View Single Post
Old 03-13-2015, 09:02 PM   #79
fjtorres
Grand Sorcerer
fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.fjtorres ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by murg View Post
I can make an argument that if you use a scanning service (like 1dollarscan) to convert a physical book to an ebook, that you would have to retain the physical copy to make the electronic copy legal.
That would be a safe assumption.

In the case of a commercial scanning service that destroys the original, keeping a record of the transaction would have to suffice. Some evidence of a unique "license to read" should be retained to be able to claim fair use as a defense. Rather like a key-disk DRM scheme that lets you install and run from a hard disk but every once in a while asks for the original disk to verify licensing.

The first amendment as a source of a right to transcode?
It is an interesting argument.

Not unreasonable:

http://www.ftrf.org/?page=First_Amendment

Quote:

The First Amendment guarantees all individuals the right to express their ideas without governmental interference, and to read and listen to the ideas of others.
Fair use comes from property rights (fifth and fourteenth amendments), but a First amendment reinforcement can't hurt.

One example of Fifth Amendment support:

Quote:

The Supreme Court has held that, in certain circumstances, government regulation that deprives a property owner of all economic benefit of his or her property can count as a “taking.” For example, in 1992, the Court held that a state had effectively “taken” certain oceanfront property by prohibiting all development on the property. - See more at: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/bus....xHpwzqPt.dpuf

Last edited by fjtorres; 03-13-2015 at 09:17 PM.
fjtorres is offline   Reply With Quote