Legality of Copying an Out Of Print Book For Personal Use

[Gary_Robson]

@mhendo

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

Fine. I should have said I abhor it rather than it abhors me. I was typing fast on an iPad. My mistake.

[Implicit]

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:61, topic:444390”]

Fine. I should have said I abhor it rather than it abhors me. I was typing fast on an iPad. My mistake.
[/QUOTE]

In Soviet Russia, it abhors you.

Sorry.

[Starving_Artist]

@Xema

As a practical matter, isn’t the liability for violation of a US copyright (one that’s not registered with the Library of Congress) limited to the actual losses suffered by the copyright holder?

I’ve heard this too. Does anyone know if this is actually the case? I’ve never heard of any penalty fee schedule for copyright infringement and it seems there would need to be one if someone is going to be held financially responsible for making a copy of a copyrighted work which in practical terms does not impact financially upon the copyright holder at all.

In other words, let’s say I copy a Picasso line drawing and someone sees it and offers to buy it for $50. Clearly Picasso’s estate isn’t going to be losing any money because I copied one of his works and sold it to someone else for $50. So how would my penalty be assessed, in the unlikely even that Picasso’s estate got wind of what I did and took me to court? And would the fact that Picasso’s estate suffered no financial loss limit or eliminate my liability?

[JoelUpchurch]

@Exapno_Mapcase

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.

It has nothing to do with the status of the case, it is just a easy way to check the copyright status of a book. Do you have an alternate website to suggest?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Xema

As a practical matter, isn’t the liability for violation of a US copyright (one that’s not registered with the Library of Congress) limited to the actual losses suffered by the copyright holder?

Yes, this is correct. Registering allows one to sue for statutory damages which are about the only thing that makes a case worthwhile. This blog has a nice summary.

In 1976, Congress changed the U.S. Copyright Act to “beef up” an existing but previously insufficient remedy for copyright owners in these circumstances. That remedy, called “statutory damages,” allows a winning copyright plaintiff to recover an amount of compensation per work infringed, as opposed to compensation for actual damages or an account of profits or damages based on the number of infringing copies.

The statutory damages provision allows the winning plaintiff to recover “a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000,” per infringed work, according to what the court views as fair and just. If the copyright owner can prove that the infringement was intentional or “willful,” the court has the discretion to increase the award to as much as $150,000 per work.

In addition, the Copyright Act now includes a provision allowing a winning plaintiff to recover from the copyright infringer its full cost to bring the law suit, including attorney’s fees. Again, this remedy is awarded in the court’s discretion

@JoelUpchurch

It has nothing to do with the status of the case, it is just a easy way to check the copyright status of a book.

I’m still not understanding how Google Books tells you the copyright status of a book.

[Cugel]

@md2000

OTOH, if you videotaped the book and watched it later you would be legally time-shifting. Buy a scanner and timeshift your book.

@Acsenray

Just in case anyone might actually try this argument: Not likely.

In Australia it appears you can “format shift” an entire copyrighted book (with the usual paranoidal restrictions)

login

[Acsenray]

@Cugel

In Australia it appears you can “format shift” an entire copyrighted book (with the usual paranoidal restrictions)
Log in | HTML title from adminsitration

Even that explanation of Australian law doesn’t allow you to “time-shift” a book. It’s a meaningless concept.

[Cugel]

Either that, or it was a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment.

[Acsenray]

@Cugel

Either that, or it was a slightly tongue-in-cheek comment.

And did you read all of my reply? The part that said “Just in case anyone might actually try this argument”? Considering that this is GQ, I think it’s prudent to clarify the exact meaning of tongue-and-cheek comments. Given the confusion and volatility surrounding intellectual property issues on the internet, I think it’s reasonable to treat a lot of tongue-in-cheek commentary as if someone somewhere might take it seriously.

[psychonaut]

@Exapno_Mapcase

However, in general anyone who says that theft is impossible for intellectual property is ignorant of the law

No; it more likely means that they’re using the term in its traditional sense, rather than following the example of very recent pro-IP propaganda (which I see has now found its way into the statutes themselves).

[Acsenray]

Recent? I’m pretty sure that Dickens and Wilde complained of theft of their works.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@psychonaut

No; it more likely means that they’re using the term in its traditional sense, rather than following the example of very recent pro-IP propaganda (which I see has now found its way into the statutes themselves).

The Copyright Act of 1976 was following recent pro-IP propaganda?

I repeat. Theft is the standard term for intellectual property as much as physical property. There is nothing, nothing, new about it.

If you want to argue that advocacy of copyright is “pro-IP propaganda” do so elsewhere. Here, I want to be sure that everyone understands that denying that intellectual property theft is pure old-fashioned theft is no longer ignorance of the law but willful denial of it.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Exapno_Mapcase

I’m still not understanding how Google Books tells you the copyright status of a book.

If the book can read, previewed, no preview or snippets basically gives you information about the copyright status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books

Subscribing users can click on a result from Google Books that opens an interface in which the user may view pages from the book, if out of copyright or if the copyright owner has given permission. Books in the public domain are available in “full view” and free for download. For in-print books, Google limits the number of viewable pages through a variety of access limitations and security measures, some based on user-tracking.[1] For books that may be covered by copyright and where the owner has not been identified, only “snippets” (two to three lines of text) are shown, though the full text of the book is searchable.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Exapno_Mapcase

The Copyright Act of 1976 was following recent pro-IP propaganda?

I repeat. Theft is the standard term for intellectual property as much as physical property. There is nothing, nothing, new about it.

If you want to argue that advocacy of copyright is “pro-IP propaganda” do so elsewhere. Here, I want to be sure that everyone understands that denying that intellectual property theft is pure old-fashioned theft is no longer ignorance of the law but willful denial of it.

Just for the record, does the definition you’re using exclude jaywalking as theft? Because it looks to me like jaywalking is theft of the right of way, and if so the definition of theft is vague as to be useless.

[psychonaut]

@Exapno_Mapcase

The Copyright Act of 1976 was following recent pro-IP propaganda?

Your use of the words “of 1976” here are technically correct but disingenuous. As far as I can tell all mentions of “theft” in the act come from recent amendments and aren’t extant in the original 1976 version.

If you want to argue that advocacy of copyright is “pro-IP propaganda” do so elsewhere.

I’m not arguing that at all, but thanks for the warning.

Here, I want to be sure that everyone understands that denying that intellectual property theft is pure old-fashioned theft is no longer ignorance of the law but willful denial of it.

I hope everyone understands that this is your opinion, and is not shared by everyone else, and certainly not by all content creators, all copyright holders, and all lawyers specializing in copyright.

[Gary_Robson]

[Moderator Note]
Once again, this is GQ. The original question did not call for opinions on whether copyright violation is a form of theft, whether copying should be legal, or what terminology should be applied. All of the above could be addressed in IMHO, Great Debates, or even the Pit.

This thread is closed.
[/Moderator note]