08-12-2011, 04:11 PM | #31 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,293
Karma: 529619
Join Date: May 2007
Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG
|
|
08-12-2011, 05:37 PM | #32 | |||
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
Quote:
This situation would only apply if the Japanese company allowed you to download an e-book of any book you owned upon proof that you owned the book in question. That's not what's happening here, and MP3.com does not apply. Quote:
Quote:
WRT MP3.com, note that it is only an opinion from a lower court in NY and does not have any precedential value. In any event, Posner criticized its reasoning in Aimster, suggesting that a better rationale for that case would have been that there were not enough safeguards to prove ownership. I don't know whether this scanning service violates copyright or not. I think it's still an open question, but it may well not. If Sony or Rio can sell you a device or program that permits format shifting, I'm not sure that using a service to make a digital copy of a work would be prohibited when obtaining a commercial product that does the same thing is not. |
|||
08-12-2011, 08:01 PM | #33 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,196
Karma: 1281258
Join Date: Sep 2009
Device: PRS-505
|
You're wholly mistaken here. As usual, any discussion about copyright ends up mired down in wishful thinking. There's no point arguing on the basis on what you wish might be true, that doesn't help anyone.
Copyright law says you can't make a copy of a copyrighted work. You can't get clearer than that. The exceptions to this prohibition are few and limited, and none of them apply here. The MP3.com case is directly applicable. Here is the core of the judgement, and it has nothing to do with the incidental properties of the offence: "in actuality defendant is re-playing for the subscribers converted versions of the recordings it copied, without authorization, from plaintiffs' copyrighted CDs. On its face, this makes out a presumptive case of infringement" Making copies of a copyrighted work is an infringement. It simply does not matter where the company gets the source material that it's copying (though if that source is illegal that would certainly be an aggravation). And it does not matter whether they distribute that copy through the internet, by sending you a disc with the file on it, or by photographing it on microfilm and flying it to you by carrier pigeon. They are making copies 1) on a commercial basis 2) of the entirety of the work 3) which may directly compete with legal electronic copies which the rights-holder may wish to place on the market. So it fails on three of the four Fair Use factors right out of the gate and the lack of any transformation of the work (such as parody) rules out any variation of that. There are areas where a third party can legally format-shift a copy for you, and they're written into the statute. If these people were advertising services to convert books so they could be read by the blind (and complied with the other provisions), then they'd be OK. But there's no mention of that on their site. This is just someone out to make a quick buck who has got away with it in Japan. |
08-12-2011, 11:08 PM | #34 |
Fledgling Demagogue
Posts: 2,384
Karma: 31132263
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Clara HD; Oasis 2; Aura HD; iPad Air; PRS-350; Galaxy S7.
|
What if the company were to effectively rent their machines to the user, who would then create her or his own digitized copy?
Perhaps it's difficult for people to grasp the idea of personal copy protection because it seems wrong to them intuitively. It conflicts with their basic understanding of the idea of ownership, just as intellectual property has always sounded like an oxymoron to me. |
08-13-2011, 01:27 AM | #35 | ||
Guru
Posts: 973
Karma: 4269175
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Device: Pocketbook Basic 613
|
Quote:
Quote:
Point taken. The least insane, then. Or, more bluntly, specifically not the DMCA. |
||
08-13-2011, 01:15 PM | #36 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,266
Karma: 98804578
Join Date: Apr 2011
Device: pb360
|
|
08-13-2011, 01:20 PM | #37 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,266
Karma: 98804578
Join Date: Apr 2011
Device: pb360
|
|
08-13-2011, 03:14 PM | #38 |
Fanatic
Posts: 504
Karma: 780086
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: ny
Device: Kindle DX Graphite
|
i have a couple of books i would like to do this with.
when i get some time i'll send them in. Last edited by Ditchleyportrait; 08-13-2011 at 03:16 PM. |
08-13-2011, 04:27 PM | #39 | |||||
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
Quote:
[/quote] The MP3.com case is directly applicable. Here is the core of the judgement, and it has nothing to do with the incidental properties of the offence: "in actuality defendant is re-playing for the subscribers converted versions of the recordings it copied, without authorization, from plaintiffs' copyrighted CDs. On its face, this makes out a presumptive case of infringement" [quote] As I mentioned before, the MP3.com case is not binding on anyone (except the parties to that litigation, of course.) It has no precedential value. And it has been criticized by courts whose rulings do have precedential value. From the 7th Circuit's opinion in Aimster: Quote:
Quote:
I don't know whether a court would reach the same conclusion in this case (where proof of ownership is much more clear). But the issue is clearly not controlled by MP3.com. Quote:
Quote:
Again, I'm not sure that the book digitizing service won't be found to be infringing. But based on the current state of the law, and in particular the statements in Aimster, above, we simply cannot say with any degree of certainty that this service does not constitute fair use. |
|||||
08-13-2011, 04:32 PM | #40 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 27,479
Karma: 192992430
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
Quote:
Last edited by DiapDealer; 08-13-2011 at 04:36 PM. |
|
08-13-2011, 06:45 PM | #41 | |
Fledgling Demagogue
Posts: 2,384
Karma: 31132263
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Clara HD; Oasis 2; Aura HD; iPad Air; PRS-350; Galaxy S7.
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 08-13-2011 at 06:56 PM. |
|
08-14-2011, 10:13 AM | #42 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,896
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
|
I don't think that they should have any problems with the law. They aren't scanning only books, but also business documents, business cards, photos and greeting cards. Since they intend to work with business documents, they must be able to assure the customer that they won't be keeping a copy of said documents.
When it comes to books, there are two possible cases: books that are available in digital format, and books that aren't. I don't really see how it can be advantageous to use this for normal books available as ebooks (300+ pages on average) unless the ebook costs more than the pbook. It costs $4 + shipping to get a pdf of the book plus the time to send the book and the time it takes them to digitize it. Maybe if you buy second hand books and get this done but it still might go to $10 per book and a week of waiting to get a pdf. I can see the system being useful for books that aren't in digital format, and then the customer loses the paper version (unless they want the remains of the book returned, but that would likely cost more). |
08-24-2011, 08:54 AM | #43 | |
Evangelist
Posts: 402
Karma: 1143880
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ohio
Device: Boyue T62+; Boyue Mimas; and my old Kindle Keyboard
|
Quote:
Please share any feedback about this service. ETA: I looked at the site again. I had previously noticed that they OCR, but now I see that they only send PDFs. If the PDFs are OCRed, does that mean they are text PDFs that would be easier to convert to Mobi or EPUB? I thought when people use OCR software they get a text file, not a PDF. Last edited by blue_skies; 08-24-2011 at 08:59 AM. |
|
08-24-2011, 10:16 AM | #44 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
|
08-24-2011, 12:39 PM | #45 |
Evangelist
Posts: 402
Karma: 1143880
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ohio
Device: Boyue T62+; Boyue Mimas; and my old Kindle Keyboard
|
Yes, but why does 1DollarScan say they scan the book, OCR the results, but then only send you a PDF? Does anyone think that would be any more useful in eventually converting it to Mobi or Epub than a non-OCRed PDF?
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to digitize my paper books. | llwwss | Workshop | 56 | 09-02-2010 03:49 AM |
Random House to digitize thousands of books | zelda_pinwheel | News | 0 | 11-24-2008 09:58 AM |
Bookshelf reduction: To digitize or not to digitize | vivaldirules | Lounge | 15 | 12-06-2007 07:00 PM |
how to digitize books | user | Workshop | 13 | 10-05-2007 05:07 PM |
How to digitize a million books | Bob Russell | Workshop | 0 | 03-01-2006 06:10 PM |