Got a Reader Today - Some Thoughts

[bingle]

Originally Posted by da_jane

I think the key is whether the "shifting" is done for private and non commercial use. If you buy a product (a book) and convert it to ebook and NOT uploading it and sharing it, you are doing it for private and noncommercial use. The seminal case on this issue is the Sony v. Universal Studios case from 1984.

You're right, but the law has (sadly) changed since the Betamax decision. Again, the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 made noncommercial copyright infringement a crime, although it still exempted time shifting. It even has penalties for infringing as much as a single work.

Originally Posted by da_jane

The Copyright Act grants the copyright holder “exclusive” rights to use and to authorize the use of his work in five qualified ways, including reproduction of the copyrighted work in copies. I think you may be entitled to argue that there is no "reproduction" by converting the book from a paper to a ecopy so long as the paper copy is destroyed or not sold. After all, you are then left with only one copy.

The courts have actually already ruled on the matter of digital reproduction, and found that reproduction does occur when format shifting. One of the cases for this was MP3.com, who did exactly this: they format-shifted CDs to MP3s and then transmitted the MP3s to customers who already owned the CDs. Now granted, that was for commercial gain, but it's still hard to see *why* that should be illegal.

Originally Posted by da_jane

The purpose of the copyright is to provide incentive for "creative effort." By allowing a format shifting for private, non commerical use would not impair incentive for "creative effort" so long as the first copy was legitimately purchased.

I definitely agree with you. Sadly, in recent years changes to copyright law have not been "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts", as they are supposed to. Things like retroactive copyright extension and the DMCA both *remove* the incentive to create further works, really. I certainly think that the law *should* allow format shifting, and other non-commercial copying, but my interpretation is that, in this day and age, it *doesn't*.

Originally Posted by da_jane

Considering this language in conjunction with the right of resale (the first sale rule), it doesn't seem likely a court would find that format shifting is one that would find favor with the courts.

Again, I agree. I don't think there's really something to worry about here: you probably won't go to court, and you probably won't lose if you do go. But the law is far from clear-cut on the matter.

Originally Posted by da_jane

Further, if you read the copyright page of a book, it states that the it is a violation of the copyright to scan, upload and share not just scan.

But, as you posted above, one of the five exclusive copy rights is the right of reproduction. So making any copy *technically* violates that right (unless it's exempt under the fair use clause, or one of the other exemptions).

Originally Posted by da_jane

Finally, I disagree that the DMCA would apply. I think that calliing a paper book an "analog" copy is a distortion of the meaning of analog as it is generally understood.

Yeah, I don't think the DMCA applies at all. Calling an analog format an anti-copying measure is far too much of a stretch (although, if you think about it, it's probably the best anti-copying measure there is...)

Anyway, this whole discussion is very academic, I don't really think you're going to get in trouble. If I did, I wouldn't have posted all about my conversion efforts in another thread. Also, I'm not a lawyer (although my fiancee is in training!), just a copyright-law hobbyist, so I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about :-)

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

@NatCh: cheap shot, my friend. Lawyers are like politicians: they take the abuse for the fact they we give them power in order to have convenience. Not all are bad, and some do good work.

As the Wise Man said: Cheap shots are life's bargains.

(If you can get that reference you deserve a cookie!)

As it happens, I count among my friends a few 'good' lawyers, including a Personal Injury Lawyer (aka ambulance chaser), who's getting pretty good at Laser Tag -- I've never met a good lawyer who couldn't rip out half a dozen bad lawyer jokes off the top of their head.

Originally Posted by rmeister0

Interesting debate, but I think an important point is that the issue in the RIAA lawsuits is really not reproduction but redistribution.

True, but only because they can't get anyone to take a lawsuit against reproduction seriously -- where's the damage? But that doesn't mean they wouldn't file if they thought they stood a snowball's chance of winning....

[yvanleterrible]

I play soccer with a couple. They can really kick you in the b...s just like in real life!