Permissible Copying of Physical Book

[eschwartz]

I could've sworn there was a provision there that only incomplete copies could be made, even then...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I could've sworn there was a provision there that only incomplete copies could be made, even then...

I may certainly be wrong, but that's not my recollection of the US law. Perhaps someone else knows?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I may certainly be wrong, but that's not my recollection of the US law. Perhaps someone else knows?

I am slightly in error: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is one of the four factors considered by a court in order to determine whether a particular instance of copying constitutes Fair Use. Wikipedia has this to say about it:

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ex: a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. for a case in which substantial copying—entire programs for private viewing—was upheld as fair use, at least when the copying is done for the purposes of time-shifting. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use". Conversely, in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises,[19] the use of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's memoir by a political opinion magazine was interpreted as infringement because those few words represented "the heart of the book" and were, as such, substantial.

So, the actual substance of what I said was correct: copying an entire work does not necessarily rule out "Fair Use"; it depends on the circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[barryem]

In another forum I had a thought the other day about piracy and I thought I'd float it here. Please understand that I'm not advocating this as a way to justify piracy. I buy my books and I pay for them because I think that's what I should do.

However I think it just might be true that pirates invented ebooks. My first exposure to them was about 1991 or '92, in the days before the internet was even available to the public. In those days Compuserve and private BBS systems were what people used. I was active in the HP forum because I had an HP95lx, a pocket size MS-Dos PC.

A few of us in the forum who had access to scanners and OCR software scanned a few of our favorite books, OCR'd them into plain text and shared them with each other. We did this openly and freely with no thought that anyone might care. Compuserve had strictly enforced policies against piracy and they didn't care. The HP forum's polices were even stricter and they provided storage for us to share these files. We were honest people sharing with our friends.

I have no way of knowing that these were the first ebooks. I doubt they were. Very likely other groups were doing the same thing. But I am pretty sure this is how ebooks got started.

A few years later when the Palm Pilot came along this sort of thing became common. The Palm was an ideal reading platform while the HP 95lx was only just usable as a reader. It got popular and companies saw what was going on and commercialized it.

So, if I'm right that the pirates invented ebooks maybe the pirates should sue the legitimate publishers for infringement.

And no, I don't mean that as a serious statement. It's a silly joke. But I do think that when considering the moral aspects of ebook piracy it's worth knowing about and worth considering.

I hope someone will comment on this idea that the pirates invented ebooks and that that gives them some rights. It's a new idea to me.

Barry

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by barryem

However I think it just might be true that pirates invented ebooks. My first exposure to them was about 1991 or '92, in the days before the internet was even available to the public. In those days Compuserve and private BBS systems were what people used. I was active in the HP forum because I had an HP95lx, a pocket size MS-Dos PC.

A few of us in the forum who had access to scanners and OCR software scanned a few of our favorite books, OCR'd them into plain text and shared them with each other. We did this openly and freely with no thought that anyone might care. Compuserve had strictly enforced policies against piracy and they didn't care. The HP forum's polices were even stricter and they provided storage for us to share these files. We were honest people sharing with our friends.

I have no way of knowing that these were the first ebooks. I doubt they were. Very likely other groups were doing the same thing. But I am pretty sure this is how ebooks got started.

Definitely not the first. Project Gutenberg has of course been around since the 1970s and had created thousands of ebooks by the 1990s. I was reading PG eBooks on hand-held devices in the mid '80s. That's the way I first read literally hundreds of classics.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Definitely not the first. Project Gutenberg has of course been around since the 1970s and had created thousands of ebooks by the 1990s. I was reading PG eBooks on hand-held devices in the mid '80s. That's the way I first read literally hundreds of classics.

You're right. I forgot all about Project Gutenberg. I didn't know about them back when I was on Compuserve but I do know that they started in the 1970s and I forgot all about that.

After I retired about 1995 or so I began proofing for them as one of their many volunteers so I should have thought of it.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Definitely not the first. Project Gutenberg has of course been around since the 1970s and had created thousands of ebooks by the 1990s. I was reading PG eBooks on hand-held devices in the mid '80s. That's the way I first read literally hundreds of classics.

On the other hand, while I was wrong and you were right, I'm not sure this has much to do with the point I was making. PG only dealt with out-of-copyright books and we were sharing whatever books we were reading at the time. When the Palm came along and first started popularizing ebooks that wasn't about what PG was doing. It was about sharing currently popular books and to a large extent that's what ebooks are still about. So while Michael Hart probably did invent ebooks the ebook world today still probably grew out of the work of the pirates. That still makes the publishers seem just a little bit like claim jumpers.

Barry

[HarryT]

I'm afraid, Barry, that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion about this. I'm a software author who's spent (to date) 23 years working on a software package (for amateur astronomers) which is massively pirated. I know from your previous posts that you consider "sharing" copyrighted material to be a good thing to do. To me, people who use my software without paying for it are people I have no liking and certainly no respect for, and I certainly don't think that pirates are to be praised in any way whatsoever.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am slightly in error: "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is one of the four factors considered by a court in order to determine whether a particular instance of copying constitutes Fair Use. Wikipedia has this to say about it:



So, the actual substance of what I said was correct: copying an entire work does not necessarily rule out "Fair Use"; it depends on the circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Yeah, that makes sense. So I was almost kinda sorta a little bit right then.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by barryem

On the other hand, while I was wrong and you were right, I'm not sure this has much to do with the point I was making. PG only dealt with out-of-copyright books and we were sharing whatever books we were reading at the time. When the Palm came along and first started popularizing ebooks that wasn't about what PG was doing. It was about sharing currently popular books and to a large extent that's what ebooks are still about. So while Michael Hart probably did invent ebooks the ebook world today still probably grew out of the work of the pirates. That still makes the publishers seem just a little bit like claim jumpers.

Barry

Fair is fair -- "the pirates" absolutely can come to court and sue publishers for infringing upon the invention of the ebook.
With the understanding that they wlll in turn be sued for infringing upon the IP involved in the average book, which is itself a copyrighted work that is in no way related, tied to, or dependent on the distribution medium.

Personally, I suspect the publishers will win their case, and the pirates will lose theirs. You cannot copyright the idea of digitally storing texts.

If I have misunderstood where you are coming from, then I am afraid you are even more wrong than I thought, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid, Barry, that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion about this. I'm a software author who's spent (to date) 23 years working on a software package (for amateur astronomers) which is massively pirated. I know from your previous posts that you consider "sharing" copyrighted material to be a good thing to do. To me, people who use my software without paying for it are people I have no liking and certainly no respect for, and I certainly don't think that pirates are to be praised in any way whatsoever.

I think you're putting what I've said into a different context where I don't believe it applies. I'm a retired programmer, mostly for government and coroporations but at one time I also had a set of shareware programs for my home computer become massively pirated. It was my first and last attempt at shareware. They were a set of graphics programs for the Radio Shack Color Computer, a few decades ago when it was a pretty new computer. They were the first real graphics programs for that computer and they were widely talked about and shared and used until more sophisticated programs became available a year or two later. I don't remember how many I actually received payment for but the number was very small. I was more than a little bit upset by that even though I was gratified that people liked it and used it. From that time on I made all my programs for that computer and the various other later home computers I had freeware. Might as well.

That's why I buy the books I read and the software I use; because if someone doesn't pay for them their authors might not write more books and programs.

However, when I was a kid and my parents bought a book I read it too, as did my brothers and my sister. And possibly some of the neighbors and a few of our friends. That's sharing and sharing with friends and family is a good thing. Of course the digital world adds a few new wrinkles to sharing and there's more potential for harm, but I think people are basically pretty honest and in the long run that kind of sharing leads to word spreading about a book and more sales, not less.

I'm talking about books, not software. Most of us read a book and we're through with it most of the time. Software is an ongoing thing. I buy a program and I might use it periodically for years. If I'm going to do that I'm going to buy it. If it's not a cheap program and there's no trial I'll find a pirate copy to try out first but if it does what I want it to do and I'm going to use it I'll always buy it. Every piece of software on my computer today is either freeware or I bought it. Or I wrote it myself.

I'm not advocating dishonesty. I don't think sharing a book with a friend is dishonest. I think refusing to share a book with a friend is stingy.

I'm fully aware that digital things are infinitely copy-able and that books are solitary solid object that can't be easily copied so they're one at a time things. And I realize that makes a bit of a difference when assessing the morality of lending books. But it's a small difference; a difference without much real meaning. I think it's perfectly honest to lend a book to a friend no matter what it's format.

I doubt that I'm going to convince you of this and that's okay. I'd hate to live in a world where we all thought alike. Well, maybe if everyone would instantly adapt to my changing opinions that might be fun but even that would wear on me after a time.

I don't think you're wrong. I think I'm right. That's not quite the same thing.

Barry

[Lynx-lynx]

murg is there something specifically on your mind that urged you to start this thread?

It's an interesting thread, but I wondered if something occurred to prompt you to start it.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

murg is there something specifically on your mind that urged you to start this thread?

It's an interesting thread, but I wondered if something occurred to prompt you to start it.

A number of reasons. First, it seemed to be a logical branching to the circumvention thread. Secondly, I just moved a lot of books from boxes to shelves, and don't really want to pay for the ebook versions of the physical books I already own.

I'm just trying to see if there was consensus of opinion, and it seems that the practices I suggested in the opening post aren't as objectable as the practises discussed in the circumvention thread (which ended up having nothing to do with circumvention).

Personally, seeing how, without intending to distribute it, we're pretty much allowed to make a copy of a physical book, in either physical or electronic form, I don't really see how acquiring an ebook that someone else did the work of format shifting is that much of a problem.

[crich70]

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.



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.

I think a good example of "fair use" is making a copy of a picture or some such for inclusion in a school report. I mean you have to write the text in your own words but kids (at least when I was a kid) would include photocopies of drawings (such as of events in George Washington's life) as part of the report. Of course if someone was writing a book (for profit) about his life then you have to attribute the artwork to a source (and probably get permission if the image isn't in PD already). But then publishers have their own legal teams I imagine to make sure that everything is provided for.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

A number of reasons. First, it seemed to be a logical branching to the circumvention thread. Secondly, I just moved a lot of books from boxes to shelves, and don't really want to pay for the ebook versions of the physical books I already own.

I'm just trying to see if there was consensus of opinion, and it seems that the practices I suggested in the opening post aren't as objectable as the practises discussed in the circumvention thread (which ended up having nothing to do with circumvention).

Personally, seeing how, without intending to distribute it, we're pretty much allowed to make a copy of a physical book, in either physical or electronic form, I don't really see how acquiring an ebook that someone else did the work of format shifting is that much of a problem.

The law (in the US and UK at least - I don't know what the situation in Australia is) doesn't give you an automatic right to make a copy of a book. "Fair Dealing" under UK law allows you to copy a portion of a work for three very specific purposes: research and private study (both must be non-commercial), criticism / review / quotation, and news reporting (sections 29, 30, 178 of the 1988 "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act"). Merely wanting an ebook version of a paper book that you've bought is not (under UK law) sufficient justification for making a copy of it.

Services like "1dollarscan" in the US allow you to "format shift" a book, but the reason that's legal is because it's a destructive process - it's a genuine format shift, rather than creating a copy. The original is (and has to be, in order for it to be legal) destroyed in the scanning process.