I agree with your original assertion-- buying a copy of the book does not validate downloading someone else's digitization of the same material (and I'd have to assume that ORA books found illegitimately online are not simple OCR scans of someone's real world book, but copies of the digital editions-- not something owning the book gives you any license to, or they'd include it on a CD with each book purchase).
But I must assert that if I buy a book, video, CD, or any other item of that nature, I have every right to create "backups", digitized copies, what-have-you, for my own personal use. Personally, I think I'd rather pay for a legitimate digital version of any ORA book in question, as OCR'ing something like the Camel would take days, and probably result in a poor digital text (even if it gets all the characters right, it's still a flat text file, not my idea of useful). | [reply] |
I think there's a difference between taking a backup of a CD (as in in case it somehow breaks - since that's what backups are for) and copying/scanning a book. Scanning a book is like backuping on a different media type as originally provided. This, in my opinion, isn't backuping, but copying.
Back in the mid-90's Borlands Pascal 7.0 has a EULA which stated that the software could be used like a book. Basically what they meant was: You can install the software on different boxes, but you can only use it one at the time. I don't see this applyed on digitized books, or hardcopies, but it's something to think about.
Greetz
Beatnik
... Quidquid perl dictum sit, altum viditur.
| [reply] |
Consider that it is completely legal to make an audio tape of a CD for personal use (and for personal use only). (If I'm wrong here, someone please point me to a reference. I haven't been able to google up firm proof either way, just this from the EFF.)
I.e. for people to listen to their cds on tape while driving or exercising. So cross-media copying can be fair use.
I'd argue that this is exactly the same thing as
what we're talking about - scanning a book that you did pay for, to have a mobile copy. (The example where you download this copy from a warez site is much more shaky though.)
But that's just my opinion; for all I know, legally things might be different for books (vs. audio and video tape).
Law aside, I also don't think it is morally wrong to make personal (and only personal) electronic copies of a book that you did pay for. (And again, the deal with the warez site is a different matter.) If it was a library book that you just checked out, that would be ethically wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's legally wrong as well.
-- Frag.
| [reply] |
Well, in the US it is very very legal to make copies once you buy it. Also, not mentioned here is the legal precedent set by the courts in interpretting these laws. Generally, unless you are making money off the copy, OR hurting the business of the copyright owner, THEN you are no longer covered under fair use. SO, I think that in the case of the download, the court would find that:
- You did purchase license for the work
- You were not reselling it, or showing the copy
- You are not costing the publisher anything, so there is no harm. Harm must be demonstrated to override fair use.
Also, the idea you can only copy part of it, that is actually, you can reproduce only parts for distribution but in fact you are allowed to copy the whole work for personal or academic use.
You would have a difficult time finding a judge in the US that would care if you had physically made the copy yourself. For example, if you pay somebody to make you a copy for personal use, neither of you have violated copyright law, even though the person who actually purchased the book isn't the person who made the copy. Generally, US copyright law doesn't consider the physical aspect of the copy, but rather the content. That is, it is not the paper with ink that is copyrighted, it is the pattern of words that is copyrighted.
--
Snazzy tagline here
| [reply] |