i want to see if people will pay for this.

[Dante31]

As a freelance writer and translator, and someone who's done a lot of reading up on copyright regarding translations, I can assure you that none of the "workarounds" proposed in this thread are even remotely legal. You can't just paraphrase and get away with ripping off content. The only way to be legal is to make a deal with the copyright holder.

Not true, what Mef said is legal.

[kirkmc]

No it's not. You cannot translate something for commercial use, even if you include the original, without paying a copyright fee.

I find it amazing the intellectual hoops people jump through and the ideas they come up with to justify intellectual property theft...

[topazg]

No it's not. You cannot translate something for commercial use, even if you include the original, without paying a copyright fee.

I find it amazing the intellectual hoops people jump through and the ideas they come up with to justify intellectual property theft...

As far as I am aware, you can. You cannot translate and sell it as a commercial product, but you can be employed to translate as a paid for service on a case by case basis to people that own original material.

If I own a French book, I am very entitled to ask someone to translate text for me, and pay them for their time and energy in doing so. However, the idea of shipping the original + translation at the same time sounds more dubious to me, where it is clear people are just buying a translated product.

[kirkmc]

No it's not. You cannot translate something for commercial use, even if you include the original, without paying a copyright fee.

I find it amazing the intellectual hoops people jump through and the ideas they come up with to justify intellectual property theft...

As far as I am aware, you can. You cannot translate and sell it as a commercial product, but you can be employed to translate as a paid for service on a case by case basis to people that own original material.

If I own a French book, I am very entitled to ask someone to translate text for me, and pay them for their time and energy in doing so. However, the idea of shipping the original + translation at the same time sounds more dubious to me, where it is clear people are just buying a translated product.

You can make a translation for personal use, but once money and other people are involved, then you violate copyright. Just because the people own the original doesn't make it any more legal to sell a translation.

As to whether you can pay someone to translate something for your own personal use, that's a gray area. I've done translations of that type for businesses, who are not distributing the texts outside their companies, but they are distributing them to employees, so it's most probably illegal. Consider this akin to charging someone to view a DVD that you own; it doesn't matter that you're making what's technically called an "adaptation" of the work. It's still a violation of copyright.

FWIW, here's another interesting gray area. You could translate a book that is _about to_ fall into the public domain, and be paid for it, as long as the actual publication doesn't take place until after the book has become copyright-free. You could be paid years before publication even, as long as the translation isn't published.

[topazg]

You can make a translation for personal use, but once money and other people are involved, then you violate copyright. Just because the people own the original doesn't make it any more legal to sell a translation.

As to whether you can pay someone to translate something for your own personal use, that's a gray area. I've done translations of that type for businesses, who are not distributing the texts outside their companies, but they are distributing them to employees, so it's most probably illegal.

Yes, I agree.

For that matter, lending people purchased books is also a legal grey area, let alone purchased music which sometimes explicitly forbids it in licence agreements

Wow, this could open such a big can of worms soon ...

[kirkmc]

You can make a translation for personal use, but once money and other people are involved, then you violate copyright. Just because the people own the original doesn't make it any more legal to sell a translation.

As to whether you can pay someone to translate something for your own personal use, that's a gray area. I've done translations of that type for businesses, who are not distributing the texts outside their companies, but they are distributing them to employees, so it's most probably illegal.

Yes, I agree.

For that matter, lending people purchased books is also a legal grey area, let alone purchased music which sometimes explicitly forbids it in licence agreements

Wow, this could open such a big can of worms soon ...

Actually, lending people purchased books or other content is not at all a gray area; it's a part of the "first sale doctrine":

"Under the first sale doctrine (section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc. of the item, but it does not permit reproducing the material, publicly displaying or performing it, or otherwise engaging in any of the acts reserved for the copyright holder, because the transfer of the physical copy does not include transfer of the copyright rights to the work."

http://www.copyright.com/viewPage.do?pageCode=cr10-n

Of course, with CDs and DVDs, that becomes gray, since they can be easily copied. But without the first sale doctrine, libraries couldn't exist. But there is no license agreement for music or movies; such agreements only exist for software (at least as far as we're discussing IP).

Copyright is an extremely complex area. For me, the best thing to ask is this: if I had created the content, would I be comfortable with someone doing <enter your type of workaround here>? In some cases, bands give their music away as a promotional perk, but that's their choice; it doesn't mean they think all their music should be free.

[tj86430]

Since we are on a forum with more or less international audience, I suggest that when you start citing laws, you also indicate where the law is applicable. Copyright as well as other laws vary from country to country.

[topazg]

Actually, lending people purchased books or other content is not at all a gray area; it's a part of the "first sale doctrine":

"Under the first sale doctrine (section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc. of the item, but it does not permit reproducing the material, publicly displaying or performing it, or otherwise engaging in any of the acts reserved for the copyright holder, because the transfer of the physical copy does not include transfer of the copyright rights to the work."

http://www.copyright.com/viewPage.do?pageCode=cr10-n

Of course, this is US law. It may or not apply anywhere else, depending on the laws of other countries. I have a number of purchased CDs that in their license technically forbid me to rip the music off the CD onto my computer (and frankly, if you own 100+ albums, swapping CDs constantly is something I'd rather avoid, so this is something I knowingly do illegally).

Of course, with CDs and DVDs, that becomes gray, since they can be easily copied. But without the first sale doctrine, libraries couldn't exist. But there is no license agreement for music or movies; such agreements only exist for software (at least as far as we're discussing IP).

Also not true. I have had albums which, on a Windows machine, have autoplayed a "license agreement" and refused to let me play the album on Media player until I had accepted it (which is fine, because I'm happy not using MP anyway ). Whether this license agreement is legally binding I don't know, but they certainly exist for some media.

[kirkmc]

Since we are on a forum with more or less international audience, I suggest that when you start citing laws, you also indicate where the law is applicable. Copyright as well as other laws vary from country to country.

While this is true, there is an international convention that includes most of the basic principles of US copyright law.

[kirkmc]

Actually, lending people purchased books or other content is not at all a gray area; it's a part of the "first sale doctrine":

"Under the first sale doctrine (section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc. of the item, but it does not permit reproducing the material, publicly displaying or performing it, or otherwise engaging in any of the acts reserved for the copyright holder, because the transfer of the physical copy does not include transfer of the copyright rights to the work."

http://www.copyright.com/viewPage.do?pageCode=cr10-n

Of course, this is US law. It may or not apply anywhere else, depending on the laws of other countries. I have a number of purchased CDs that in their license technically forbid me to rip the music off the CD onto my computer (and frankly, if you own 100+ albums, swapping CDs constantly is something I'd rather avoid, so this is something I knowingly do illegally).

Of course, with CDs and DVDs, that becomes gray, since they can be easily copied. But without the first sale doctrine, libraries couldn't exist. But there is no license agreement for music or movies; such agreements only exist for software (at least as far as we're discussing IP).

Also not true. I have had albums which, on a Windows machine, have autoplayed a "license agreement" and refused to let me play the album on Media player until I had accepted it (which is fine, because I'm happy not using MP anyway ). Whether this license agreement is legally binding I don't know, but they certainly exist for some media.

The only CDs you have with licenses are the short-lived copy-protected CDs, which were technically not CDs. (They don't meet the Redbook standards for audio CDs.) They may therefore have licenses, because they are technically software. I'd like to see a license with any real audio CD, one with the CD logo on it. I've never heard of that.

This said, it is currently illegal in the UK to rip audio CDs. This has nothing to do with licenses, first sale, or anything other than a different interpretation of fair use in the UK than in other countries. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for it, and I understand that this law is in the process of being changed.

[ethanb]

Actually, lending people purchased books or other content is not at all a gray area; it's a part of the "first sale doctrine":

"Under the first sale doctrine (section 109 of the Copyright Act), ownership of a physical copy of a copyright-protected work permits lending, reselling, disposing, etc. of the item, but it does not permit reproducing the material, publicly displaying or performing it, or otherwise engaging in any of the acts reserved for the copyright holder, because the transfer of the physical copy does not include transfer of the copyright rights to the work."

http://www.copyright.com/viewPage.do?pageCode=cr10-n

Of course, this is US law. It may or not apply anywhere else, depending on the laws of other countries. I have a number of purchased CDs that in their license technically forbid me to rip the music off the CD onto my computer (and frankly, if you own 100+ albums, swapping CDs constantly is something I'd rather avoid, so this is something I knowingly do illegally).

Of course, with CDs and DVDs, that becomes gray, since they can be easily copied. But without the first sale doctrine, libraries couldn't exist. But there is no license agreement for music or movies; such agreements only exist for software (at least as far as we're discussing IP).

Also not true. I have had albums which, on a Windows machine, have autoplayed a "license agreement" and refused to let me play the album on Media player until I had accepted it (which is fine, because I'm happy not using MP anyway ). Whether this license agreement is legally binding I don't know, but they certainly exist for some media.

The only CDs you have with licenses are the short-lived copy-protected CDs, which were technically not CDs. (They don't meet the Redbook standards for audio CDs.) They may therefore have licenses, because they are technically software. I'd like to see a license with any real audio CD, one with the CD logo on it. I've never heard of that.

This said, it is currently illegal in the UK to rip audio CDs. This has nothing to do with licenses, first sale, or anything other than a different interpretation of fair use in the UK than in other countries. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for it, and I understand that this law is in the process of being changed.

The last time I went to a store to purchase a physical disc with digitized music on it was about 9 years ago. I looked for one with the Compact Disc logo on it, but it wouldn't rip properly. Eventually I figured out that it wasn't a real CD. I meant to see if I could tell somebody at Philips that their trademark was being used improperly but never got around to it. I don't even remember what the album was now, but I do know that the only CDs I've gotten since then were purchased at concerts directly from the hands of the band members.

[kirkmc]

The last time I went to a store to purchase a physical disc with digitized music on it was about 9 years ago. I looked for one with the Compact Disc logo on it, but it wouldn't rip properly. Eventually I figured out that it wasn't a real CD. I meant to see if I could tell somebody at Philips that their trademark was being used improperly but never got around to it. I don't even remember what the album was now, but I do know that the only CDs I've gotten since then were purchased at concerts directly from the hands of the band members.

In the early days of "copy-controlled" CDs, they did, indeed, bear the Compact Disc Audio logo, until Phillips got wind of it. After that, they didn't. I only have a handful of such CDs (I got some because I review CDs), and what I found interesting was that I could rip them all on my Macs. Apparently the copy-control system was only written for Windows!

[topazg]

They were also rippable on Windows, it was just a lot of work to do. All my music is DRM-free digital (mainly 192kbs .mp3 for file size, but some .flac) and I intend on keeping it that way.

[kirkmc]

They were also rippable on Windows, it was just a lot of work to do. All my music is DRM-free digital (mainly 192kbs .mp3 for file size, but some .flac) and I intend on keeping it that way.

Yes, but on Windows, you had to use some kind of workaround. On Macs, you could just rip them like normal CDs, though it was a bit slower.

[ethanb]

The last time I went to a store to purchase a physical disc with digitized music on it was about 9 years ago. I looked for one with the Compact Disc logo on it, but it wouldn't rip properly. Eventually I figured out that it wasn't a real CD. I meant to see if I could tell somebody at Philips that their trademark was being used improperly but never got around to it. I don't even remember what the album was now, but I do know that the only CDs I've gotten since then were purchased at concerts directly from the hands of the band members.

In the early days of "copy-controlled" CDs, they did, indeed, bear the Compact Disc Audio logo, until Phillips got wind of it. After that, they didn't. I only have a handful of such CDs (I got some because I review CDs), and what I found interesting was that I could rip them all on my Macs. Apparently the copy-control system was only written for Windows!

By that time I was only using Linux and my roommates didn't have Windows computers either - we figured it out because when I took it to a friend's house and he popped it in, Windows autorun started a program. After that I did some more digging on my box and found that the disk was multisession. The track timings were skewed somehow though - when you ripped it the track breaks didn't match up with the actual songs.

Maybe it would have worked if I'd found the right command-line parameters for cdparanoia (still the best, afaik) but I was using some gui tool (which was probably a cdparanoia frontend anyway, just maybe not paranoid enough!)