Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike L
Copyright law in general doesn't deal with media or technology. It deals with creative work. It's not concerend with the medium in which the work might happen to be stored or the methods available for copying it.
If the law limits your right to make copies of my latest novel, it makes no difference if the novel is published as a paper book, as an ebook, as an audio book, or as some sort of literary hologram that hasn't been invented yet. And any restrictions apply equally whether you are photocopying a piece of paper, copying a digital file, or even reading the book alound into a tape recorder.
The fact that it's a thousand times easier to copy a computer file than it is to photocopy a book doesn't change the intent of the law.
|
Quote:
|
Of course, there is an argument that says that you have to copy an ebook in order to use it - if only to copy it from the computer on which you download it to your reading device. But that should be covered either by the terms and conditions on which the book is sold, or by common conventions and customs. If the law doesn't explicitly cover that case, that doesn't mean it has failed to keep up with technology.
|
The US basically says that incidental copying during normal use of the content doesn't count. You can't sue someone for copyright infringement because they had to load the file from their hard drive into memory, or for copying in order to do things that fall under fair use, etc.
Quote:
|
I can't help thinking that the argument that copyright law hasn't kept up with technology is too often used as a justification for not observing the law.
|
Or as justification for trying to pass harsher laws. Both sides try to spin it to their advantage.