Quote:
Originally Posted by axel77
Simply, no, its not that simple.
Imagine following story. I and a friend of my own a legally bought paper copy of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, we both own an eReader device, I have a scanner he not. He tells me, he is going on a trip, and he wants to minimize his luggage, so he'd rather read the hitchhikers with his eReader. I scan it for him, and send him the pdf file per eMail.
Now where is the illegal part of that story? I consider thats pretty fair use all the way through from my feeling of morality. We both gave our tribute to Douglas Adams or his heirs and his publishers by buying the paper book, the paper is heavy we want to read it electronically, I use my scanner for a friend, because he has none.
|
Lets start with the fact that what you consider fair use and what the law considers fair use might be two very different things.
Lets examine your story for a moment.
1. You both own copies of the same book. Ok, fair enough.
2. You scan your copy creating a second copy that you now possess. Again, fair enough.
3. You give one of the copies you have made to a friend. Now, I am not a lawyer, let alone one specializing in intellectual property, but I believe this is the point where you have violated fair use.
You have made additional copies of a work and given them to someone else. The fact that said person owns a copy of the book in another format is besides the point. If you had legally purchased an electronic copy and gave it to your friend, that would be different (Though you would not be able to retain a electronic copy of your own). It would be different if you let him use your scanner to make a copy himself. It might also be different if you used his legal copy to make an electronic copy. But the facts of the story presented is that you used your copy to make an electronic copy which you then gave to him.
Remember, copyright is there to give authors incentives to write and publish. I don't know exactly how far fair use extends, but I do know that without the permission of the author and/or the publisher of a copyrighted work, it is not fair game for a citizen to make and distribute full copies of an author's work. You purchased one copy, that copy (And perhaps an archival copy) is all that you are permitted to use.
If the friend in this story wanted an electronic copy badly enough to take on his trip, he could either purchase an electronic copy himself or purchase a scanner and make an electronic copy for himself.
To put it in simple terms. While any work is under copyright, you may own the medium, but you don't own the work. Only the author and whomever he has granted rights to owns the work. In the United States, only specific legal exemptions (most notably, but not necessarily limited to fair use) can constrain the author's ability to dictate how a work is distributed and used.
To extend your argument that you have already paid for the work. Lets look at it from a different perspective. Lets say you have purchased copy of the book electronically already. Does that mean you are entitled to a paper copy of the book? No of course not, each time you purchase a book, you are paying a royalty to the author and the publisher. Previous payment of said royalty does not exempt you from paying future royalties.
Quote:
Say somebody steals *my* 1000$ bike, I see him with my bike at the street, trying to sell it for 5 dollars. I'm sure he is gone when I call the police, so I just decide to let it be, and give him the 5 dollars to get my bike. I know it is stolen, and he still is a criminal, but its my right not to accuse if I don't have the muse to do so (its not idealistic to get people away with such, but its no necissity).
Now was it illegal to buy a stolen bike? If I owned it actually already?
I hope you get what this analogy wants to tell.
|
Once the bike is reported stolen, if you determine who stole it on your own, it might in fact be illegal not to accuse the thief. It could be considered obstruction of a police investigation.
--
Bill