Permissible Copying of Physical Book

[murg]

When is it permissible to make a copy of a physical book that you own?

This brings up a number of scenarios:

• The copy being a physical photocopy
• The copy being an OCRed scan/conversion you do yourself
• The copy being an OCRed scan/conversion someone else does for you.

A corollary of the above is: is it OK to acquire a 'free' epub (or mobi, etc) of a physical book you own?

For the context of the discussion, let's assume that you are not sharing the copy with anyone, it's for your personal use only.

[eschwartz]

On a moral level, I would say any of the above (including the corollary) is justified.

Although arguably downloading a torrented ebook of a pbook you own is furthering piracy on a moral level -- approving of people sharing them since it is morally "OK" for people who own the pbook.
Also, if you seed it to others you are aiding and abetting piracy.
Granted that you are practically speaking untouchable.


If we are talking about legally, it is of course illegal to photocopy your books.

[cromag]

That very much depends on the jurisdiction. And whether or not you have the resources to be a "test case."

[JSWolf]

If you torrent an eBook because you own a pBook version, then you might possibly also be uploading it to someone else while downloading. So if you don't plan on sharing an eBook version, then you cannot torrent one.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If you torrent an eBook because you own a pBook version, then you might possibly also be uploading it to someone else while downloading. So if you don't plan on sharing an eBook version, then you cannot torrent one.

Actually, I believe all bittorrent clients allow you to restrict upload speed (to nothing), very useful if your internet speed is bad or you are trying to download a lot of stuff fast.

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by murg

A corollary of the above is: is it OK to acquire a 'free' epub (or mobi, etc) of a physical book you own?

For the context of the discussion, let's assume that you are not sharing the copy with anyone, it's for your personal use only.

Ebook piracy is still piracy, whether you own a paper version of the book or not.

Just as copying my neighbours exam paper is still cheating, whether I could have worked the answer out myself or not.

[Ghitulescu]

Practically every legislation has provisions for personal copies of copyrighted works.
These provisions are however very different from one country to another.
The cleanest legal way to do it is to retype the desired passages onto a new format (in MS Word or Notepad etc.). That was done before in handwriting. Today you can photocopy it (and pay a tax to their tax collectors), you can scan it (no tax for scanners), you can photograph it (no tax for photoapparatus), you can film it (subjected to tax). This does not change the act of copying. Because what you're after is the information not the paper or the bits or the colours. A newspaper is only valuable before reading the NEWSFLASH, after is only good as toilet paper or windows cleaner or barbecue fire starter.

Leaving the law apart, for private use you are quite safe, nobody will come (in the foreseeable future) to search your home. But since copyright infringements are at least in the States a criminal (and federal) act, you'll "enjoy" the benefits every murderer has

[GERGE]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

On a moral level, I would say any of the above (including the corollary) is justified.

Although arguably downloading a torrented ebook of a pbook you own is furthering piracy on a moral level -- approving of people sharing them since it is morally "OK" for people who own the pbook.

Also, if you seed it to others you are aiding and abetting piracy. Granted that you are practically speaking untouchable.

If we are talking about legally, it is of course illegal to photocopy your books.

All true expect one count: It may be permissable to photocopy your book to an extent. Check "fair dealing". It exists in many states in some form but sometimes limited to libraries only.

[GERGE]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Actually, I believe all bittorrent clients allow you to restrict upload speed (to nothing), very useful if your internet speed is bad or you are trying to download a lot of stuff fast.

Most of the pirated books aren't found on torrent. But I don't think I should say where here.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Actually, I believe all bittorrent clients allow you to restrict upload speed (to nothing), very useful if your internet speed is bad or you are trying to download a lot of stuff fast.

I cannot speak for all but at least in some instances if the upload speed is set to nothing the upload speed actually becomes just the opposite; zero being code for "unlimited speed" rather than "nothing".

Despite my admission above of inexperience with them all I would not be surprised if the common ones are all much the same, the idea is to contribute.

And extrapolating from that, the more one throttles the upload speed the lower ones priority for being served so download slows.

(For the sake of good order among others, I will just add that, despite common belief, bittorrent clients are not just used for pirating copyrighted material.)

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If we are talking about legally, it is of course illegal to photocopy your books.

This is very much not of course. A commentary to the Austrian law, relating to printed books, says (in my clumsy translation):

Everyone -- including legal entities -- is allowed to make individual copies for their own private or professional use, though not for the purpose of making the work available to the public. Copies may be shared within the "private sphere." The law says "individual" copies, but does not define a maximum number. The often voiced assumption that this maximum number is 7 does not agree with actual judicature, according to which this number has to be decided in each case, taking into consideration the intended use of those copies. It is not a fact that "individual" copies necessarily always means a small number.

(This is from 1996, so details may have changed, but the basic principle still holds. How it applies to digital texts derived from printed books through scanning and OCR I do not know.)

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

Ebook piracy is still piracy, whether you own a paper version of the book or not.

Just as copying my neighbours exam paper is still cheating, whether I could have worked the answer out myself or not.

The goal of exams is for you to do the work. Not so by format-shifting; that is, it isn't fundamental to the concept.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by GERGE

All true expect one count: It may be permissable to photocopy your book to an extent. Check "fair dealing". It exists in many states in some form but sometimes limited to libraries only.

I am sure in some jurisdictions it is allowed. And of course Fair Use long ago settled your right to photocopy portions for academic or journalistic purposes or suchlike.

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

This is very much not of course. A commentary to the Austrian law, relating to printed books, says (in my clumsy translation):

Everyone -- including legal entities -- is allowed to make individual copies for their own private or professional use, though not for the purpose of making the work available to the public. Copies may be shared within the "private sphere." The law says "individual" copies, but does not define a maximum number. The often voiced assumption that this maximum number is 7 does not agree with actual judicature, according to which this number has to be decided in each case, taking into consideration the intended use of those copies. It is not a fact that "individual" copies necessarily always means a small number.

(This is from 1996, so details may have changed, but the basic principle still holds. How it applies to digital texts derived from printed books through scanning and OCR I do not know.)

Well, not in all jurisdictions I guess. The U.S. however delights in being extra-restrictive (well we do have more people) and is particularly prone to lobbying especially.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I cannot speak for all but at least in some instances if the upload speed is set to nothing the upload speed actually becomes just the opposite; zero being code for "unlimited speed" rather than "nothing".

Despite my admission above of inexperience with them all I would not be surprised if the common ones are all much the same, the idea is to contribute.

And extrapolating from that, the more one throttles the upload speed the lower ones priority for being served so download slows.

(For the sake of good order among others, I will just add that, despite common belief, bittorrent clients are not just used for pirating copyrighted material.)

Of course -- my point was you are not necessarily limited to uploading, it is possible to just leech.

Usually it is private trackers which monitor your ratio and eject you if you don't contribute -- the public swarm operates in good faith and quite frankly has no controls.

What do I know about the matter? Enough to help me download linux installation media and some FOSSware (e.g. libreoffice) that are hosted over bittorrent. Not a very frequent occurrence (I do refresh them when new releases come out) and I am sure the legal use of bittorrent includes many things I don't know or care about as well.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I am sure in some jurisdictions it is allowed. And of course Fair Use long ago settled your right to photocopy portions for academic or journalistic purposes or suchlike.

Actually, the Fair Use defence in the US says nothing about the proportion of the work copied; simply the purpose for which you're copying it. If you have a legitimate academic purpose for copying a whole book (perhaps you want to underline every occurrence of the letter "A" in it, and you don't want to spoil your expensive leather-bound hardback edition) you could claim that it's Fair Use. Whether or not a court would accept your defence in the unlikely event of you being used for copyright infringement would be a matter for the judge. Remember that Fair Use is a defence against a charge of copyright infringement, not a permission to copy.