Originally Posted by Hitch
Obviously not, Ralph. You purchased a copy, and the author and publisher were paid for that copy. You "format shifted" the work, to a format that you prefer, and in fact then pulped your other copy. One copy exists, effectively, for your use. That was the intent under which you bought the paper book; the situation hasn't changed. As long as you don't hand out copies of the now-digital book, I don't think a jurisdiction int he world would consider that "piracy," as piracy is pretty clearly meant to be the acquisition of a copy of a book/work of art/whatever without paying for it, or distributing same to others, without them paying for it. Neither of those scenarios is accurate, in your hypothetical circumstance.
You're hair-splitting, for whatever reason, and the reality of law, laws and enforcement is that you've not breached the intent of the law. You didn't scan the book for some nefarious purpose; the author and publisher were paid, and you still only have one copy. Sure, you format-shifted, and arguably, that's an infraction of some kind, (not quite sure what that is yet, but if someone wanted to hair-split, they could say that you violated the prohibition against scanning or copying it, that's set out on every copyright page) but it's hardly the type that would be enforced, even were it possible to do so. (I guess some dimbulb could argue that you breached the contract you entered into, with the publisher/author, by copying the work sans permission, so...a civil case that would cost more for the author to consult with her lawyer than the damages would pay out, thus exceedingly unlikely to be enforced/pursued.)
Despite all the horror stories we see in popular entertainment, "intent" truly matters in the enforcement of law, generally. I don't think anyone would argue, or even try to argue, that your hypothetical breaches the intent of copyright law. Of course, there's always some asshat...
Hitch
|