Timeline for Is it illegal in the EU / in Germany to download a scientific e-book?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 14, 2020 at 21:40 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added footnote on Berne 3 step test. Been meaning to for a while, question got bumped so good time to do it.
|
| Nov 22, 2018 at 1:48 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Major restructure of answer based on discussion and comments - hopefully my last edit on this answer in a while
|
| Nov 21, 2018 at 16:53 | comment | added | Aaron | If we have further discussion to do on this point, I recommend we leverage the chat between DPenner and Allure. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 16:52 | comment | added | Aaron | @phoog You cannot dismiss the distinction just because you do not see importance. That is not how legal systems work. The fact is: asking someone to provide you with a good where the giver's procurement is known to be probably unlawful is not the same as performing the unlawful act yourself. If EU law dictates that it is to be treated the same, then this law can cover the receiver of the unlawful copy as well, but that has not been demonstrated here. How any of us feel about it (myself included) is completely irrelevant to this conversation. This Q&A has not shown the download unlawful. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 4:16 | comment | added | DPenner1 | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 4:13 | comment | added | Allure | @DPenner1 Thank you. It's not the question asked, but can you tell if it's legal to download a single journal article from an illegal source for personal use? Section 53 seems to say it's illegal, but section 60c (3) seems to say it's legal. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 4:05 | comment | added | DPenner1 | @Allure This is correct as far as I now understand it as well. Though your point (2) could be expanded to sources that appear lawful, but this is still a debated legal point. If you find a way to download only 75% of the book though, phoog's answer is applicable. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 4:03 | comment | added | Allure | @DPenner1 Thanks for the effort you've put into the answer. Correct me if I'm wrong - as I understand it, this is legal if and only if 1) the book's been out of print for at least 2 years 2) the source I'm copying from obtained the book legally 3) personal use only. So under the assumptions in the OP (at least the implicit ones), downloading the ebook is indeed illegal. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 3:58 | comment | added | DPenner1 | @Allure I've done further reading and found an exception applicable specifically to books and put a big disclaimer at the top of my answer. I should've followed my own advice and read all of section 53. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 3:55 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Correction
|
| Nov 21, 2018 at 2:45 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 622 characters in body
|
| Nov 21, 2018 at 0:24 | comment | added | DPenner1 | @Allure Sorry for the confusion, its not a technical term, I just meant general in the sense that nature of usage doesn't matter. | |
| Nov 21, 2018 at 0:20 | comment | added | Allure | @DPenner1 can you explain what is meant by "general exception"? This phrase sounds like a technical term which I don't understand (even in the context of the sentence). | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 23:59 | comment | added | phoog | @Aaron to elaborate on court interpretations, it would be equally valid (if not more so) to view the downloader as issuing an instruction to a machine that causes the machine to make a copy and sent it to the downloader. That the machine was set up by someone else doesn't absolve the downloader from responsibility for having commanded the machine to create and send the copy. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 23:46 | comment | added | DPenner1 | @einpoklum Correct, I did not feel it necessary to specifically address the nature of the usage because section 53 is a general exception (though do take the time to read the whole thing, it's got 7 sub-sections). As to "obviously unlawfully produced" I've added a footnote expanding on that. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 23:46 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added note on obviously unlawful source
|
| Nov 20, 2018 at 23:31 | comment | added | phoog | @Aaron I do not see the importance of that distinction, and I doubt that courts would see it that way. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 23:05 | comment | added | Aaron | This answer fails to imply how the download would be unlawful. Logically, a download is not an act of creating a copy but rather an act of asking someone else to make a copy and send it to you. That is an important distinction. While that might also be unlawful, it is still different and has not been shown to be unlawful by this answer. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 22:51 | comment | added | einpoklum | This answer regards personal use regardless of the nature of such use and of the distributed material. Specifically, it doesn't regard academic work, and use for research. I also wonder about "obviously-unlawfully-produced" thing. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 21:51 | vote | accept | Allure | ||
| Nov 20, 2018 at 13:11 | history | edited | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added citations
|
| Nov 20, 2018 at 6:34 | comment | added | DPenner1 | @Brandin I think the "obviously" applies to both sides of the "or" clause. The translation isn't ideal. E.g. The original German doesn't have the word "a" in the 2nd half of that clause. Someone with better German fluency than me would have to confirm though. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 6:21 | comment | added | Brandin | What legal force does the "obviously" language do in this quote? Because it says "or", it seems useless to consider the "obviously unlawfully-produced model" part of the sentence. For example, suppose you copied for private use from a model which seems to be legally produced, and which is not "obviously unlawfully-produced". According to this section it would seem to be permitted, however, one could always argue that the model was nonetheless "unlawfully made available to the public" even if it not obviously unlawfully produced and therefore could not be copied anyway. | |
| Nov 20, 2018 at 6:17 | history | answered | DPenner1 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |