View Single Post
Old 07-09-2009, 10:20 PM   #190
Harmon
King of the Bongo Drums
Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Harmon ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Harmon's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,631
Karma: 5927225
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Excelsior! (Strange...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck View Post
If I'm understanding this right...

It's legal to *acquire* or unauthorized copies, just not to *share* them? (But doesn't acquiring the copy involve "making" a copy, on your computer or reader or other device?)

This is a new thought for me; I'd thought having the copies themselves was against the law, not just the distribution of them.
Merely possessing an unauthorized copy of a work does not violate copyright law. It is unauthorized reproduction (or performance) of the work that violates the law, subject to certain exceptions where reproduction is permissible without the consent of the copyright owner. This is clear from Title 17, Chapter 1, section 106.

It doesn't seem to me to be a far stretch to think that a court would find that downloading an unauthorized copy is an unauthorized reproduction, and that the person doing the downloading is implicated in that activity. This is distinct from purchasing an unauthorized copy of a physical book, because the unauthorized pbook already exists when you buy it. But the downloaded ebook copy doesn't exist until you download it.

But consider Chapter 5, section 503. That section involves "remedies," not violations. But it authorizes a court to order the impounding of infringing copies, and to order the ultimate disposition of the copies, including destruction. It doesn't say anything about who has possession of the copies.

So as a practical matter, while possessing the unauthorized copy does not violate the law, it appears that the possessor of the copy has no enforceable right to retain possession of the unauthorized copy.

Last edited by Harmon; 07-09-2009 at 10:54 PM.
Harmon is offline   Reply With Quote