This situation came up at work today. A company has a PDF file posted on their website. The master PDF file has the “do not print” checkbox turned on (this is something that you can do in Adobe Acrobat). You can’t turn that off without the “master password” for the file.
Here’s my thinking:
File is posted publicly by the authors.
Anyone can download a copy of the file from the website.
Anyone can do a screenshot and print the file (it’s one page, not a book or something). Common function to every browser and OS in the world.
I downloaded the file and then used a commercially available tool from Elcomsoft to remove the master password on my copy of the file and then print it out from Adobe Reader.
The file is copyrighted (it’s a reference sheet) but there’s no question of selling copies, changing the contents of the document or anything like that, just having a hardcopy for reference. Given 1, 2 and 3 (above) it seems to me that there’s nothing wrong here but I’m wondering if we have any lawyers who know something about copyright law, especially with regards to the Internet, who have any thoughts?
I’m voting for fair use on your side, although Elcomsoft could probably be charged under the DMCA for creating software that circumvents copy protection. In fact, they were charged under the same law for similar software that works on eBooks.
Technically it is a violation of copyright, and I disagree with SmackFu about the applicability of fair use in this case. If you were using one page out of a book, yes, fair use would apply. But as you’ve described it, I don’t think so. But IANAL.
That said, if you–just you–are using it as a deskside convenience, it’s highly unlikely that anyone is going to find out about it, much less come after you or your company. So go ahead, and don’t sweat it.
OTOH, if you are making copies for everyone in your 4,000-person company, you’re treading on shakier ground. In such a situation, you would be better off contacting the copyright holder and requesting permission.
My question is, why is the company preventing printing? Do they offer hard copies that you would have to pay for? Or did someone cluelessly click the “no print” box? You say it’s a reference sheet, which would suggest they want people to have and use it. So why do they let you download it but not print? I get the feeling we’re missing some information.
Points (1) and (2) do nothing whatsoever to relinquish the intellectual property rights of the copyright holder.
Point (3) does not mean anything either. Any browser and OS in the World has the ability to transfer MP3s via FTP, but this doesn’t mean you have the right to do so.
Why crack the copy protection if it was a single-page sheet?
Generally, if you are using the reference for personal non-commercial use, and you are not re-distributing the work, and you are not altering it, and you are not claiming copyright over it falsely or trying to make a derivative work without citation, then most likely your printing of it falls under “Fair Use”. I say “most likely” because a great many cases like this are by no means “certain” in the wierd world of online copyright law.
Well what I’m getting at is if the concern is that “Obviously the people who own the copyright don’t want you to print it” then that seems a little odd to me as those people have posted the document publicly, they have no problem with people downloading it and the entire document can be printed with a couple of keystrokes with no need to even use Adobe Acrobat (so putting a “Don’t print” property on it in Acrobat is a bit…useless?) or any sort of de-protecting utility.
To recap a couple of points that people have brought up:
a. This is a single page of reference material. Not a part of a longer document, it’s one page and that’s it.
b. There is no question of copy protection - this is a plain old PDF file, they’ve posted it on their website and anyone can download it a jillion times as is. I haven’t done anything that affects the copyability or lack thereof.
c. The printout was needed for one person - we’re not talking about a need to keep the electronic file, post it anywhere, distribute it, modify it, claim or distort any kind of ownership, etc. Just one person needs a hardcopy. No hidden agenda or missing facts or details that I’m hiding, this is the whole story.
Again, my big question is let’s say that the owner comes out and says “We didn’t want anyone to print this file, and as proof of that you can see that we checked the little Do Not Print box in Acrobat when we made that PDF file.” - given that they have made the document freely and publicly available and that you can already print it out as many times as you want in it’s entirety without even having any Acrobat app on your machine, simply by dint of the document being on their website, then do they have much of a leg to stand on? To me this seems a little like putting up a billboard with copyrighted material on it - I obviously don’t have any right to commercially exploit it but don’t I have the right to take a photo of it?
As for the DMCA thing I became aware of the link with the whole Dmitri Sklyarov/eBooks case afterwards. I probably would have looked around for another utility if I’d caught that beforehand.
Ah, but you see, your argument could be extended to a different medium : books. One could say that “Well, obviously these people printed a book knowing that anyone could slap it down on a photocopier and make a copy of it. Therefore, it must be OK to copy it.” The fact that it can be downloaded does not mean they have relinquished their copyright or control over the document.
People (in general) have a notion that because something can be done on the web, it therefore is legal to do so. I understand in a sense that you’re thinking “why put it out there if you don’t want anyone to print it or copy it”, but maybe they assume that people will not crack their PDF file open with third-party tools, and that they will use the document in the manner in which it was intended - as an online reference document.
Let me put it this way - if you’re asking as an individual, I believe my post above still stands - you should be able to print it under “Fair Use”. If you are planning on distributing it to multiple people at work or in a business, however, or do any of the things I mentioned before that you should not do, then perhaps you should talk to your company’s counsel or copyright clearinghouse.
Taking what you say here at face value, my advice is “It seems legally sound and morally right, but you would have to consult with an actual attorney and/or your pastor/rabbi/imam on those respective points.”
This is actually a much more complicated matter, but generally you are correct. However, a photograph is not an exact digital flawless copy of the original, which is why I say it is “complicated”.
Thanks Anthracite, I see what you’re getting at and I am going to run this by an attorney at work. I’m not sure how well the book argument holds though - there are very explicit laws that say I can’t put a book on a photocopier and whip off some copies, and the book itself has a written statement that you are not allowed to copy it in whole or in part. If Tom Clancy put a copy of his latest novel on his website in PDF format and allowed you to download it, with no warning or caution saying “You can’t do this”, and the document didn’t have any statement in it saying “Unauthorized duplication is prohibited” or “No printing” or whatever, would that be the same?
And in this case the utility that I used to print the document is not strictly necessary - given that it’s one page, all you have to do is open the file and do a screenshot, by which I mean it’s not like you have to take some extraordinary measures or defeat some sort of security or anything.
I just opened up the document again from the company’s website. There’s nothing during the download or in the text of the document itself that says you can’t print it out or that it’s only available for sale from the publishers. It’s a guide to some terms from some books that they sell, and those works are available for purchase, but the guide doesn’t say anything like that at all. There’s not even anything that says “You can’t distribute this document electronically” and obviously they don’t have a problem with people having the electronic version for free as many times as they want it.
Pssst: Just between you and me, I’d advise you not to do this. More likely than not, he or she is going to tell you not to make the copy. From his point of view, even though the likelihood of serious legal consequences may be vanishingly small, by saying no, he makes the chances zero. (To make matters worse, if he says no, and you do it anyway, and the company finds out, it might be grounds to fire you!)
If you really only need one copy, just do it, don’t tell anyone about it, and forget about it.
The laws you are referring to are none other than the copyright laws.
But that’s not what makes copying illegal. You don’t have to put a sign on your car that says “Do not steal this car.” Companies put “duplication prohibited” notices in books and other copyrighted works to make it clear that it’s not allowed, but the absence of such statements is not an implicit permission to copy. The copyright statement is what tells you you can’t copy it. And even the absence of a copyright statement isn’t an absolute assurance that you can make a legal copy.
That said, make your copy, keep your mouth shut about it, and use it in good health.
OK, so spurred on by curiosity and the desire to cover my butt properly
…I did a little more digging on the website where the PDF file is made available. It turns out that they sell the full-color version of the document in question in their online bookstore (I had to snoop around a little to find these references). The PDF doc is freely available at their site but they do say you’ve got to pay if you want the hardcopy. Given this I sent another email to the appropriate folks at work and said it looks to me like the proper approach in this case is to either keep a link to the PDF handy or shell out the bucks for the fullsize printout (screenshot and “deprotected” PDF docs are pretty tiny and harder to use, but still).
It’s nice to know that there are “can-openers” available for our internal documents if needed but this was also a good primer on some of the background copyright issues. Thanks to Anthracite and Commasense for their input.
