Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathanael
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?
|
Copying entire contents of a bit of IP for format shifting has been found legal. Perhaps not for print specifically--but the principles of law are supposed to be applicable to different situations.
Why would it be more legal to copy one's CDs to MP3 than to copy one's books into a 3-ring binder? Saying "but that hasn't been found legal in court" is ridiculous--we don't have an "it's illegal until a court says otherwise" system.
(I'm looking for early copyright cases about early Xerox/mimeo machines; since all that was cleared up before the internet existed, there's not much info online.)
Quote:
|
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.
|
Copyright law doesn't acknowledge a difference between text, image, audio, or video formats. It is not more legal to copy one than another. And while it may not be legal to copy a library book, copying one's own physical property is format-shifting of content you have a right to view. I'm not seeing the difference between "content is displayed at someone else's whim" and "content is your own property." I don't get why it's *more* legal to copy something that someone else legally controls.
Quote:
A home copy for annotation purposes leans toward fair use.
It does? Again, can you cite case law on that?
|
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
... reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
----
Directly states that fair use includes copying for research, comment, and scholarship, and strongly implies that fair use is not limited to the listed purposes.
Quote:
|
A contract to which you agreed when you purchased your Kindle book.
|
Not all contracts are legally valid. That contract says they can change the terms at any time... do you think that, if they changed the terms to say "all Kindle owners will be charged a $200 update fee every time Amazon edits its website," it would hold up in court? If it were changed to say, "Use of Amazon's Kindle books requires that the user never sue or charge with crimes any employee of Amazon.com," would that hold up?
Of course not. Just because their contract says something doesn't mean they can legally insist on those terms.
Quote:
|
Your examples -- markup, enlarging the text -- are issues of convenience.
|
The purpose of copyright, in the US, is to "promote progress." Convenience helps with that.
Quote:
|
I hate to sound like a broken record, but case law, please. Otherwise, all I can say is good luck with that.
|
Court Re-Affirms That First Sale Doctrine Can Apply to “Licensed” Software