would have charged for that that is what they have lost.
>
> Again - what are the author's losses?

The author's rights have clearly only been licensed in respect of copies
being made for a limited time on a specific device. He may well not
have permitted a copy to be made on any other device, and may not be
willing to be compensated by a small amount of money calcualted on some
spurious basis.

[Norman Wells]

On 27/07/2018 22:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:07:56 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>> On 27/07/2018 14:14, Yellow wrote:
>>
>>> and getting a book at
>>> the library and enjoying at least gives the author a chance that the
>>> reader will read more of their work directly in the future. Even if they
>>> do remove the DRM and/or keep it longer than 3 weeks.
>>
>> But that is not for *you* to decide, it's for the author. He doesn't
>> want or need you to decide what's good for him.
>
> Yes, but it's relevant to the question of how much financial loss has
> been caused to the rightsholder by the infringement.

The severity of an act is totally irrelevant to the question of the
legality of it.

> The starting point for compensatory damages is the amount that would
> be "what the parties would have agreed as willing licensor and willing
> licensee"[1], which, in the case of a retail product such as a book,
> is never going to be more than the current RRP and may well be
> substantially lower.

But suppose the licensor would not have been willing under any
circumstances or, as in the case of the library here, would not have
been allowed, to licence the infringing act. Why should the infringer
get away cheaply with something he would never have been given
permission to do? That would just enable him to game the system and
cynically calculate whether it would be worth his while to do an illegal
act.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 22:59:59 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>

wrote:

>On 27/07/2018 22:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:07:56 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>> On 27/07/2018 14:14, Yellow wrote:
>>>
>>>> and getting a book at
>>>> the library and enjoying at least gives the author a chance that the
>>>> reader will read more of their work directly in the future. Even if they
>>>> do remove the DRM and/or keep it longer than 3 weeks.
>>>
>>> But that is not for *you* to decide, it's for the author. He doesn't
>>> want or need you to decide what's good for him.
>>
>> Yes, but it's relevant to the question of how much financial loss has
>> been caused to the rightsholder by the infringement.
>
>The severity of an act is totally irrelevant to the question of the
>legality of it.

Of course. But it's relevant to the question of what damages are
likely to be awarded.

>> The starting point for compensatory damages is the amount that would
>> be "what the parties would have agreed as willing licensor and willing
>> licensee"[1], which, in the case of a retail product such as a book,
>> is never going to be more than the current RRP and may well be
>> substantially lower.
>
>But suppose the licensor would not have been willing under any
>circumstances or, as in the case of the library here, would not have
>been allowed, to licence the infringing act.

That issue was addressed in Absolute Lofts South West London v Artisan
Home Improvements. Compensatory damages are based on the assumption
that both are willing.

Damages for moral prejudice and/or unfair profits can take account of
the unwillingness of either side. But that's a separate issue, and
there has to be either moral prejudice or unfair profits before that
can become a factor. The simply act of one side being unwilling (or
unable) to negotiate an agreed value does not, itself, make
non-compensatory damages awardable.

> Why should the infringer
>get away cheaply with something he would never have been given
>permission to do?

Because it causes little loss to the rightsholder. Being really
annoyed about something is not quantifiable financial loss. If I allow
Alice to use one of my photographs for a fee of £50, and then Bob asks
me if he can use it for the same fee and I say no, because I really
hate Bob and don't want him ever using any of my work, but he uses it
anyway, and I sue him, then the court will only ever award me
compensatory damages of £50. Because that's what the rights are,
objectively, worth.

>That would just enable him to game the system and
>cynically calculate whether it would be worth his while to do an illegal
>act.

Such is life. How many people have parked for ten minutes on yellow
lines on the (reasonable) assumption that they'll be back before the
parking warden gets there? How many people "borrow" pens from work
because they know that it's too trivial to be charged as theft? How
many people exceed the speed limit by a few mph when they can't see
any police cars around?

Mark

[Yellow]

In article <fs1f7p...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

>
> On 27/07/2018 19:16, Yellow wrote:
> > In article <fs0qqa...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...
> >>
> >> On 27/07/2018 14:14, Yellow wrote:
> >>> In article <tg1mld59sjhbu7294...@4ax.com>,
> >>> use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
> >>
> >>> But also we are back to the age old argument of asking - would you have
> >>> ever bought the book if it were not available through the library?
> >>
> >> That's not relevant.
> >
> > You did not answer my previous question, but if indeed this is outside
> > of criminal law as I suspect, a judge would have to decide what losses
> > were incurred by the author as a consequence of a library ebook being
> > borrowed and kept beyond 21 days as against the book, in one form or
> > another, being purchased.
> >
> > Another question occurs which is - how are authors compensated when they
> > agree a library can stock there book?
> >
> > Are they paid a lump sum? An amount per borrow? Or do they get an amount
> > for time the book is spent borrowed ?
>
> What we were asked is whether the proposed copying would be "breaking
> any copyright or other law". Your considerations as to degree are
> irrelevant to that.

It is very relevant to a judge who is having to decide damages.

If an author is paid £100 by a library authority to stock his ebook
regardless of whether it is borrowed as against 10p every time it is
borrowed as against 1p for every day it is borrowed - the losses (or
not) to the author from someone keeping their ebook outside of an
official loan period are quire different.

> >> A copy will have been made in contravention of the
> >> author's and the library's rights.
> >
> > Which brings us back to - so what are the author's losses?
>
> As the owner of the copyright, he is entitled to sell copies to whom he
> likes and for however much he likes, and is perfectly entitled to refuse
> outright to do so if the purchaser is unwilling to pay what he asks. It
> is not possible therefore to put an exact price on it.

I was under the impression that an author would have to show an actual
loss to receive compensation. Am I mistaken?

> >> If they would have charged for that that is what they have lost.
> >
> > Again - what are the author's losses?
>
> The author's rights have clearly only been licensed in respect of copies
> being made for a limited time on a specific device. He may well not
> have permitted a copy to be made on any other device, and may not be
> willing to be compensated by a small amount of money calcualted on some
> spurious basis.

If he is not willing to be compensated financially, then other than
redrawing his ebook, what other recourse does he have?

[Yellow]

In article <a82nldppu7uc4j88d...@4ax.com>,
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...

I am more of an audiobook person than an ebook person and my library has
four different types -

Some you can downloaded as MP3s, kept forever even though there is a
"loan period" and can be borrowed by multiple people at the same time.

Some you can downloaded as MP3s, kept forever even though there is a
"loan period" but can only be borrowed by one person at a time.

Some are DRM protected and can only be listened to with the app and can
be borrowed by multiple people at the same time.

Some are DRM protected and can only be listened to with the app and can
be borrowed by only one person at a time

And it seems to be a function of the age of the book, new stuff tending
to be more likely to be DRM protected but I borrowed Dan Brown's Origin
the other week, which is new-ish, and it was an MP3 but only one person
could have it for the loan period. You could however 'return' it as soon
as you had finished downloading it.

It is all quite complicated and I imagine it can be similar for ebooks,
with the added frustration that libraries often will not let people put
them on their Kindles so they cannot be read outside very easily.

[Yellow]

In article <fs1iuu...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

>
> On 27/07/2018 22:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:07:56 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> > wrote:
> >> On 27/07/2018 14:14, Yellow wrote:
> >>
> >>> and getting a book at
> >>> the library and enjoying at least gives the author a chance that the
> >>> reader will read more of their work directly in the future. Even if they
> >>> do remove the DRM and/or keep it longer than 3 weeks.
> >>
> >> But that is not for *you* to decide, it's for the author. He doesn't
> >> want or need you to decide what's good for him.
> >
> > Yes, but it's relevant to the question of how much financial loss has
> > been caused to the rightsholder by the infringement.
>
> The severity of an act is totally irrelevant to the question of the
> legality of it.

I think we all have a fair idea what the law generally says about this
sort of thing but, as when we were discussing maternity leave in the
other place, having a law does not help those affected when it is broken
unless you have a recompense.

> > The starting point for compensatory damages is the amount that would
> > be "what the parties would have agreed as willing licensor and willing
> > licensee"[1], which, in the case of a retail product such as a book,
> > is never going to be more than the current RRP and may well be
> > substantially lower.
>
> But suppose the licensor would not have been willing under any
> circumstances or, as in the case of the library here, would not have
> been allowed, to licence the infringing act.

I would be interested to know of an author who is quite happy for his
work to be viewed on an Amazon Fire tablet but not a Amazon Kindle
simply for the sake of not allowing it. :-)

The actual reason of course is that an app can be run on the tablet but
not the Kindle.

> Why should the infringer
> get away cheaply with something he would never have been given
> permission to do? That would just enable him to game the system and
> cynically calculate whether it would be worth his while to do an illegal
> act.

We all do stuff that is unlawful and I guess we make a judgement.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:53:29 +0100, Yellow <no...@none.com.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <fs1f7p...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...
>>
>> On 27/07/2018 19:16, Yellow wrote:

>> > Which brings us back to - so what are the author's losses?
>>
>> As the owner of the copyright, he is entitled to sell copies to whom he
>> likes and for however much he likes, and is perfectly entitled to refuse
>> outright to do so if the purchaser is unwilling to pay what he asks. It
>> is not possible therefore to put an exact price on it.
>
>I was under the impression that an author would have to show an actual
>loss to receive compensation. Am I mistaken?

For compensatory damages, no, you are not mistaken. The loss has to be
real, and quantifiable financially.

There are other forms of damages that can be awarded in some cases,
and in those, the rightsholder does not necessarily need to have
suffered financial loss. But they would not apply in the circumstances
described by the OP in this thread.

>> The author's rights have clearly only been licensed in respect of copies
>> being made for a limited time on a specific device. He may well not
>> have permitted a copy to be made on any other device, and may not be
>> willing to be compensated by a small amount of money calcualted on some
>> spurious basis.
>
>If he is not willing to be compensated financially, then other than
>redrawing his ebook, what other recourse does he have?

Realistically, none. He could, in theory, obtain an injunction against
the infringer, which would make further infringement a contempt of
court. But it's hard to see how that would benefit him in these
circumstances. For the vast majority of civil disputes, the only power
the court has is to order financial compensation. And the amount of
that compensation is dependent on the facts of the case.

In the case of copyright disputes, the principles used by the court to
award compensation are set out in legislation, in the Intellectual
Property (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2006. This states, inter
alia, that "the damages awarded to the claimant shall be appropriate
to the actual prejudice he suffered as a result of the infringement".

This does not imply that only direct losses can be the subject of
damages - the Regulations also allow for damages to be awarded for
unfair profits earned by the defendant, as well as non-economic damage
such as "moral prejudice". But, still, the overall award has to be
proportionate.

Mark

[Yellow]

In article <fi4plddp6tlnhsv3b...@4ax.com>,
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...

Really interesting - thanks.