Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Because I do not happen to agree that the scenario you described- - Author writes book
- Reader makes a copy of book
- Reader gives you (and possibly a hundred other "friends") a copy, author gets no compensation for copies
-is a "fair" or moral scenario. "Fair use" isn't really a law... it's an official dodge used for convenience (to give the authorities the excuse to not have to chase down every petty criminal it knows about).
Let me know if I understand this scenario incorrectly. For the record, it's not right even if only one copy is given without compensation to the author.
Also, for the record, laws are generally based on morals, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. These laws in particular are generally covered by the moral guideline that says: Thou shalt not steal. |
I really do not get your resoning. Theft is problematic with electronic copies so it is bad to use these terms.
You seem to say that you consider people whose action is "fair use" to be criminals (morally) and that it is a pity that the authorities does not track them down.
The original scenario was that you owned the paper version of the content and then you got one copy from a friend and the friend only gave one electronic copy to you and to nobody else. The copy was obtained by scanning the book. Why do you not consider it theft if you scan your own book?