My perspective on buying books with DRM

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

As to libraries, the answer is it appears to be Fair Use in the U.S. It is a shame about the U.K. Very unfair. Anyway, here is a good article explaining why it is fair use. I realize you probably don't believe anything is fair use.

Of course I believe in Fair Use in the US, but I'm sure that you're aware that British copyright law does not have a "fair use" defence, and that it's therefore completely irrelevant here.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nope - no kidding. Reading books out loud in a public place (which a library is) constitutes a "public performance" of the work, which requires the copyright holder's permission.

Wouldn't that, kids story time, be covered under "Fair Dealing"?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Wouldn't that, kids story time, be covered under "Fair Dealing"?

I'm afraid not. Unlike the US's fair use law, which provides a set of four criteria by which a particular usage can be judged, the UK's fair dealing law provides three and only three circumstances under which a copyrighted work can be reproduced. These are:

- Academic research or study,
- Criticism or review,
- The reporting of current events

"Reading books out loud to children" doesn't fit into any of these categories.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure we can all play the "yes, but what if..." game until we all get tired of it, but the law (in the UK at least) is very clear: a public performance of a copyrighted work requires the copyright holder's permission. Wikipedia defines a "public performance" as follows:

I'm not playing the "what if" game. It's a question of consistency. I reckon publishing houses give schools leeway because enforcing those laws there is bad press. The definition of public performances isn't under question here. It's the application of the law.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid not. Unlike the US's fair use law, which provides a set of four criteria by which a particular usage can be judged, the UK's fair dealing law provides three and only three circumstances under which a copyrighted work can be reproduced. These are:

- Academic research or study,
- Criticism or review,
- The reporting of current events

"Reading books out loud to children" doesn't fit into any of these categories.

Unfortunately copyright laws throughout most of the developed world have been heavily influenced by lobbying on behalf of special interests, the most influential of course being the rights owners, who should not be confused with the actual authors. This has lead to laws which in many respects are neither in the public interest nor in the interests of authors. What perverse reasoning in the UK lead to librarians not being able to read aloud to children without permission from rights holders I can only speculate. In my view this result is not only against the public interest but is morally wrong. I wonder if an author who has sold their soul (and assigned their copyright) to a large publisher could be in breach of copyright if they read their own book to children in a library without first getting permission? It would not surprise me.

This type of requirement not only tends to diminish the respect of the public for the particular law, but also the law in general. It is past time for a very fundamental and, if even possible, independant review of intellectual property laws.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid not. Unlike the US's fair use law, which provides a set of four criteria by which a particular usage can be judged, the UK's fair dealing law provides three and only three circumstances under which a copyrighted work can be reproduced. These are:

- Academic research or study,
- Criticism or review,
- The reporting of current events

"Reading books out loud to children" doesn't fit into any of these categories.

Ahh, okay. I thought there was provision for educational use which story time might fall under. So libraries in the UK, many of which offer story time according to their websites pay a fee? Any idea what kind of fee we're talking about or do rights holders usually grant them use without a fee?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Ahh, okay. I thought there was provision for educational use which story time might fall under. So libraries in the UK, many of which offer story time according to their websites pay a fee? Any idea what kind of fee we're talking about or do rights holders usually grant them use without a fee?

I'm afraid I've no idea how it works. Sorry.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by HarryT

- Academic research or study,
- Criticism or review,
- The reporting of current events

"Reading books out loud to children" doesn't fit into any of these categories.

I don't know Harry, it might fit in the second

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

I don't know Harry, it might fit in the second

Maybe if the six year olds debate the merits of the Cat in the Hat vs Tigger afterwards.

[covingtoncat73]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Maybe if the six year olds debate the merits of the Cat in the Hat vs Tigger afterwards.

I see you've met my nephew.

[AnotherCat]

@ RobertDDL: Re my post regarding copies for the visually impaired copyright exemption-

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

...Yes, thank you, and it applies to her, as she is American. But in this case the issue was not the legality of making a copy, but whether to pay $350 for a used pbook to copy it, or revert to a free if illegal pirated copy.

Yes, but that falls under secondary infringement of copyright, not primary infringement. In my own country it is not illegal for a private person to possess an infringing copy (secondary infringement), which in turn means that one can use it. It is, however, illegal for a business to possess one. If one was to make further copies without an exemption or the agreement of the rights holder then that would likely be a primary infringement and illegal. However, in the case discussed one has an exemption from copyright ( remembering one has to try to inform the rights holder that one is doing so, but one does not have to tell them what your source media is).

While I have no doubt that some here would regard possession as a hanging offence good sense tells us that it is impractical to hang the large percentage of the population who possess infringing copies of media and so the law reflects good sense .

It is also, again in my own country, not illegal for a private person to import an infringing copy (however, it is illegal for businesses to do so).

In the end (again in my own country) if one uses infringing media because of barriers to accessing a non infringing copy (and cost may be one of those) to make a private copy in a form needed by a related or close visually impaired person for no personal gain, whatever the legality that is never going to end up in court. We tend to be sympathetic to such situations.

These things may or may not apply in your countries involved.

[barryem]

I decided to do a little reading on some of the topics being discussed here and I ran into this article on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
that has a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States
to another article which describes a Supreme Court decision in which it was decided that copyright infringement can't be easily equated to theft. The first article also cites cases in which the prosecution was specifically told not to use pejorative words such as "piracy" or "theft" to describe copyright infringement.

So it seems that in the USA at least, courts don't recognize infringement as theft and they treat the term "piracy" as pejorative.

I'm not sure if Eschwartz was speaking about legalities or if he is in the USA. I don't think this weighs against his statements if he was speaking about the morals of the situation. But it seems that at least legally it's not theft.

I didn't realize this till today. I always felt that using words like theft and stealing were for emotional impact and didn't really belong in a logical sort of discussion but I did assume that legally they were correct. I'm glad to find out it's not so.

Barry

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nope - no kidding. Reading books out loud in a public place (which a library is) constitutes a "public performance" of the work, which requires the copyright holder's permission.

I'm in a lot of trouble, then, because I've read aloud to my child in libraries, cafes, parks, trains, and all sorts of other places.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by meeera

I'm in a lot of trouble, then, because I've read aloud to my child in libraries, cafes, parks, trains, and all sorts of other places.

That blatant admission to "piracy" and "theft" will get all the nit pickers out after you .

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

I'm in a lot of trouble, then, because I've read aloud to my child in libraries, cafes, parks, trains, and all sorts of other places.

And what does Australian copyright law say on the subject of public performances?