The Copyright Conundrum

[ownedbycats]

This copyright notice I saw in book:

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, down-loaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of HarperCollins.

Which makes me wonder exactly how I am supposed to "read the text of this ebook on screen" WITHOUT down-loading it or introducing it into an information storage and retrieval system (my Kobo's internal storage).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

This copyright notice I saw in book:



Which makes me wonder exactly how I am supposed to "read the text of this ebook on screen" WITHOUT down-loading it or introducing it into an information storage and retrieval system (my Kobo's internal storage).

The important bit is "without the express written permission of HarperCollins."

As you have "been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on screen", you have their express written permission.

[Quoth]

Copyright is ultimately about who has the right to make and distribute copies. Any additional random stuff put in a copyright notice may not be enforceable, and in any case a civil suit would have to be taken. A civil copyright suit penalty is based of estimated loss to the copyright holder.

So if you aren't distributing copies (free or paid, by any means) you don't need to worry. Also it's been established in various countries that contract (i.e. you bought something) Terms and Conditions only visible after you've bought/opened a product may be unenforceable.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The important bit is "without the express written permission of HarperCollins."

As you have "been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on screen", you have their express written permission.

But it says...

]By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on screen.

That to me means that you can only read this. And that you have to use ypur Reader t download it directly to the Reader only. However, I really think that may be unenforceable.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That to me means that you can only read this. And that you have to use ypur Reader t download it directly to the Reader only. However, I really think that may be unenforceable.

It's never going to be enforced as they lose no money when you read it on a different ereader, but never give it to someone else. They can only take a civil court case which would cost them a fortune and they'd likely lose. Even if they won (unlikely) they could only get the loss of profit on a 2nd copy.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Quoth

It's never going to be enforced as they lose no money when you read it on a different ereader, but never give it to someone else. They can only take a civil court case which would cost them a fortune and they'd likely lose. Even if they won (unlikely) they could only get the loss of profit on a 2nd copy.

I think it's less aobut them not losing money, and more about them having absolutely no way to know.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by meeera

I think it's less aobut them not losing money, and more about them having absolutely no way to know.

That's 100% true, but even if they did know it would be useless information.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

This copyright notice I saw in book:

Like all of these copyright "expansion" texts, there is no legal force in them. Only what has been codified into law in various countries actually matters.

For countries with "fair use" exceptions, you can freely copy text from the book (physical or electronic) for anything that counts as fair use.

Also, AFAIK, unless you distribute copies in some way, copyright law in all countries says you are OK. So, if you copy a book (physical or electronic) to another format and all copies are consumed solely by you, you haven't broken the law. Now, some countries have specific laws about DRM removal, but none of them have been tested in court where that was the sole complaint.

[Quoth]

Yes, and DRM is nothing to do with copyright. It's about control and is sometimes applied to PD content.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Yes, and DRM is nothing to do with copyright.

But it doesn't make for an alliterative title

[Frogm4n]

Double it up as "The Copyright Conundrum vs the DRM Dilemma".

[Ebookus]

some light bed-time reading for anyone in the UK https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright

[haertig]

Just because you see a warning in writing does not make it valid or enforceable.

Have you ever been behind a gravel truck that had a sign that said, "Warning! Not responsible for windshield damage. Stay back 300 feet." Never mind that you probably couldn't even read that sign from 30 feet away, let alone 300 feet. They are still liable for damage to your windshield under many circumstances, regardless of their claim that they aren't.

Don't believe everything your read in these things. I'm thinking the supposed "copyright warning" discussed in this thread probably falls into the "don't believe it" category. I would have zero qualms about copying their stupid book to my computers hard drive, even after them telling me I couldn't. It's meaningless bluster on their part.

BTW, "I claim copyright to this post and grant you permission to read it, but you may not read it more than once, nor quote it in any responses. In addition, further posts in this thread subsequent to my post here may result in fines or imprisonment. Your viewing of this statement constitutes your acceptance of it." I was considering adding a $100 fine for violations of my mandate here, but decided to skip that since you are all my friends. But be warned, I may retroactively activate this fine for people that are mean to me in the future.

Hmm, we'll have to see how the above "copyright addendum" works. I could be on to something here...

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by haertig

BTW, "I claim copyright to this post and grant you permission to read it, but you may not read it more than once, nor quote it in any responses. In addition, further posts in this thread subsequent to my post here may result in fines or imprisonment. Your viewing of this statement constitutes your acceptance of it." I was considering adding a $100 fine for violations of my mandate here, but decided to skip that since you are all my friends. But be warned, I may retroactively activate this fine for people that are mean to me in the future.

Hmm, we'll have to see how the above "copyright addendum" works. I could be on to something here...

Do your worst!