Question about legalities

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

None of the above make you a "thief".

Not me, of course.
It's the IFPIsh response.

I usually say pirates and publishers are two faces of the same coin, and the one with the biggest gun will decide who's the thief.

I just sit and wait.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by axel77

Simply, no, its not that simple.

Imagine following story. I and a friend of my own a legally bought paper copy of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, we both own an eReader device, I have a scanner he not. He tells me, he is going on a trip, and he wants to minimize his luggage, so he'd rather read the hitchhikers with his eReader. I scan it for him, and send him the pdf file per eMail.

Now where is the illegal part of that story? I consider thats pretty fair use all the way through from my feeling of morality. We both gave our tribute to Douglas Adams or his heirs and his publishers by buying the paper book, the paper is heavy we want to read it electronically, I use my scanner for a friend, because he has none.

Lets start with the fact that what you consider fair use and what the law considers fair use might be two very different things.

Lets examine your story for a moment.

1. You both own copies of the same book. Ok, fair enough.
2. You scan your copy creating a second copy that you now possess. Again, fair enough.
3. You give one of the copies you have made to a friend. Now, I am not a lawyer, let alone one specializing in intellectual property, but I believe this is the point where you have violated fair use.

You have made additional copies of a work and given them to someone else. The fact that said person owns a copy of the book in another format is besides the point. If you had legally purchased an electronic copy and gave it to your friend, that would be different (Though you would not be able to retain a electronic copy of your own). It would be different if you let him use your scanner to make a copy himself. It might also be different if you used his legal copy to make an electronic copy. But the facts of the story presented is that you used your copy to make an electronic copy which you then gave to him.

Remember, copyright is there to give authors incentives to write and publish. I don't know exactly how far fair use extends, but I do know that without the permission of the author and/or the publisher of a copyrighted work, it is not fair game for a citizen to make and distribute full copies of an author's work. You purchased one copy, that copy (And perhaps an archival copy) is all that you are permitted to use.

If the friend in this story wanted an electronic copy badly enough to take on his trip, he could either purchase an electronic copy himself or purchase a scanner and make an electronic copy for himself.

To put it in simple terms. While any work is under copyright, you may own the medium, but you don't own the work. Only the author and whomever he has granted rights to owns the work. In the United States, only specific legal exemptions (most notably, but not necessarily limited to fair use) can constrain the author's ability to dictate how a work is distributed and used.

To extend your argument that you have already paid for the work. Lets look at it from a different perspective. Lets say you have purchased copy of the book electronically already. Does that mean you are entitled to a paper copy of the book? No of course not, each time you purchase a book, you are paying a royalty to the author and the publisher. Previous payment of said royalty does not exempt you from paying future royalties.

Say somebody steals *my* 1000$ bike, I see him with my bike at the street, trying to sell it for 5 dollars. I'm sure he is gone when I call the police, so I just decide to let it be, and give him the 5 dollars to get my bike. I know it is stolen, and he still is a criminal, but its my right not to accuse if I don't have the muse to do so (its not idealistic to get people away with such, but its no necissity).

Now was it illegal to buy a stolen bike? If I owned it actually already?

I hope you get what this analogy wants to tell.

Once the bike is reported stolen, if you determine who stole it on your own, it might in fact be illegal not to accuse the thief. It could be considered obstruction of a police investigation.

--
Bill

[axel77]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Lets start with the fact that what you consider fair use and what the law considers fair use might be two very different things.

Lets examine your story for a moment.

1. You both own copies of the same book. Ok, fair enough.
2. You scan your copy creating a second copy that you now possess. Again, fair enough.
3. You give one of the copies you have made to a friend. Now, I am not a lawyer, let alone one specializing in intellectual property, but I believe this is the point where you have violated fair use.

You have made additional copies of a work and given them to someone else. The fact that said person owns a copy of the book in another format is besides the point. If you had legally purchased an electronic copy and gave it to your friend, that would be different (Though you would not be able to retain a electronic copy of your own). It would be different if you let him use your scanner to make a copy himself. It might also be different if you used his legal copy to make an electronic copy. But the facts of the story presented is that you used your copy to make an electronic copy which you then gave to him.

Remember, copyright is there to give authors incentives to write and publish. I don't know exactly how far fair use extends, but I do know that without the permission of the author and/or the publisher of a copyrighted work, it is not fair game for a citizen to make and distribute full copies of an author's work. You purchased one copy, that copy (And perhaps an archival copy) is all that you are permitted to use.

If the friend in this story wanted an electronic copy badly enough to take on his trip, he could either purchase an electronic copy himself or purchase a scanner and make an electronic copy for himself.

To put it in simple terms. While any work is under copyright, you may own the medium, but you don't own the work. Only the author and whomever he has granted rights to owns the work. In the United States, only specific legal exemptions (most notably, but not necessarily limited to fair use) can constrain the author's ability to dictate how a work is distributed and used.

To extend your argument that you have already paid for the work. Lets look at it from a different perspective. Lets say you have purchased copy of the book electronically already. Does that mean you are entitled to a paper copy of the book? No of course not, each time you purchase a book, you are paying a royalty to the author and the publisher. Previous payment of said royalty does not exempt you from paying future royalties.

I hope you realize how non-sense some of this. Say the friend borrows me his copy of the book, and I use his copy to make him a pdf, then its suddendly fair use?

And seriously to say you need to buy it 2 times if you want to have it on 2 mediums is just wrong. This is what fair use law was all about. You do *not* own just that one medium you bought, which you are not allowed to copy at all for personal use. Its an interesting question what you actually buy if you buy a copy of a copyrighted material, since it is more and less at the same time than buying just the medium (and say i can do with the medium what i want), its also more and less at the same time than saying you actually buy the content. The best thing this is to said, is that you buy a "right of use" that includes certain things but does not include other things....

Once the bike is reported stolen, if you determine who stole it on your own, it might in fact be illegal not to accuse the thief. It could be considered obstruction of a police investigation.

In my story I did not report it, I just see it the next hour after I notice it missing. (I hope you don't forget about the analogy here)

[Penforhire]

Doesn't the MP3 legality, mentioned earlier, complicate the legality here? I don't honestly know the law on MP3's but IF in the U.S.A. it is legal for me to download an MP3 of a song I own on a CD (format shifting done by someone else) then why is that analogy not adequate to settle the question?

I understand the publishers would like to make a buck on a p-book to e-book shift but I sure feel like I'm on firm ethical ground by resisting. YEMV (Your Ethics May Vary)

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by axel77

I hope you realize how non-sense some of this. Say the friend borrows me his copy of the book, and I use his copy to make him a pdf, then its suddendly fair use?

And seriously to say you need to buy it 2 times if you want to have it on 2 mediums is just wrong. This is what fair use law was all about. You do *not* own just that one medium you bought, which you are not allowed to copy at all for personal use. Its an interesting question what you actually buy if you buy a copy of a copyrighted material, since it is more and less at the same time than buying just the medium (and say i can do with the medium what i want), its also more and less at the same time than saying you actually buy the content. The best thing this is to said, is that you buy a "right of use" that includes certain things but does not include other things....

Yes, you are correct, I did overstate when I said you own the medium. You do own the right to use the material on the medium. But you only own the specific rights that are enumerated by copyright and the doctrine of fair use. Again, I suspect that neither of us is a copyright attorney, however, making copies of works and distributing them to others is definitely on the line if not crossing the line of fair use.

This may not seem fair, but as I have stated before, "fair use" is not the same definition of fair that we might have.

Personally, if I had my way, there would be some major reforms in copyright law. I see little need to extend copyrights past the death of an author; I also think that most copyrighted works that are not in print should enter the public domain about 10 years after they have last been in print (Being that most books and music earn most of their money in the first year or so after being published).

--
Bill

--
Bill

[Xenophon]

Shaggy wrote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Not if I didn't want to sell it.

in response to my example of 'buying' a book at knifepoint. He's put his finger on exactly the issue I was trying to illuminate -- process matters!

In this case, the end result is "the same" as if I had purchased the book from him. (Yes, I realize my analogy is not perfect, but still...)

Arriving at a 'legitimate' end result by way of an illegal process is still illegal. And that's a piece of the disagreement about things like giving a friend an e-copy of a book that he (and you) own in paper. Either of you could have scanned it for personal use while staying within the bounds of Fair Use (U.S. law here; I am not a lawyer; your mileage may vary). So either of you could legitimately wind up with both a paper and an electronic copy. But it matters how you get there! And the act of giving the other guy a copy takes it out of the bounds of fair use. (At least according to most legal scholars -- it's never been ruled on in court to the best of my knowledge.)

A rather odd-ball but apparently respectable legal position is that it may, in fact, be legit to borrow a CD from a friend, grab the bits and keep them and then return the CD to your friend. And as long as it's for personal use, you've stayed within the bounds of fair use. That's according to some legal scholars; others disagree. It's never been ruled on by a court, so no one knows for sure.

Xenophon

[Tanellthyon]

Gosh guys, I just wanted to know if it'd be legal to download something I already own. Didn't mean to start a court war or anything.

I now understand, thanks to some of your explanations, why it might be illegal, but I still think it's kinda stupid to shut out the fair 90% because of the 10% who just want to rip people off. Of course, there's no way to prove it one way or the other, so....

In short, I hope Goodkind decides to publish his series in multiple formats. I'll get it the day it comes out.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by axel77

I hope you realize how non-sense some of this. Say the friend borrows me his copy of the book, and I use his copy to make him a pdf, then its suddendly fair use?

And seriously to say you need to buy it 2 times if you want to have it on 2 mediums is just wrong. This is what fair use law was all about. You do *not* own just that one medium you bought, which you are not allowed to copy at all for personal use. Its an interesting question what you actually buy if you buy a copy of a copyrighted material, since it is more and less at the same time than buying just the medium (and say i can do with the medium what i want), its also more and less at the same time than saying you actually buy the content. The best thing this is to said, is that you buy a "right of use" that includes certain things but does not include other things....


In my story I did not report it, I just see it the next hour after I notice it missing. (I hope you don't forget about the analogy here)

Sorry to be picky, but what you are buying is the medium and a single license to the contained content that lasts the length of the medium. Unfortunately precision is necessary when talking about legal issues. No offense intended.

The issue at hand is whether the ownership of that license is 1. Proveable to a court. and 2. Transferable to another medium. Only actual case decisions can answer these questions.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Shaggy wrote:

in response to my example of 'buying' a book at knifepoint. He's put his finger on exactly the issue I was trying to illuminate -- process matters!

In this case, the end result is "the same" as if I had purchased the book from him. (Yes, I realize my analogy is not perfect, but still...)

It's not the same at all.

Someone buying something from me that I want to sell, and someone "buying something at knifepoint" from me that I don't want to sell, have completely different results. Sure, in both cases I end up with money and they end up with a book. But there are big differences in the results which have nothing to do with whether or not the buyer used a knife.

[Redcard]

I'll make it easiest

Format shifting in the US is considered creation of a derivative work.

IF you do not have permission of the copyright holder to shift formats, then what you are doing is technically illegal.

An example of this is modern CDs do contain permission to rip for personal use (or in some cases will contain the MP3s themselves). If you check on record company websites , you see they give blanket licenses to do such.

Right or wrong in your or my opinion, you asked whether it was legal to download a book you own.

No.

It is not.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Doesn't the MP3 legality, mentioned earlier, complicate the legality here? I don't honestly know the law on MP3's but IF in the U.S.A. it is legal for me to download an MP3 of a song I own on a CD (format shifting done by someone else) then why is that analogy not adequate to settle the question?
)

It is not legal for you to download an MP3 of a song you own on a CD. (Unless you pay for the MP3 and it is sold through a site approved to sell it by the copyright owner.)

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Redcard

I'll make it easiest

Format shifting in the US is considered creation of a derivative work.

IF you do not have permission of the copyright holder to shift formats, then what you are doing is technically illegal.

An example of this is modern CDs do contain permission to rip for personal use (or in some cases will contain the MP3s themselves). If you check on record company websites , you see they give blanket licenses to do such.

Right or wrong in your or my opinion, you asked whether it was legal to download a book you own.

No.

It is not.

I think the permission is a little broader than that. Certainly certain types of format shifting are legal. For example recording a Television broadcast into either analog or digital media is legal provided that copies of said broadcast are for personal use only.

As far as I know, the same might be true of books. However, once said copies are distributed for any reason, I think it is crossing the line. Now, I doubt if you make a copy and give it to your parents or a friend that it is going to be worth the while of the copyright holder to sue you for copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean it is legal.

--
Bill

[Richard Herley]

In the prelims of many books there is some wording about this. In the first book to hand the relevant terms are:

"All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of [the publisher], or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic rights organization."

This clause implicitly invokes the original agreement between the copyright holder and the publisher. I'm no lawyer either, but I assume my rights as a buyer of the paper book go no further than being able to read it or to copy pages "as expressly permitted by law", meaning for private study, I suppose, or "under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic rights organization", which means I'd have to buy a licence to photocopy a substantial chunk of the text and give it to others. Some of the proceeds of these licences find their way to the copyright holder. (I am a member of such an organization and receive small sums every year in respect of photocopies made by various bodies in Britain and in certain foreign countries.)

But this is all hopelessly old-fashioned, and takes little account of the fact that a perfect copy of a book-length manuscript can now be made with ease, infinitely duplicated and transmitted round the world in a few seconds. We can surely expect to hear of test cases coming to court, dealing with just the dilemmas already raised in this thread.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I think the permission is a little broader than that. Certainly certain types of format shifting are legal. For example recording a Television broadcast into either analog or digital media is legal provided that copies of said broadcast are for personal use only.

As far as I know, the same might be true of books. However, once said copies are distributed for any reason, I think it is crossing the line. Now, I doubt if you make a copy and give it to your parents or a friend that it is going to be worth the while of the copyright holder to sue you for copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean it is legal.

--
Bill

Absolutely.

There is a marked difference between what is legal, and what is ethical, and what is going to be pursued.

For example, I rent a movie from Blockbuster, and since I Have a projector, I show it at a room party at a science fiction convention. Did you know I've broken the law?

Now, will they go after me? Probably not, though there are licenses to cover you for that.

So yeah.. the initial question is point blank no doubt about it completely illegal in the US.

There's no comment regarding opinion of the law or anything from me, though.

The question was about legality Technically, in my home state, it's illegal to put your car in neutral when coasting down a hill. But cops aren't out in force arresting people.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Redcard

I'll make it easiest

Format shifting in the US is considered creation of a derivative work.

IF you do not have permission of the copyright holder to shift formats, then what you are doing is technically illegal.

An example of this is modern CDs do contain permission to rip for personal use (or in some cases will contain the MP3s themselves). If you check on record company websites , you see they give blanket licenses to do such.

I do not believe that is correct. Ripping a CD for personal use is legal, regardless of whether or not the record company gives you permission.