Quote:
Originally Posted by Demented
I've been wondering about the semantic wording of the copy right laws. Technically it's perfectly legal for me to copy a DRM'd(or non-drm'd) work that I own and put it in as many places as I want on my computers or storage devices. So copying a copyrighted work isn't illegal, it is distributing the work that is illegal. Reading a copyrighted work that I don't own can't be illegal because we're allowed to do that every time we walk into a book store or using a friends copy of the work. So how can downloading a copyrighted file and reading it be 'illegal'. Shouldn't the act of distributing the file be the only illegal action?
|
The word copyright predates eBooks and electronic documents by hundreds of years. It originally was used to refer to the ability to either manually copy text or later to use a copy machine to make copies of test and refers to the limits to these tasks as well as the ability of the copyright owner to be able to license copies of their works.
What you are talking about is particular to the ability to make a backup copy of an electronic file which is fairly new in the grand scheme of things and it not covered specifically by copyright but rather a court ruling in the USA and is not a universal right but depends on where you live in the world.
Copyright on the other hand is a pretty much recognized legal right throughout the civilized world although the interpretation and length of protection differs from country to country.
Dale