Quote:
Originally Posted by axel77
I hope you realize how non-sense some of this. Say the friend borrows me his copy of the book, and I use his copy to make him a pdf, then its suddendly fair use?
And seriously to say you need to buy it 2 times if you want to have it on 2 mediums is just wrong. This is what fair use law was all about. You do *not* own just that one medium you bought, which you are not allowed to copy at all for personal use. Its an interesting question what you actually buy if you buy a copy of a copyrighted material, since it is more and less at the same time than buying just the medium (and say i can do with the medium what i want), its also more and less at the same time than saying you actually buy the content. The best thing this is to said, is that you buy a "right of use" that includes certain things but does not include other things....
|
Yes, you are correct, I did overstate when I said you own the medium. You do own the right to use the material on the medium. But you only own the specific rights that are enumerated by copyright and the doctrine of fair use. Again, I suspect that neither of us is a copyright attorney, however, making copies of works and distributing them to others is definitely on the line if not crossing the line of fair use.
This may not seem fair, but as I have stated before, "fair use" is not the same definition of fair that we might have.
Personally, if I had my way, there would be some major reforms in copyright law. I see little need to extend copyrights past the death of an author; I also think that most copyrighted works that are not in print should enter the public domain about 10 years after they have last been in print (Being that most books and music earn most of their money in the first year or so after being published).
--
Bill
--
Bill