Basic copyright question

Depends what you mean by “wrong.” You might have violated copyright, although on a personal level i don’t think you’ve done anything morally or ethically wrong.

Also, there’s a difference between doing something that violates copyright, on the one hand, and doing something that is likely to get the attention and raise the ire of the copyright owner, on the other.

I would be interested to know, though, what would happen in a case like you describe.

After all, say we take the issue of Fair Use. One of the criteria for Fair Use is the “amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.” Obviously, copying the whole of a book (as opposed to, say, 3 or 4 pages) is probably going to put you in a whole lot of trouble here. When i was teaching undergraduates, i would sometimes get the library to scan sections of certain books and post them online for the students to read, and the library had very strict rules about how much of a book it was allowed to copy. The reason for this was the “amount and substantiality” section of the Fair Use rules.

On the other hand, though, if you make a copy of your own book merely for your own use and annotation, and do not intend to share it with someone, then it seems to me that you’re not going to run into very much trouble with the other Fair Use criteria.

Your copying seems not to be of a commercial nature (Fair Use issue 1), and it does not seem to have any impact on the “the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work” (Fair Use issue 4). Unless, i guess, the copyright owner expects you to buy two copies: one for the shelf, and one to read. I’d be interested to see how all these factors would be weighed in a case like yours.

And so we come full circle to the legal versus ethical question i raised at the beginning. Even if you are in violation of copyright law, in my opinion you’ve done nothing wrong.

I’ve done something similar myself. I have a couple of books that i use frequently, and that i wanted to be able to search quickly and easily. In order to do this, i scanned the books into my computer and ran them through OCR software. Now, i can just open them as a PDF and search for the word that i want. Much easier than thumbing through a 500-page book.

I haven’t shared these books with anyone else, and my only use for the electronic copy is to facilitate my use of a book that i’ve paid for. I don’t know what the outcome would be if i were found out by the copyright holder, but i don’t feel any guilt for doing it, and i don’t feel i’ve deprived anyone of any income from their work.

Nice try.

The actual wording is:

IOW, there are no controlling cases. Lawyers can believe anything they want, and often do.

I believe the other way. If not a single case can be cited to back up this contention - and we would have a century of time to create one since the major Copyright Law of 1909 created modern law - then it’s unlikely that it would be supported.

Interesting, your original assertion read as if it were a fact than an opinion.

I guess one could look at this the other way, though: do you know of any cases where someone photocopying a whole book for their own use (no redistribution), simply to preserve the condition of the original, has been successfully sued under Title 17? And if the answer is “no,” then all we really have to go on is the rather vague language of the Fair Use provision of the law.

As you note, there are no controlling cases. But this is the case with a LOT of copyright law. Even the famous Bridgeman v Corel case, which virtually everyone involved with copyright agrees was probably a correct decision, and would probably be upheld, is not a controlling case, because it was decided in a district court. In fact, many copyright experts are of the opinion that Bridgeman v. Corel hasn’t been challenged higher up precisely *because *it would be upheld, and the copyright zealots don’t want such an important decision to have controlling power.

Also, where’s that cite?

I thought it was in your link.

I saw nothing in my link that said it was illegal or infringing to make a copy of a book for personal use with the prerogative of preserving the original copy.

Perhaps I missed it?

Perhaps you can explain why the major recording associations have no problem with someone copying their media for personal use and playback-- as long as they legitimately purchased the media in the first place?

mhendo raises some great points as well-- care to comment?

He might not be able to, but I can:

The AHRA.

[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86