Permissible Copying of Physical Book

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

The U.S. however delights in being extra-restrictive (well we do have more people) and is particularly prone to lobbying especially.

Quoting Wikipedia: "German is spoken natively by about 100 million people, making it the most widely spoken native language in the European Union and one of the major languages of the world." So, number of people is not really a convincing excuse

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You cannot copyright the idea of digitally storing texts.

Nope.
Protecting new ideas and methods is what *patents* are for.
Copyright is for protecting specific expressions of those ideas or methods.

A truly new and superior algorithm for digitally encoding audio would be patentable, not copyrightable. The software implementing that algorithm and the files they produced would be copyrightable.

Ebooks as a whole, however, were never patentable as they are an obvious derivation of microfiche and the works of Vannevar Bush in the 40's.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush

They "might" have been patentable at that time but the patent would've expired long before the idea became practical. Once people started storing documents on computers in the 50's ebooks became an obvious (and non-patentable) invention.

(The first documented ebook was produced as a tray of punch cards.)

http://www.teleread.com/ebooks/the-v...-think-it-was/

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A truly new and superior algorithm for digitally encoding audio would be patentable, not copyrightable.

It may or may not be patentable, depending on the jurisdiction. "Pure" software patents are almost never granted by the UK Patent Office, for example. In order to be patentable in the UK, a computer program has to be part of a solution to a "technical problem". A data compression algorithm used as part of a more efficient system for transmitting audio from one place to another probably would be patentable, for example, but the algorithm in isolation wouldn't be.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It may or may not be patentable, depending on the jurisdiction. "Pure" software patents are almost never granted by the UK Patent Office, for example. In order to be patentable in the UK, a computer program has to be part of a solution to a "technical problem". A data compression algorithm used as part of a more efficient system for transmitting audio from one place to another probably would be patentable, for example, but the algorithm in isolation wouldn't be.

I was thinking more along the lines of something *really* new and unique, not a refinement of existing techniques. Say something based on map theory or other advanced math. By now even fractal encoding would likely be deemed obvious by a strict analysis. The problem, as you say, is the inconsistent application of the rules.

The people doing the patent approval simply aren't as versed in the subjects as the submitters so they can be snowed.

Edit:

Another problem is that obviousness changes over time.
50 years ago, digitally encoding audio and video was not an obvious solution to the distribution problem; it wasn't even viable. By the 80's it was viable for storage but not transmission. Today, going digital is the default first approach to almost everything. (3D printers point the way.)

Tone result is that looking back at past patents we need to look not only at the prior art in that specific field but also at the general state of technology at the time the patent was granted. Things change in 17 years and what seems unworthy of patent today might have been non-obvious at the time. Often I see people griping that a given patent is trivial or obvious... from the point of view of the present. Especially with computers. But in many cases they are tslking about patents that go back to the last century. Things have changed a bit since then.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Does that mean it is illegal to rip a cd/dvd unless you destroy the hard copy of that?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

Quoting Wikipedia: "German is spoken natively by about 100 million people, making it the most widely spoken native language in the European Union and one of the major languages of the world." So, number of people is not really a convincing excuse

I meant that since we have more people our laws have more of an impact.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Does that mean it is illegal to rip a cd/dvd unless you destroy the hard copy of that?

I suspect not, because making a digital backup of a CD counts as "Fair Use", which is not the case with a book. A quick web search suggests that ripping CDs that you own is OK, but obviously not making a copy of someone else's CD, one that you borrow from the library, etc.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I suspect not, because making a digital backup of a CD counts as "Fair Use", which is not the case with a book.

IOW, it is a completely arbitrary distinction?

See, I always thought the issue was, it isn't cost-effective for them to ship you the pbook after they scan it.
So if it isn't destroyed, they end up with a book they were never entitled to.

Naturally if you scan it yourself you may keep the pbook (which you are entitled to) or destroy it as you wish.

Edit: four revisions or so in a few minutes! Well, I believe the case study of ripping a borrowed cd is a perfect parallel to these scanning services.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

See, I always thought the issue was, it isn't cost-effective for them to ship you the pbook after they scan it.
So if it isn't destroyed, they end up with a book they were never entitled to.

My understanding (which may of course be wrong) is that it's a genuinely destructive scan: they cut the spine off and then run the pages through a sheet feeder.

Naturally if you scan it yourself you may keep the pbook (which you are entitled to) or destroy it as you wish.

I'm really not at all sure you're right about that. If you create a copy, it has to fall under the terms of "Fair Use", and "I want an ebook" doesn't count. You said yourself earlier in the thread that you're not allowed to photocopy your books. How is scanning them any different?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

See, I always thought the issue was, it isn't cost-effective for them to ship you the pbook after they scan it.
So if it isn't destroyed, they end up with a book they were never entitled to.

And I thought it was because, to be cost effective, the service uses sheet-fed scanners which *require* breaking the book.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My understanding (which may of course be wrong) is that it's a genuinely destructive scan: they cut the spine off and then run the pages through a sheet feeder.

So it is not in fact a legal requirement at all?

They can of course send you the stack of paper, optionally stitched back together.

I'm really not at all sure you're right about that. If you create a copy, it has to fall under the terms of "Fair Use", and "I want an ebook" doesn't count. You said yourself earlier in the thread that you're not allowed to photocopy your books. How is scanning them any different?

I said that in a sarcastic manner, I apologize if you didn't catch that.

Disregarding Fair Use both photocopying your book and ripping a cd are copyright infringement.
And media creators love to argue against Fair Use -- it denies them the ability to sell you the same product twice.

It is a useless split -- but apparently the accepted one.

I expect the very first court case to prove beyond dispute that there is no difference.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Disregarding Fair Use both photocopying your book and ripping a cd are copyright infringement.

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.

[MikeB1972]

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.

Pretty sure the new format-shifting law brought in back in June was to make a personal copy of media (not digital media), my reading of it is that as long as you are converting the pbook yourself for your own use/backup then it is now legal in the UK.
e.g. Vinyl LP's are analogue not digital and you can now convert these to MP3's.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Pretty sure the new format-shifting law brought in back in June was to make a personal copy of media (not digital media), my reading of it is that as long as you are converting the pbook yourself for your own use/backup then it is now legal in the UK.
e.g. Vinyl LP's are analogue not digital and you can now convert these to MP3's.

Thanks, Mike - that's an interesting argument. I guess we won't really know one way or the other unless (and it's unlikely to happen) a case were to go to court. I didn't think that the law applied to books, but I may very well be wrong.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks, Mike - that's an interesting argument. I guess we won't really know one way or the other unless (and it's unlikely to happen) a case were to go to court. I didn't think that the law applied to books, but I may very well be wrong.

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)