Legality of Copying an Out Of Print Book For Personal Use

Factual Questions
41

(snipped)

See, this is what happens when you read statutes from non-primary sources. :frowning:

Here’s the actual wording from the law in question:

http://copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf (page 3)

The print source I was using (not the Stanford site, btw) had omitted sub-paragraph 3 from their quotation. (the gist of which is exactly as EM states)

Additionally, my original source had text after their butchered quotation which gave the strong impression that this in their opinion thus extended the permissions granted for copying *portions *of works for research or personal use *by individuals *to include entire works, restricted only by whether they were “subject to commercial exploitation” and that copies couldn’t be obtained “at a reasonable price.”

Needless to say, on review of the actual text of the change, that isn’t right at all. The 20 years before copyright actually expired bit should have twinged my double-check meter enough to actually look at it myself.

Serves me right for posting before actually checking. :smack: I was simply surprised that something I was reading had relevance to an active GQ thread.

That said: if a book is so rare and difficult to acquire, why not ask the lending archive or library if they can help you acquire a copy of your own? Sometimes libraries are even willing to sell their books to people if they aren’t getting a lot of use (more likely with a library than an archive).

On further thought, why would someone have to own an item if it is available either electronically or for lending by libraries? A person could simply keep borrowing it.

I would say that ethically speaking, “losing” or “destroying” a book because you want it for your own and offering to pay for it (or not) is pretty far down the ethical slope.

If (on the outside chance) the book* is *outside of copyright, then there are a lot of print-on-demand services that allow people to submit anything they want to be bound as a book. You can even legally sell them afterwards, if you can find anyone that wants to buy them. There are electronic services that do the same - check out the thousands of hack-job copies of old free works selling for a penny on Amazon for the Kindle.

However, the question of library/archives use does beg the question - who determines whether someone has an archive or library? Does it have to be recognized as official in some capacity by some specific agency? If someone has a private library (of the Andrew Jackson/Thomas Jefferson variety), particularly if it was for a particular type of resource, would they be protected by this clause if they wished to make themselves copies of other resources they didn’t own?

42

I’m surprised that no one has discussed Google books case yet.

http://techland.time.com/2011/03/23/explaining-the-google-books-case-saga/

I also have followed this for some time on Jerry Pournelle’s blog:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2010/Q2/view629.html#Googlebooks

He seems to moderated his position quite a bit. He seems to seriously concerned about orphaned works disappearing. I also noticed he has started making a lot of his stuff available on Kindle lately.

I find Google books handy even when I’m trying to find quotes from books I own.

43

The Google case is almost impossibly complicated and has engendered thousands of posts over many years in the sf community, and that’s just on the sites I read.

The shortest possible explanation of why it does not apply here is that Google makes money from Google Books. Every time you click on something there you will sooner or later come across other links for Google. It is a commercial operation, rather than use for personal purposes, and that’s part of the overall reason the judge ruled against them.

I don’t know the legal meaning of “libraries and archives” but I would bet large sums that at the very least you would have to be either a governmental entity or incorporated as a non-for-profit organization.

44

Probably the reason is that all the issues remain unresolved, and even if resolved would likely offer little relief to the individuals in this thread.

45

Makes me think back to when photocopiers first became common in libraries. When my library in West Texas first got them, it put up signs warning that you needed the author’s or publisher’s written permission before you copied anything. WTF? Why install copiers in the first place? I guess they figured that absolved them from any liability. This was early days for public photocopiers, and no one could be sure of copyright issues.

46

You don’t think it is useful at least go to

http://books.google.com/

and find out what Google thinks is the copyright status of the book?

47

FWIW Archive.org claimed many years back that they were the “only official” online archive to be designated a “library”, whatever that means. :confused:

48

Eh, who cares. Most books I like are many hundreds of dollars for a scant few hundred pages (Nijhoff, I’m looking at you!) so just photocopy it and screw if it’s legal. It’s not like there’s cops at every photocopy machine waiting to catch scofflaws.

May I suggest Mr. Hoffman, Steal This Book? You could always do that, I guess, and who would blame you unless it’s some mass-market literary fiction or little-press poetry jam.

49

Does the Law live in your house and have a grudge against you? Who’s going to know (or care)? There’s absolutely nothing I wouldn’t copy/take/steal just for my own use. I call it research. On the first page I write the title and the author. So if, later, I want to delve into it deeper, I can. If it’s out there it’s mine. I’m not trying to publish something and say it’s mine. I’m reading/digesting/reacting.
From reading your question, I’m just afraid that you’d ask your own fiancee if it was okay to kiss her.

50

I don’t understand this comment. What Google thinks about the copyright status of a book is exactly what everybody else in the world thinks. The Google case has nothing to do with copyright status, per se. It’s about notification to and permission of copyright owners.

51

IIRC, mere possession of material that was illegally copied is not illegal. Otherwise, the police evidence lockers would be full of confiscated iPods.

52

True – the local university, even though it has a library geared for undergraduates writing some trivial little term paper, let’s you pay about fifty bucks a year for limited borrowing privileges. Of course, you can’t do any research there, except for basic texts, mostly in English, and no ILL except at the (tiny) public library. I thought Portland was supposed to be some “book-friendly” city? Then I moved here. Can’t find shit. Go ILL, photocopy the motherfuckers, or find a cheap copy online. Them’s the rules, baby!

53

[Moderating]
Reminder: This is GQ, so responses should focus on answering the question. If you want to discuss what should be legal or illegal, feel free to start a thread in Great Debates or In My Humble Opinion.

There is also a rule here against advocating illegal activity. Do not do that here.

No formal warnings issued.
[/moderating]

54

As an author, this abhors me. As a moderator, I’m not allowed to Pit you for it. sigh

55

Thank you, Gary – the notion of advocating theft in general is abhorrent to me. But sometimes it is necessary to acquire books otherwise unavailable. Come on – who’s going to be able to pay many, many thousands of dollar for a few hundred pages of books that, by rights, should be in any research library for free, but in many instances, simply aren’t (vide my example supra)? Martinus Nijhoff will be fine, and these sorts of books by UPs are simply not optional for any kind of research.

If OP is talking about some Harry Potter adventure, I’d say “No, no, no,” but for regular folks in a town without books, like my town now, Portland, it’s a fact of life. FWIW I can’t stand pirating movies and books, but that’s totally OT.

It goes without saying that if a book can be acquired legally, even second-hand, it should be – I’m speaking up for my friends at “little presses” (as they’re called in the trade).

56

As an author, you probably should acquaint yourself with the meaning of “abhor.” :slight_smile:

57

Thanks,everybody,for the intelligent comments.

That book was by Gil Lamont and Douglas Wise.

There’s no trace of anything about it on the Internet. No way to contact the authors,etc. And I hear Canada now has in place a way to re-publish such
“orphaned” works.

BTW,I no longer get “The Straight Dope” in newspapers here in Los Angeles.
This site is a breath of fresh air.

58

But the point is - making the copy is illegal, possessing it is not.
In many jurisdictions, simply making a copy for personal use is not illegal, just a civil offense for which the copyright holder can sue you.
Distributing it to someone else is illegal.
So if you or someone makes a copy, you can possess this copy until you choose to dispose of it without passing it on to anyone else.

At no time is it theft. Theft is depriving someone of their property.
Making a copy does not deprive them of their property.
The offense is “violation of copyright”.
Keeping a library book is theft, unless the overdue fine/lost book settlement process gives you title should you happen to find the book again. (If the rule is phrased “return it or you bought it”, like some video rental places).

59

Thank you.

60

The term in law is intellectual property theft. You can find it all over, of all places, the Copyright Law of the United States. Do a search on the full pdf for the word “theft.”

Does the Copyright Law make certain acts illegal? Darn tootin’. See Section 506, which is thought-provokingly titled Criminal Offenses.

This is not to say that the actions spoken of in this thread are necessarily illegal. However, in general anyone who says that theft is impossible for intellectual property is ignorant of the law and should not be taken seriously in a discussion of copyright. That seems to be almost everybody, but the law is not a democracy. Theft is theft and the law calls it exactly that.