Timeline for What is the law on scanning pages from a copyright book for a friend?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2023 at 3:54 | comment | added | Ben | @NuclearHoagie It's true that wording isn't actually ideal. Copyright law restricts the right to make copies (giving the author a monopoly on that right by taking it away from everyone else, so that the right to make copies itself becomes a valuable thing), rather than protecting a general right. It "protects a right" only from the point of view of the copyright holder, so in a sentence directly addressed to a consumer asking what rights they have it's easy to misread as the opposite. In the context of the rest of your answer it's not really ambiguous, but perhaps could be clearer. | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 14:30 | comment | added | CGCampbell | @NuclearHoagie I guess I misunderstood your answer's first sentence. I mistakenly thought you were indicating that copyright defends the OPS right to make copies, when it is just the opposite. (It is only because of e.g. the US's 'fair use' that copies are legal.) however, IANAL | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 14:23 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | @CGCampbell I don't understand your comment, "copyright protects the right to make copies" is the very first sentence of this answer. The rights given by a copyright apply to whoever holds it, you holding a copyright of course does not give me any rights whatsoever. If you don't have the copyright, you don't have the right to make copies. By the same token, a land deed gives ownership rights, but not to anyone who isn't the deed-holder. | |
| Jul 14, 2023 at 13:13 | comment | added | CGCampbell | Did you mean to say "copyright protects the right to make copies?" Why does my copyright on material I write protect your right to make copies? | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 19:13 | comment | added | Barmar | @occipita And when the analogous activity was found with VCRs, the studios knew it was hopeless to try to prosecure the tapers, so they went after the manufacturers. This resulted in the classic "Betamax" Supreme Court case that determined that taping for purely personal use (e.g. time-shifting) was faire use. While making copies for friends is not included in this use, it's still the case that going after them is not cost-effective. | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 18:53 | comment | added | occipita | @Barmar - the BPI (UK equivalent of the RIAA) thought it was a copyright violation at least... they had a huge campaign stating Home Taping Is Killing Music (And It's Illegal). That said, I haven't heard of anyone being prosecuted for this either. This article seems to imply that they never managed it, simply because it was so hard to find out who was doing it. But it almost certainly was illegal, at least in the UK. | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 18:42 | comment | added | occipita | ther the book is available or out-of-print has absolutely no bearing whatsoever -- actually, this isn't entirely true. In the UK, at least, fair dealing is usually only allowed if it has no tangible effect on the market for the original work. If the book is out of print, it is much less likely to be able to affect the market for it than if the recipient could just go out and purchase their own copy. | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 16:00 | history | edited | Nuclear Hoagie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2023 at 15:59 | comment | added | Barmar | Back in the days of music on casette or CD, it was common for people to make playlists for friends and romantic interests. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for copyright violation -- is this just an instance of "it's not worth it to go after these minor violations"? | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 15:57 | comment | added | Barmar | In practice, even for an in-print book the publisher will not likely learn about it. If they do, they have marginally more interest in taking action, but the cost of prosecuting one-off copies is probably more than it's worth. | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 13:43 | history | edited | Nuclear Hoagie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 273 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2023 at 12:31 | comment | added | R.M. | @marcelm It's mostly a terminology issue. Instead of "fair use", the UK has "fair dealing", which covers basically the same territory. -- If you want to be precise about terminology, fine, but your comment can be read as implying that the underlying concept doesn't exist in the UK, which isn't quite right. | |
| Jul 12, 2023 at 11:33 | comment | added | marcelm | "There are limited exceptions that are considered "fair use" - Note that OP is from the UK, and (the legal doctrine of) fair use is US-specific. | |
| Jul 11, 2023 at 23:28 | comment | added | user71659 | In the US, the fact that the book is out of print (or rather, cannot be purchased at a fair price) gives libraries certain rights to copy it. 17 USC 108 (e). (Also, when the book goes out of print, the copyright reverts back to the author under typical publisher contracts, but that's a different story.) | |
| Jul 11, 2023 at 22:09 | comment | added | bdb484 | To clarify: "intent" probably does not matter in the sense OP is asking about. Yes, "Pretty Woman" was fair use rather than a copyright violation because 2 Live Crew intended to make fun of Roy Orbison. But OP cannot escape copyright liability because he doesn't intend to violate the author's copyright/cost the author money/maliciously injure the author. | |
| Jul 11, 2023 at 20:50 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | @RabbiKaii Yes, intent matters - that determines the "use" in "fair use". Copying a section of text might or might not be infringement depending on what you do with it. In general, copying may be fair use if the copying is limited, doesn't affect the market for the original, and has some didactic purpose, but it's an overall combination of factors. | |
| Jul 11, 2023 at 20:35 | comment | added | Rabbi Kaii | It's in the name. I get that. Is intent ever discussed for this? Where can I read more, or could you summarise if poss regarding intent. Starting to think I am asking about something probably learned day 1 of copyright law class | |
| Jul 11, 2023 at 20:33 | history | answered | Nuclear Hoagie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |