My perspective on buying books with DRM

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What exception is this, Mike? Do you have a reference, please? I wasn't aware of such an exception.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111112694

31B) 1) is the relevant clause
31B Making and supply of accessible copies by authorised bodies
(1) If an authorised body has lawful possession of a copy of the whole or part of a published work, the body may, without infringing copyright, make and supply accessible copies of the work for the personal use of disabled persons.

31F) 6) covers a library as an authorised body (Educational or not for profit)

Non legalese version
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...led_people.pdf

It mostly depends on whether you can make a case that as no signed version is available then the person signing is acting on behalf of the disables person.

I have a feeling that the main stumbling block will be convincing the judge that the person managed to learn to sign but not read

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111112694

31B) 1) is the relevant clause
31B Making and supply of accessible copies by authorised bodies
(1) If an authorised body has lawful possession of a copy of the whole or part of a published work, the body may, without infringing copyright, make and supply accessible copies of the work for the personal use of disabled persons.

31F) 6) covers a library as an authorised body (Educational or not for profit)

Non legalese version
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...led_people.pdf

It mostly depends on whether you can make a case that as no signed version is available then the person signing is acting on behalf of the disables person.

I have a feeling that the main stumbling block will be convincing the judge that the person managed to learn to sign but not read

Thank you very much indeed for posting that - I wasn't aware of that at all. I guess, though, that since Murg was talking about the situation in Australia, the question is whether a similar exception exists there and (as you rightly say) whether it would apply in this situation (which seems rather unlikely).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I have a feeling that the main stumbling block will be convincing the judge that the person managed to learn to sign but not read

It's perfectly possible to be able to sign but not read. Consider a 3-year-old child raised in a signing household.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It's perfectly possible to be able to sign but not read. Consider a 3-year-old child raised in a signing household.

We're straying into the realm of the improbable here, though. The discussion is about whether or not reading stories to children in a library constitutes a "public performance". I believe that, under UK copyright law, it does. What's your view on the matter?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We're straying into the realm of the improbable here, though. The discussion is about whether or not reading stories to children in a library constitutes a "public performance". I believe that, under UK copyright law, it does. What's your view on the matter?

I think it probably does, but I also think that any copyright holder who tried to bring a case against a library would lose so much in good will that they'd be crazy to do so.

Technically, it might be against the law (but isn't criminal). Practically, I can't imagine anyone objecting.

[GERGE]

What we are just doing here is just a gedankenexperiment, don't forget that. Laws are unenforceable sometimes, we have a law in Turkey saying that all male public servants must wear hats to work. Bowler hats.

Sometimes being against the law doesn't really means being against the law. As I am saying, even if readings in libraries are considered public performances (which I disagree) and even if UK wasn't a member of EU, this law (act of 1988) cannot be enforced in this case.

You are reading to children, in a library. Law isn't just about what is written down, it is all about a balance between good of the state, public good and private rights. If there is a law that prohibits reading to children in a library, it would be very much unenforceable therefore any discussions are actually moot from a lawyer's point of view. So, what we are just doing here is just a gedankenexperiment in the field of jurisprudence.

In this light, it we consider it a public performance, the law should prohibit the reading, in a world where noone cares about the children. What must be decided is what constitutes a public performance.

Public performance means a performance to public. Therefore public must be defined first. So, let's do it! (I do enjoy interpreting words, we always used to do this in our jurisprudence classes)

Public comes from latin publicus which means common, general and vulgar. Which in turns creates a connection to mobile by the way of vulgar. By that, mobile also might be interpreted as an unruly crowd. All together, public means an open, general crowd. That is: a large number of common people gathered openly. Ten or so children in a children's room of a library does not fulfill this requirement. A hundred children does.

Thus, whether our situation is or isn't a public performance depends on the scale. I am curious to see why you think I am wrong in my interpretation.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GERGE

Thus, whether our situation is or isn't a public performance depends on the scale. I am curious to see why you think I am wrong in my interpretation.

Here's a legal perspective on the matter:

http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/ManageCon...rformance.aspx

The important part of which can probably be summed up by:

Finally, in conclusion, the judge in the case of Turner Electrical Instruments Ltd v PRS [1943] summed up rather nicely by stating that: ‘in answering that question of law (what is a public performance), the chief guide to the court is the guide of common sense. Some cases on their facts fall on one side of the line, and some on the other. Therefore, it is fair to say that the courts will determine the outcome of ‘public performance’ based on the particular circumstances of each case taken on their own merit. However, if there is a contract to the contrary, such as, terms of use, then the law of contract shall prevail.

[GERGE]

I am thinking as a continental lawyer where there is no real precedent compared to UK. I should remember that too.

You have a precedent for everything

But it seems to me that judge agrees with me there.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It's perfectly possible to be able to sign but not read. Consider a 3-year-old child raised in a signing household.

Why would this child be less likely to be able to read than one raised in a speaking household?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Why would this child be less likely to be able to read than one raised in a speaking household?

Substitute two-year-old if you like. My point is that children learn to speak/sign before they learn to read.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Why would this child be less likely to be able to read than one raised in a speaking household?

Deaf children have to acquire English as a second language. This can be very difficult for several reasons, chief among them the fact that the sounds, phonemes, rhythm etc can be inaccessible to them. It's very difficult to acquire a language you can neither hear nor speak.

For language to be properly and readily acquired to mastery, a native language should be acquired as early as possible, and for Deaf children this is their signed language. English can then be acquired, albeit with some or a lot of difficulty. For children not exposed to any language they have access to early on, it can be very difficult to acquire language properly at all. I've known a number of Deaf adults with very poor written English skills.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Substitute two-year-old if you like. My point is that children learn to speak/sign before they learn to read.

Ah, right you are, I thought you were saying signing it was different than reading it aloud for small children.

In that case your mouseness I agree

[shalym]

Here is an article that seems to say that reading aloud is included in "fair dealing", as long as it isn't broadcast or recorded in any way, at least in Wales:
http://www.literaturewales.org/infor...vice/i/124039/

Quotation

For authors what are important are the rights to your published work and the permissions required to quote from it or to use it again. Once published it may well be that your work will be selected for anthology appearance, for use on the stage in some presentation, be broadcast, or even used as part of a critical treatise or text book. In most cases permission will be required from the copyright holder for the work’s use and invariably means the payment of a fee. They’ll write to you, or to your publisher, and make an offer. If your publisher has any expertise in this field follow their lead otherwise you’ll have to decide for yourself if what you are being offered is fair payment or not. However, the Copyright Acts do allow certain circumstances where permission for use of copyright material need not be sought. This practice is known as fair dealing and the circumstances are roughly as follows:

a) For use in research and private study
b) For use in criticism and review
c) For the recording of current events
d) Reproduction for a judicial proceeding
e) Reading aloud in public, (but not broadcast, or recorded)
f) Inclusion, under certain circumstances, of a short extract in a collection intended for schools

Sufficient acknowledgement must always be made. A “less than substantial” part of a work may also be used without permission in certain other circumstances. Unfortunately Copyright law does not define what is meant by “substantial”. Further advice on this matter can be found by consulting the Society of Authors' pamphlet Quick Guide to Permissions. The Society of Authors also carry useful information along with sample charges on their web site http://www.societyofauthors.org/faqs-about-writing

Shari

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by shalym

Here is an article that seems to say that reading aloud is included in "fair dealing", as long as it isn't broadcast or recorded in any way, at least in Wales:
http://www.literaturewales.org/infor...vice/i/124039/


Shari

So they're explicitly allowing non-commercial performances.
Sensible.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

So they're explicitly allowing non-commercial performances.
Sensible.

They may say that, but that's certainly not what the law (which I quoted in a post above) says.