[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Four factors:
1) Purpose/nature of use: A home copy for annotation purposes leans toward fair use. It's not commercial, and is obviously related to review, might be educational (is at least related to intense personal study of the document), might be a preliminary step towards a published review or critique, which are fair uses. The fact that the copy might be significantly changed--a paperback blown up to letter-sized pages, for example, for easier reading, or a coffee-table sized book shrunk to letter sized--also leans toward fair use, as the copy is shifted in a way that's not otherwise available.

I agree with your citation, but not necessarily you're examples, which strike me as speculative. Can you cite specific case law in which, say, photocopying an entire work for the purpose of enlarging the text was found to be fair use? Or where a critical review for publication was allowed ipso facto to copy a work wholesale? Or, indeed, any case in which wholesale copying of print material was allowed simply for the purpose of format shifting?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

However, entire copies for personal use have been approved, in the matter of Sony vs Universal--you can copy a TV show to watch it later.

The Sony case is not applicable for two reasons: (A) it pertains to audiovideo productions, not print material (you cannot simply assume equivalence); and, most critically, specifically to audiovideo productions that consumers had already been invited to view freely anyway. It's that distinction that explains why it's legal to tape, say, Lord of the Rings off HBO but not the DVD you rented from the video store. (B) The judge found in favor of complete copying in the Sony case specifically because it made little sense to copy only part of a TV program.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

1) Purpose/nature of use: A home copy for annotation purposes leans toward fair use.

It does? Again, can you cite case law on that?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

might be educational (is at least related to intense personal study of the document)

"Might be" is speculative. And even if I can prove my use is educational, that doesn't grant me a free pass. And on what basis do you declare that wholesale copying of a copyrighted work is (not "might be" or "sometimes") related to personal study, rather than, say, recreational reading?

All you've done is argue that there are circumstances under which wholesale copying of a copyrighted work could be permitted under fair use. But I was not arguing that wholesale copying could never be permitted. I was replying to calvin-c's blanket statement (see post #51) that "you're allowed to photocopy a pbook if you want to." What you're arguing is quite different.

Originally Posted by Nathanael

First, because first-sale doctrine derives from the physical medium of a pbook. You are entitled to do as you see fit with a pbook only because you own the physical book.

What does the law say?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They want to sell ebooks as goods, not as services.

They don't want to sell them at all. They want to license them.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

In the US, there is a sale, unless they have defined the terms to include a return date/return condition.

Nonsense. Does your copy of Windows have a return date?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Saying it's a license doesn't make it so; licenses-to-use are defined by the terms of their contract.

A contract to which you agreed when you purchased your Kindle book.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The issue often isn't "without marking it up." Most book margins don't have enough space for detailed markup, and a separate notebook doesn't show at a glance how much more one has noted about one page than the next.

Your examples -- markup, enlarging the text -- are issues of convenience. Heck, I can't recall a single college textbook I ever owned have enough margin space for proper notes. There are certainly alternative ways to accomplish the same thing -- use a magnifying glass or take notes in a notebook. The fact that alternative methodologies might be a bit less convenient hardly mitigates in favor of fair use. Unless, again, you can cite specific case law that says differently.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If the terms are, you hand me money, I hand you content, and we never speak again... I don't get to say how you can use the content, and you can resell it when you're done with it.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but case law, please. Otherwise, all I can say is good luck with that.