Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Can we say it after
they inevitably get their cease and desist order and choose to comply with it?
I wouldn't unless the case went to trial and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff(s). Otherwise, the company could be bending to pressure to avoid the cost of a lengthy trial, which would mean fair use's applicability to personal copies remained unchallenged.
If the company built a library out of the books they digitized from people's private collections and then offered copies to others for a price in exchange for proof of ownership of different
copies, wouldn't the comparison between mp3.com and this company then seem less overly broad? Isn't the difference that, in this case, an individual is paying for the duplication of their own personal copy for the express purpose of their own use? Isn't that exactly what we do when we buy a commercial application and/or a separate burner to rip our CDs and DVDs? It's a question not of distribution but consolidation: Winnowing one's many possessions down to single objects which require less space.
Distribution seems to be the sticking point, not paying for the (in this case, limited) duplication process.