View Single Post
Old 03-12-2010, 10:06 AM   #233
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 HarryT View Post
But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so. In UK copyright law, for example, fair use for a book is specifically defined - you are permitted to copy one chapter or 10% of a book, whichever is the lesser amount, or one article from a magazine.
The question that was asked, though, was not that one. The question assumed that you can make a full copy, for your own use, of a book you have bought and own. Given that assumption, you can use the library volume to make a copy of the volume you own.

The answer to your question, in the US, is that making a full copy, for your own use, of a book you have bought and paid for is "fair use."

It's really not debatable, even though it is constantly brought up for debate on this forum. But the simple fact is that any US lawyer who reads the section of the copyright law that I quoted will conclude that it is not a violation of copyright for you to make a copy of a book which you already own, so long as you are not reselling it or giving it to someone else. It is obvious - to a lawyer - from the structure of the statute, plus from the legal history of copyright.

It comes down to this: before there was any copyright law, you could legally make a copy, for your own use, of any book you own. There is nothing in the copyright law (in the US) that changes that. Something in addition to full copying is needed, something that damages the copyright holder's right to sell another copy of the book to someone else.

The copyright holder simply does not have the right to demand that you buy two copies of the same book for your own personal use.
Harmon is offline