Quote:
Originally Posted by ZacWolf
My take away is that the judgment against mp3.com is pretty much the gold standard in the US. That being "fair use" covers SELF manipulation of content between formats (ripping, scanning), but does NOT cover "acquiring" (file sharing) different media types based on ownership of a physical copy of the content. It seems so counter-intuitive that the source of the end-result (the electronic copy) should have any legal baring on legality, but clearly it does.
I think the whole issue of loaning/borrowing is the one key point where book publishers differ from music distributors; and I think it will be very interesting how that all plays out in application of recent legal arguments that have been tailored to the music/video industries. The fact that we've had libraries since we've had writing may be the sticking point in jury deliberations regarding ebook cases.
Thanks!
|
I don't think there is much difference, even over the 40 years I've been making copies, other than the behaviour of enforcing institutions. I remember signs in copy centers both at my job and at store-fronts, maybe Kinko's, that said making copies of copyrighted materials was prohibited. As far as I know, only the copy-center staff would refuse certain sources. As long as I did it myself, no one bothered.
I don't remember such signs in libraries, but the libraries themselves may have acquired, probably through charity or endowment, the right to allow copies.
Richard