Question on copywrite law...

[jimmyrules712]

If someone would fill me in on this I would be appreciative. (I'm in the USA by the way)

If I own (legally paid for) a physical book is it legal for me to scan it into a digital file for my personal use?

If the answer to that was yes; once again if I bought a physical book can I legally use a digital copy scanned by someone else?

Is a physical book and a digital version of the same book looked at like the same thing (such as CDs/mp3 files with music) or is it considered necessary to pay for both seperately if you want both.

I'm not trying to get justification for piracy, I fully intend to buy all of my books, I'm just trying to decide if it's right that we should have to rebuy books we have already paid money for just to get a different medium.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jimmyrules712

If someone would fill me in on this I would be appreciative. (I'm in the USA by the way)

Let's start off by getting the name correct - it is copyright law, not copywrite - it's a law concerned with the right to copy a work.

If I own (legally paid for) a physical book is it legal for me to scan it into a digital file for my personal use?

Yes. This would be considered "fair use" under US copyright law.

If the answer to that was yes; once again if I bought a physical book can I legally use a digital copy scanned by someone else?

No, you can't. Making a "fair use" copy is a strictly personal thing. That copy cannot be given away to someone else, even if they themselves own a copy of the book.

Is a physical book and a digital version of the same book looked at like the same thing (such as CDs/mp3 files with music) or is it considered necessary to pay for both seperately if you want both.

You can make a digital copy yourself, but if you're asking if you can download an illegal copy of a pirated eBook merely because you've bought the paper book, the answer is "no", any more than, say, buying a hardback version of a book entitles you to a free paperback.

I'm not trying to get justification for piracy, I fully intend to buy all of my books, I'm just trying to decide if it's right that we should have to rebuy books we have already paid money for just to get a different medium.

It's for you to decide whether or not it's "right". All we can tell you here is whether or not it's "legal".

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, you can't. Making a "fair use" copy is a strictly personal thing. That copy cannot be given away to someone else, even if they themselves own a copy of the book.

I'm not sure what's the situation in the US. Here in Spain I believe it would not be illegal to download the "personal copies" (of works you own or don't). It would be illegal to upload (distribute) them, but only if it is done for profit.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jellby

I'm not sure what's the situation in the US. Here in Spain I believe it would not be illegal to download the "personal copies" (of works you own or don't). It would be illegal to upload (distribute) them, but only if it is done for profit.

Downloading of copyrighted works for personal use is legal in Spain, I believe? It's not legal in the US (or the UK).

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by Jellby

It would be illegal to upload (distribute) them, but only if it is done for profit.

Yes but... you upload an American ebook (according to American law, it's not legal) to an Chinese server (anyway) from Spain. Which law apply to the file? For you it's clear, in Spanish land the Spanish law, for file I'm not sure (I'm talking about keeping it uploaded in the server).

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Downloading of copyrighted works for personal use is legal in Spain, I believe?

Last time I knew of that, it's probably not explicitly allowed, but it's not made illegal by any law or court ruling. Distributing copyrighted material for profit is illegal, just sharing or downloading is not. There was a recent sentence for someone who had distributed for profit, the reports I read of the case made it rather clear that it was the "for profit" part that made it possible. From Wikipedia:

The law explicitly allows to make private copies of copyrighted work without the author's consent for published works if the copy is not for commercial use. [...] Some consumer's associations and specialized lawyers contend that the current legislation allows file sharing (as with p2p networks) as this is not for profit and is for private use. Additionally, the Penal Code explicitly requires the intention of commercial profit in order to commit a crime against the Intellectual Property.

This is, as I said, Spanish law. US and UK laws will be different of course.

[jimmyrules712]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You can make a digital copy yourself, but if you're asking if you can download an illegal copy of a pirated eBook merely because you've bought the paper book, the answer is "no", any more than, say, buying a hardback version of a book entitles you to a free paperback.

It's interesting to think about though...back in the non digital age when you bought something media related (book, music, movie, etc.) you were basically buying the physical medium as much as the right to enjoy that media. But now with how terms are worded that when we buy digital media like ebooks or music we are buying a 'license' to enjoy that media with no physical medium attached to it, wouldn't having that 'license' give us the legal right to use that media regardless of when medium it is on (ereader, PC, printed on paper, etc.)? If I buy an eBook I have the right to read it on an eReader, computer, or printed on paper don't I? Does that not go both ways? (buying the physical book giving the right to read it on paper or scan it and read it electronically). If it does how does the law distinguish (or care) between whether you made the digital copy of the work you bought or used a copy made by someone else (but you still did pay for a copy).

I'm not trying to step on toes here, just interested in having a logical discussion about it.

[jimmyrules712]

and I've just found this thread, so I'm going to continue the discussion there...

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74365

[anabelee]

Think about this: ISBN numbers are different for digital or paper books, so we can not consider them a "copy" of the paper book.

[TuxGirl]

Originally Posted by jimmyrules712

It's interesting to think about though...back in the non digital age when you bought something media related (book, music, movie, etc.) you were basically buying the physical medium as much as the right to enjoy that media. But now with how terms are worded that when we buy digital media like ebooks or music we are buying a 'license' to enjoy that media with no physical medium attached to it, wouldn't having that 'license' give us the legal right to use that media regardless of when medium it is on (ereader, PC, printed on paper, etc.)? If I buy an eBook I have the right to read it on an eReader, computer, or printed on paper don't I? Does that not go both ways? (buying the physical book giving the right to read it on paper or scan it and read it electronically). If it does how does the law distinguish (or care) between whether you made the digital copy of the work you bought or used a copy made by someone else (but you still did pay for a copy).

I'm not trying to step on toes here, just interested in having a logical discussion about it.

nope. you actually often don't have the legal right to print it out. You don't have the legal right to do anything that is not allowed by the license.

Now, with the DMCA, there are things that you likely think you should be able to do which you can't actually do (according to my understanding of the law). The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent DRM regardless of the reason behind the circumvention. If there's DRM on an ebook, you cannot legally convert it to a different format because in so doing you would need to circumvent the DRM.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by TuxGirl

nope. you actually often don't have the legal right to print it out. You don't have the legal right to do anything that is not allowed by the license.

Now, with the DMCA, there are things that you likely think you should be able to do which you can't actually do (according to my understanding of the law). The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent DRM regardless of the reason behind the circumvention. If there's DRM on an ebook, you cannot legally convert it to a different format because in so doing you would need to circumvent the DRM.

It's debatable. If the use you want is allowable by copyright law--within the range of fair use, or complete copying of a book that's in the public domain--the digital millennium *copyright* act doesn't come into play. If no "digital rights" apply to the book (or your use of it), then whatever software is preventing its use isn't technically DRM.

(Warning: IANAL. I suggest consulting one--a *good* one, with a lot of experience in copyfight activism--before attempting this argument in court.)

Also, of course, people not in the US are not subject to the DMCA.

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by anabelee

Think about this: ISBN numbers are different for digital or paper books, so we can not consider them a "copy" of the paper book.

Not only are they different between digital and paper format, but between digital formats. An eBook in ePub and in Mobi would require 2 ISBN's for the same content.

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Downloading of copyrighted works for personal use is legal in Spain, I believe? It's not legal in the US (or the UK).

A recent ruling has been established in that sense. It must be pointed out that Spain is very permissive of "digital piracy" and the organisations who combat it are very impopular. Our local RIAA is easily one of the few things that unites all Spaniards in contempt and repulse. Of course, suing for royalties in donated works for which the author himself gave up his rights, or for the use of music in charity festivals may have something to do with that hatred... Go figure

[TuxGirl]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's debatable. If the use you want is allowable by copyright law--within the range of fair use, or complete copying of a book that's in the public domain--the digital millennium *copyright* act doesn't come into play. If no "digital rights" apply to the book (or your use of it), then whatever software is preventing its use isn't technically DRM.

(Warning: IANAL. I suggest consulting one--a *good* one, with a lot of experience in copyfight activism--before attempting this argument in court.)

Also, of course, people not in the US are not subject to the DMCA.

IANAL either, but when I looked at the details of the DMCA, my understanding of it was that it prohibited *all* DRM circumvention unless explicitly allowed. The list of allowed exemptions is available on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#An...ion_exemptions, and there is more information here: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

From what I see here, personal use is not allowed. Now, as far as I understand, nobody has been prosecuted for removing DRM for personal use, but that does not mean that it's allowed.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by TuxGirl

IANAL either, but when I looked at the details of the DMCA, my understanding of it was that it prohibited *all* DRM circumvention unless explicitly allowed. The list of allowed exemptions is available on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#An...ion_exemptions, and there is more information here: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

From what I see here, personal use is not allowed. Now, as far as I understand, nobody has been prosecuted for removing DRM for personal use, but that does not mean that it's allowed.

DRM protects copyrighted material; removing DRM for acts that *are not a violation of copyright* should be fine.

Personal use & format shiftings are legally blurry; while the Sony Betamax case hinged on the right of people to record (format-shift) TV presentations for personal use, it wasn't quite officially codified as not-a-copyright-violation. (And there was no DRM in the way of those; nobody questioned whether the material was copyrighted.)

In the case of DRM locking a public-domain book, there's no copyright violation to hinge the DRM-removal crime on. In the case of DRM preventing fair use--that's less clear. Whether fair use is a special exemption to copyright law (and therefore wouldn't be allowed) or outside the scope of copyright law (and therefore should be) is debated by lawyers. (Is fair use an affirmative defense--I tresspassed on your property, but it's okay because I had a good enough reason?--or not part of the law--I didn't tresspass on your property at all; this is a legally-required easement?)

It's not likely to matter to ebooks, directly, which interpretation finally holds; the legal cases are going to be about music & videos.