Question re clippings limit

[jfm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I entirely agree that failing silently is bad, but I must respectfully disagree that a 10% clipping limit for a copyrighted work is a "goof-ball restriction". It's a pretty generous proportion of a book to be able to copy. My local library, for example, will only allow one to copy a single chapter from a book.

What would you consider to be a reasonable percentage?

I think it depends upon how you want to use it. It could very well be more than adequate. There is a difference, though, I think, between a library book and one you own. If you have a physical book that you have purchased and want to copy and ocr whatever amount for your own non-commercial study, then there is, IMHO, no moral restriction upon that, and, so long as I am not going to give it away or sell it, I am not concerned about what the law may or may not say.

The book with which I am working is a well-known political history book, and as I get back into it, I am reminded of why I highlighted so much. The book is, to me, difficult to read, so what I wanted to do was read it through once, highlighting all of the important concepts, as much as I though necessary, and then go back through again, maybe several times, just reading the highlights and notes, adjusting them as necessary (try to do that with a physical book). One way to do that is via the clippings file, and while that is a way, it is not the best way. The best way is, I think, to go back through the actual book where the clips and notes have context. In other words, the clippings file is not necessary for this.

Down the road, however, as I come to understand things better, I will want to actually copy concepts here and there. These will wind up being my synopsis of the book, and, while I am not there yet, I would guess that this will be less than 10% of the book. Of course, there is a great deal of meat in this book, and I may be wrong. Anyway, that's the idea, and we'll see how it works. The problem is, though, that I will not be able to glean that less than 10% from highlights that are not there.

Also, I actually prefer physical books, and, since you can usually get great copies for less than an ebook would cost, the reason I would buy the ebook is so that I could do things either more easily than with the physical version or that I could not do at all.

I hope all of this rambling makes sense.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by jfm

There is a difference, though, I think, between a library book and one you own. If you have a physical book that you have purchased and want to copy and ocr whatever amount for your own non-commercial study, then there is, IMHO, no moral restriction upon that,

There might not be a moral restriction, but they still don't want you making copies of copyrighted material. I picked up one of the few physical books I still own off a shelf, and opened it to the copyright page. This is what it says:

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

[jfm]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

There might not be a moral restriction, but they still don't want you making copies of copyrighted material. I picked up one of the few physical books I still own off a shelf, and opened it to the copyright page. This is what it says:

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

Apparently, you can't even read it, because that would unquestionably be to "use" it, so all you could do is buy it - they don't mind that part - and then put it unopened on the shelf, provided, of course that you do not put it on top of something as that could be interpreted as "using" it to hold that something down. So, if you actually opened and read that book which you are quoting, then you violated the very paragraph that you quoted. In fact, "using" it to quote that paragraph here would be a violation in itself. Silly, isn't it? :-) Of course, if this is a critical article or review...