Permissible Copying of Physical Book

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But there is a statutory right to make a backup copy of digital media. That right doesn't exist for books. That's the difference.

I think you're incorrect. The relevant provision is the new 28B section of the copyright act, inserted after 28A, which starts

"28B Personal copies for private use
(1) The making of a copy of a work, other than a computer program, by an individual does not infringe copyright in the work [...]"

Books are not computer programs, so making a personal copy for private use is now permitted in the UK.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

This is the relevant bit
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/3/made

(5) In subsection (1)(b) “private use” includes private use facilitated by the making of a copy—
(b)for the purposes of format-shifting, or

No mention of digital anywhere (except for the cloud storage provision)

You're absolutely right - that does seem clear. I do note, though, that it explicitly states that you have to make the copy yourself, so services like "1dollarscan" would not be legal in the UK, and nor would downloading an ebook that someone else had created.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're absolutely right - that does seem clear. I do note, though, that it explicitly states that you have to make the copy yourself, so services like "1dollarscan" would not be legal in the UK, and nor would downloading an ebook that someone else had created.

I don't think it does explicitly say that you can't get someone else to make the copy for you. Could you quote the bit that you think does mean that?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I don't think it does explicitly say that you can't get someone else to make the copy for you. Could you quote the bit that you think does mean that?

The very first part of section 28B:

“28B Personal copies for private use

(1) The making of a copy of a work, other than a computer program, by an individual does not infringe copyright in the work provided that the copy—

(a)is a copy of—

(i)the individual’s own copy of the work, or

(ii)a personal copy of the work made by the individual,

(b)is made for the individual’s private use, and

(c)is made for ends which are neither directly nor indirectly commercial.

The "making of a copy of a work ... by an individual" bit. That certainly seems to me to say that you are only allowed to make the copy personally.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're absolutely right - that does seem clear. I do note, though, that it explicitly states that you have to make the copy yourself, so services like "1dollarscan" would not be legal in the UK, and nor would downloading an ebook that someone else had created.

Actually, no.

(1) The making of a copy of a work, other than a computer program, by an individual does not infringe copyright in the work provided that the copy—
(a)is a copy of—
(i)the individual’s own copy of the work, or
(ii)a personal copy of the work made by the individual,

This isn't very explicit and could be read that as long as it is your own copy services like 1dollarscan would be legal - 1)a)(i)
At worst the copy you get back would be legal while, paradoxically, 1dollarscan may have committed copyright infringement

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Actually, no.

(1) The making of a copy of a work, other than a computer program, by an individual does not infringe copyright in the work provided that the copy—
(a)is a copy of—
(i)the individual’s own copy of the work, or
(ii)a personal copy of the work made by the individual,

This isn't very explicit and could be read that as long as it is your own copy services like 1dollarscan would be legal - 1)a)(i)

I'm not at all sure that I agree, Mike. I would read "the making of a copy by an individual ... of the individual's own copy of the work" as saying that you have to make the copy yourself. If someone else makes the copy, it isn't "the individual's own copy of the work".

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not at all sure that I agree, Mike. I would read "the making of a copy by an individual ... of the individual's own copy of the work" as saying that you have to make the copy yourself.

I was going off this bit
(a)is a copy of—
(i)the individual’s own copy of the work, or
(ii)a personal copy of the work made by the individual,

If it's only you allowed to make the copy then the "or" at the end of (i) makes no sense.

[MikeB1972]

Unless they are talking about copies of copies of course

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I was going off this bit
(a)is a copy of—
(i)the individual’s own copy of the work, or
(ii)a personal copy of the work made by the individual,

If it's only you allowed to make the copy then the "or" at the end of (i) makes no sense.

I have to admit that I haven't got a clue what the difference between (i) and (ii) is. Do you understand the distinction?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Unless they are talking about copies of copies of course

I think you're right there. It probably means that n'th generation copies are allowed, provided that the previous copy has also been made by you.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I have to admit that I haven't got a clue what the difference between (i) and (ii) is. Do you understand the distinction?

After rereading, I think they are saying you can copy your originally purchased copy of the work or you can copy a copy you have made previously.

I think it's just in there to state that you don't have to use the original for any fresh copies you make.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

After rereading, I think they are saying you can copy your originally purchased copy of the work or you can copy a copy you have made previously.

I think it's just in there to state that you don't have to use the original for any fresh copies you make.

So would you agree that you have to make the copy yourself?

[GERGE]

I said this many times here, understanding of intellectual property law usually requires much more than reading the national legislations. But it seems you English did very well for this act (this is what you call legislations over there, no?) you linked =).

Still, intellectual property law is very much international and mostly governed by international agreements. National law usually reflects international agreements and fills their holes. And, as you probably know, international agreements count as if they are national codes, sometimes even constitutional (Check Thoburn v Sunderland City Council for a discussion of parliamentary sovereignty you British have). Thus, just writing national laws doesn't really explain it. And, most importantly, rulings greatly depend on the case. Letter of the law is usually intentionally vague.

Even if you do not have a law allowing format-shifting, scanning books might well be permissible, letter of the law must be interpreted according to the relevant cases, underlying principles and the international agreements. And if the letter of the national law conflicts with the international agreements, the national law can and should be repelled (Factortame is a very famous case study).

Consider this: Your vision is going bad, you can't read your books anymore. But if you scan them, convert the letterforms to a nice and legible sans-serif, and increase the glyph size; you can read. Then, you might well be legally allowed to scan your books, provided you do not take any part of piracy.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The very first part of section 28B:

The "making of a copy of a work ... by an individual" bit. That certainly seems to me to say that you are only allowed to make the copy personally.

I don't think that's explicit.

I think it's ambiguous.

Would you agree (in normal conversation) that Sir Christopher Wren built St Pauls Cathedral? I would.

Similarly, I think it's fair to say that I make a copy of a work by getting 1dollarscan to scan&OCR it.

I think *that bit* could be taken either way, and would need to be decided by a court.

But I certainly don't think it explicitly says that the copy must be made personally by the hands of the individual owner of the original copy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I don't think that's explicit.

I think it's ambiguous.

Would you agree (in normal conversation) that Sir Christopher Wren built St Pauls Cathedral? I would.

Similarly, I think it's fair to say that I make a copy of a work by getting 1dollarscan to scan&OCR it.

I think *that bit* could be taken either way, and would need to be decided by a court.

But I certainly don't think it explicitly says that the copy must be made personally by the hands of the individual owner of the original copy.

Sure, I agree with what you say; the very fact that we interpret the same piece of text differently shows that it's ambiguous. Consider, though, that there is no "1dollarscan" equivalent in the UK. Perhaps I'm not alone in thinking that the law says it wouldn't be legal?