After reading my comment you express some interest in reading a book I happen to have, if you were nearby, I would have lend you the book. I’m pretty sure that this is legal.
Now it happens that I also own an electronic copy of the book (it comes with the paperback), and thanks to internet you are very electonically close. Would it be legal for me to lend you the e-book? No because it would then be a copy of the book? Would it be possible for me to lend it to you if I destroy my own copy?
– Pierre
In Switzerland, *downloading* files is legal (there is a revision planned for next year, but right now downloading is legal). The *distribution* is illegal, however, with a small number of exceptions. So if you send me a file, you are either violating the copyright of the copyright holder, or you must fall under one of the exceptions. Switzerland’s copyright law allows you to use a work “for your own use” ¹:
1. toute utilisation à des fins personnelles ou dans un cercle de personnes étroitement liées, tels des parents ou des amis;
2. toute utilisation d’oeuvres par un maître et ses élèves à des fins pédagogiques;
3. la reproduction d’exemplaires d’oeuvres au sein des entreprises, administrations publiques, institutions, commissions et organismes analogues, à des fins d’information interne ou de documentation.
I think that it would be difficult to prove that I am *not* your friend. It is not like you’re some guy from napster.
There’s also the question whether the electronic copy is a complete copy of the (merchantible) work. But I’ll have to think some more about that... I recently read about a case in Germany that I discussed with my friends from Openlaw. Somebody charged a competitor with stealing his design including CSS and the computer-generated images it used. The court ruled that this was not a violation of copyright! My friend explained that not every scribble is protected by copyright. I’ll have to discuss it some more with him, though, in order to understand.
He also told me about another case where a company took the official (printed) phone directories back in the days when they were not online, sent them to Thailand, had people copy them into a database, and put the database online. It was considered not to be a copyright violation since a lot of effort was put into the data-entry.
– Alex
our value system esteems innovation, and is sometimes in conflict with the value system of the established business/government plutarchy. i say sometimes because business values innovation if it makes them more money. we like the innovation of an online phone directory, but the hardcopy vendor is upset because they don’t make money (and maybe even lose some). so this comes down to whose value system wins. so far the plutarchy has been winning.
about innovation and patents: how do we measure the difference between 2 intellectual properties? i might think putting the phonebook online is sufficiently different to escape copyright, but another may disagree. we’ve heard of companies trying to patent really obvious ideas. even if we could devise a reasonable measure of difference, how do we determine how much difference is needed to avoid the accusation of ripoff by trivial extension of existing intellectual property?
– greg
I think the answer is that we don’t. We craft laws such that there is enough ambiguity in them so that the courts can adapt them to the latest developments. This gives us a flexible tool for conflict resolution. The only drawback is that it comes with a cost: Lawyers cost money, going to court costs money. That’s why we would like our laws to be very specific, too. Law makers should strive for this balance between very specific and being very broad. LawrenceLessig’s book FreeCulture was a real eye-opener in this respect, as it revisits old issues like the introduction of airplanes or FM radio. If you download a copy of the book I can give more specific recommendations on chapters or sections to read...
– Alex
ok, please do. i’ve started reading it online at freeculture
on p.25 of that version, he sums up the plutocracy well:
“It is instead a protectionism to protect certain forms of business. Corporations threatened by the potential of the Internet to change the way both commercial and noncommercial culture are made and shared have united to induce lawmakers to use the law to protect them.”
getting down to the bare metal, if you haven’t seen it already, you might look at Max Stirner: The Ego and its Own. ASIN:0521456479. of course you would prefer the German original.
I advise caution though. There are 2 books i hesitate to recommend, as they threaten your sanity if you grok in fullness. one is Stirner’s book, and the other is The Selfish Gene. ISBN: 0192860925. shallow thinkers are immune; whenever i hear someone ridiculing the latter as sophomoric, it is not long before their comments reveal a lack of understanding. your background in biology makes that unlikely, and probably you’ve already read it.
– greg
Heh, Dawkins is good fun. I’ve read the Selfish Gene a long time ago, and I read The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. ISBN: 0393315703. Sharp tongue, witty, entertaining. I love the guy.
As for FreeCulture, I marked some stuff in my copy for a talk I intended to give (but was cancelled):
Heh. Enough to get anybody started. I really enjoyed the book.
– Alex
thanks Alex. i’ve made a local copy since this page is ephemeral.
since you could handle The Selfish Gene. ISBN: 0192860925, i am more confident in recommending Max Stirner: The Ego and its Own. ASIN:0521456479, which is philosophically deeper. it has been 20 years since i read Stirner, but i still feel it.
i took note of how you prefer to wikify book url’s.
– greg
#Copyright