# Printing and Binding Someone Else's Thesis **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 5, 2017, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051 "2017-02-05T05:27:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/41 "2017-02-10T18:38:10Z")
[I wrote most of this late last night and held onto it until this morning so I could look up a few things. In the meantime **ftg** has nicely responded to a number of my points.] > [@BigT](#): > > You have still not provided any evidence of this being true, while evidence has been brought otherwise. [Here](https://www.copyright.gov/title17/) is the evidence that it’s illegal. It’s called “the copyright law.” Here is the full text of the section on “fair use.” > [@U.S. Code: Title 17](#): > > 1. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use > Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— > > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > > (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; > > (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and > > (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. > > The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Please show us where you find the exception for “personal use.” > [@BigT](#): > > If this is true, it shouldn’t be hard to find an example of where a court declared that printing a digital book for your own personal use was illegal. I’ll find you that example after you find me a case of someone being successfully sued for defrauding someone of one dollar. Please remember that copyright violations are, for the most part, handled in civil, not criminal, courts. So the fact that copyright holders choose to go after only the most egregious violators, where large sums of money are at stake, and not the millions of people who make personal copies, does not make those small violations legal, only too trivial for anyone to bother with. > [@BigT](#): > > The similar situations brought up do seem to say that personal use is a carved out exception. I assume you are referring to the aforementioned Betamax case, in which time shifting of broadcast television shows for personal use was deemed permissible. IANAL, but I’ll remind you that that decision was made in a pre-digital, pre-Internet era. Once it was possible for anyone to make unlimited, perfect digital copies of music, movies, and other works, the laws were significantly updated. One of the first such revisions was the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which **Ruken** brought up. But he admits that it probably applies only to audio recordings, and ISTM that there are legitimate historical reasons for that distinction. Since you are the one making the claim that those cases apply by analogy to all other examples of copying for “personal use,” the burden is on you to show us the cases that support your argument. I think you’ll have a hard time doing that, because copyright case law varies widely, depending on the medium involved. For instance, in print publications, the area in which I have had the most direct involvement, the question of what portion of the whole work was copied is a very big factor. I publish a print-only business newsletter, and have several times had to threaten people who were routinely making copies of the whole newsletter for others in their office. I’ve been advised that case law is quite clear that, under points 3 and 4 of the fair use section, copying a single article is generally fair use. But copying a whole publication is definitely not. Here’s an article about one of the most infamous cases in my business: [Lowry’s Reports vs Legg Mason.](http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20050822/SUB/508220718/costly-legg-mason-copyright-case-reaches-settlement) (Thomas Curley, the lawyer quoted in the article, represented me in some of the actions I had to take against infringers.) In print, the issue of copying is taken so seriously that the penalties can be up to _$150,000 per infringement_. Legg Mason bought one $700 subscription to Lowry’s investment newsletter, then faxed and copied it around many offices, including posting it on their internal intranet. They continued even after Lowry found out and demanded they stop. Legg Mason was found guilty and Lowry was awarded almost $20 million. I think this case bears a much greater similarity to the OP’s situation than either video time shifting or making copies of MP3s. > [@](#): > > While it is possible the courts might find otherwise, I’ve yet to see an argument for why they should. Thank you, Justice **BigT**. Once the Senate confirms you, I’m sure you’ll have no trouble persuading at least four of the others. 🙂 > [@BigT](#): > > I honestly know more people with copies for personal use than I know people who don’t. So as long as a lot of people do it, it’s legal? Look, the copyright laws are far from perfect. If you want to argue that the period of copyright protection has been extended way too long, or that the DMCA needs to be reformed, I’ll stand right alongside you. But when you claim the law doesn’t say what it says, we part company. Go ahead and make copies of movies, songs, and books without regard to whether the creators of that content have been properly compensated, and tell yourself it’s okay because it’s “personal use.” You almost certainly won’t get in any kind of trouble. Just don’t claim you have the law on your side. **TL;DR:** What **ftg** said. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/42 "2017-02-10T19:09:19Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > Here’s an article about one of the most infamous cases in my business: [Lowry’s Reports vs Legg Mason.](http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20050822/SUB/508220718/costly-legg-mason-copyright-case-reaches-settlement) (Thomas Curley, the lawyer quoted in the article, represented me in some of the actions I had to take against infringers.) In print, the issue of copying is taken so seriously that the penalties can be up to _$150,000 per infringement_. Legg Mason bought one $700 subscription to Lowry’s investment newsletter, then faxed and copied it around many offices, including posting it on their internal intranet. They continued even after Lowry found out and demanded they stop. Legg Mason was found guilty and Lowry was awarded almost $20 million. > > I think this case bears a much greater similarity to the OP’s situation than either video time shifting or making copies of MP3s. I’m not getting to the same conclusion. I understand your summarized Lowry case. I’ve heard of similar copyright infringements related to various subscriptions - both paper and digital. A big company can’t have one subscription and then make copies for everyone in the office or in other offices around the world. Obviously (to me, at least), a) the higher the subscription price; b) the more copies; and c) the wider the distribution, the clearer that a copyright infringement exists. But, are you saying that if the sales manager of Widgets, Inc. has a subscription to the Widgets Marketing Newsletter: 1. He isn’t allowed to make a copy of the latest issue to take with him on a trip, because he doesn’t want to be bothered with remembering to take and bring back the original issue he received in the mail? 2. If he gets it in PDF form, he can’t make a copy of the PDF onto a thumb drive to take with him? 3. Or if he gets the PDF version, he can’t print it out to take with him on a trip where he isn’t taking a computer? Those all seem like reasonable, defensible things to do with a publication he subscribes to. I freely admit I’m not an expert on this stuff. But it seems to me that making copies for your own use is inherently different than making copies to sell, or copies to distribute to colleagues to avoid paying for more items. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/43 "2017-02-10T21:22:34Z")
**Orwell** : None of those scenarios are like the OP. FWIW. US copyright case law is something of a mess. There are competing claims about digital copies. But the big companies that have very large IP protection interests generally say all of you scenarios are bad. Their lawyers provide citations to US copyright law. A lot of people on the Internet often say the opposite. Their citations are … not so well established, if they exist at all. Also, money often wins in court cases. So, who do you think would win the case in one of these hypothetical situations? Remember, neither the example in the OP nor yours can be termed “fair use”. See my first post above. Not that I am not on the side of “Big IP”. But I have no interest in sacrificing my savings going up against them in what is very, very likely to be a losing case. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/44 "2017-02-10T23:16:41Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > But, are you saying that if the sales manager of Widgets, Inc. has a subscription to the Widgets Marketing Newsletter: > > 1. He isn’t allowed to make a copy of the latest issue to take with him on a trip, because he doesn’t want to be bothered with remembering to take and bring back the original issue he received in the mail? I don’t quite see how taking a copy is more convenient or better than taking the original, but accepting your hypothetical, yes, it’s a violation. If he wanted to share a single article from that issue with a colleague, he’d probably be fine. But copying the whole thing is definitely a violation. (And once a copy is made, how does anyone know it will continue to be used only for the original copier’s “personal use”? Nothing stops him from giving it to someone or leaving it somewhere so that it can be used by someone else, thereby deriving the rights holder of revenue. An example from my own experience: I was visiting the offices of one of the organizations my publication covers. It is a major international media brand that everyone here would recognize. I walked into the office of one of my acquaintances there who wasn’t a subscriber. When she saw me, she quickly slipped something into a desk drawer that I immediately recognized as a (b&w) copy of a full issue of my newsletter (which has color covers). I had no choice but to speak to her superior (the subscriber at the organization) about what I had seen, and ask for a full accounting of how much unauthorized copying they had been doing. With just what I had seen, I could have sued for $50,000, which could have been tripled if the court decided the infringing was egregious enough. (In the Lowry case, some of the instances were doubled to $100,000 because Legg Mason had continued copying even after being contacted by Lowry.) The subscriber had to report the incident to the company’s in-house counsel, who conducted and audit and claimed that the person in question had made a few complete copies, but that was all. I settled with them for the price of a couple of extra subscriptions ($400 each). > [@](#): > > 1. If he gets it in PDF form, he can’t make a copy of the PDF onto a thumb drive to take with him? > > 2. Or if he gets the PDF version, he can’t print it out to take with him on a trip where he isn’t taking a computer? Those all seem like reasonable, defensible things to do with a publication he subscribes to. I only know of a few publications that are distributed in PDF form. Some of them are given away free or are primarily advertising supported, so their concern about unauthorized copying is rather low. With subscription-supported publications like mine and Lowry’s, it’s rare to see distribution of unsecured PDFs. But in either case, unless the document is distributed with a [Creative Commons license](https://creativecommons.org/) that permits copying or modification, it is a violation to make a digital or print copy. The lack of a copyright statement does not mean that it is not protected by copyright, because although a copyright statement was once a requirement for protection, that hasn’t been true for decades. But as you probably know, PDF’s can be secured to prevent printing. If someone hacks that and prints anyway, they are certainly violating copyright, and probably violating DMCA as well, by circumventing a protection scheme. There are companies that provide various levels of protection for PDF with digital rights management (DRM) software. [This](https://www.drumlinsecurity.com/) is the first one that turned up on a quick Google search. I have no connection with it, and don’t know exactly how it operates, but the ones I have looked at for my own business could prevent copying, printing, etc., or limit the number of copies, etc. THe could even permit copying but report back to the owner whenever it was done so you could go to your subscriber and say, “I see you made five copies of the January issue. Would you like to buy a few more subscriptions for your office?” The site I’ve linked to may have some technical details about exactly how that kind of thing is accomplished. (It isn’t cheap. Believe it or not, last time I looked into it, I decided it was \*almost \*cheaper, but lots easier, to keep printing and mailing.) > [@](#): > > I freely admit I’m not an expert on this stuff. But it seems to me that making copies for your own use is inherently different than making copies to sell, or copies to distribute to colleagues to avoid paying for more items. I agree that most people feel that way, and no one is advocating for strict letter-of-the-law adherence to copyright law, even if such a thing were possible. But as **ftg** and I have been saying, those who think that the fact that they’re not selling or making money with their copying means that they are not violating copyright law are deluding themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/45 "2017-02-10T23:23:29Z")
Thanks for the last two posts. Very informative. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/46 "2017-02-11T01:02:00Z")
[From LegalZoom](http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-law-making-personal-copies-22200.html) This is interesting, as it backs up my point that it is legal to make backups of CDs and LPs for replacement purposes, and it is also legal to make backups of software, to protect against loss of media. For other materials, “ease of use” isn’t acceptable, but protection against loss can be. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/47 "2017-02-14T20:50:35Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > [From LegalZoom](http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-law-making-personal-copies-22200.html) > > This is interesting, as it backs up my point that it is legal to make backups of CDs and LPs for replacement purposes, and it is also legal to make backups of software, to protect against loss of media. > > For other materials, “ease of use” isn’t acceptable, but protection against loss can be. No, no, no. First of all, show me on that page where it says \*anything \*about LPs. [Here is what the copyright office has to say.](https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#backup) Absent any any special conditions on the sale of the original product explicitly put in place by the copyright owner… “There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works \*\*other than computer programs \*\*even if those works are distributed as digital copies.” Is that clear enough? If you are still trying to claim that the OP’s case, relating to printed material, might somehow be permitted, the LegalZoom article \*\*\*does not \*\*\*say that copying “other materials [for the purpose of] protection against loss” is permitted. It says _only_ that backup copies of software, CDs, and DVDs are permitted. It does not claim that that permission extends to any other form of copyrighted material. (Reading the LegalZoom page closely, it speaks only of CDs and DVDs, and not music or movies on those media. If one assumes that the content of CDs and DVDs might be something other than software – a reasonable assumption – they would seem to be at odds with the Copyright Office’s position. LegalZoom could be reflecting the general acceptance of Hollywood and the music industry that people copy CDs and DVDs to their devices. Or it could be that music and movies are now typically sold with a backup provision. I don’t happen to know.) The reason for the specific exception for digital media is pretty clear: although we have (thankfully) for the most part abandoned such fragile media as floppy disks, CDs and DVDs have been shown to have shorter lifespans than once thought, and they can be rendered completely useless by a simple scratch. This is not analogous to books, publications, photographs, and other forms of copyrighted material. They can all be damaged or destroyed, of course, but generally cannot be rendered _completely useless_ by a minor accident. In any case, the purpose of copyright law is not to provide insurance to consumers against loss of property. The copyright office disagrees with your claim that copyright law permits one to make a copy of a book, magazine, or LP to protect against possible loss, so I seriously doubt you’ll be able to find any case law to back that claim up. It’s not sufficient to simply state that the cases are similar. Copyright law doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![edwardcoast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cab0a1/32.png) [@edwardcoast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwardcoast)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/48 "2017-02-14T21:14:35Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > No, it’s not fair use. The fact that it’s for personal use and not for sale is irrelevant. That’s why downloading music for your personal use is piracy. > > The issue is whether it’s under copyright. If the work was created before 1977, it probably isn’t. After that, it is. > > Technically, you need to get permission. Thinking about your OP, it’s likely that the school holds copyright, so you could ask them for permission. They allow downloads, so the should be amenable to printing out a hard copy. > > When you download the file, are there any condition attached? Look at the website to see what their terms are. I suggest contacting who maintains the archive and ask if they offer or recommend a way to have bound copies printed. You can ask the reference librarian of the school that approved the thesis about doing this. A friend of mine did a doctoral dissertation, and I wanted to get a copy of it to read. I believe I ordered it (through my employer) from the school itself and they sent a bounded copy. So what I’m getting at, is they perhaps have permission to publish and sell the bounded copy. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/49 "2017-02-14T21:21:53Z")
You guys still arguing this do realize the **OP** settled his particular question back in post 31, don’t you? The list of restrictions he received with the document specifically _allowed_ printing it. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2017, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/50 "2017-02-14T22:01:35Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > You guys still arguing this do realize the **OP** settled his particular question back in post 31, don’t you? The list of restrictions he received with the document specifically _allowed_ printing it. Now that you mention it, I have a question for the OP about his statement in that post that “Printing, however, is allowed according to the list of document restrictions.” Which list of document restrictions are you talking about? A list provided by the university stating what you may legally do with the document, or the properties of the PDF file itself, which state what it is technically possible to do with the file? If the latter, the fact that the file has been created in such a manner – whether intentionally or not – as to permit printing does not mean that legal permission to print, or otherwise copy, has been granted. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2017, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/51 "2017-02-15T00:12:29Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > No, no, no. First of all, show me on that page where it says \*anything \*about LPs. . . . It said CDs and DVDs. How the hell could CDs and DVDs be legal to back up, but LPs not? Get real! ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2017, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/52 "2017-02-15T00:16:59Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > You guys still arguing this do realize the **OP** settled his particular question back in post 31, don’t you? The list of restrictions he received with the document specifically _allowed_ printing it. We’re bitching about the general case, without that permission. I believe that it is legitimate to make backup copies for safety, and I cited this. It has been legal to make backups of LPs for decades now. It’s also legal to make backups of _some_ VHSs – the ones without copy-protection coding. It’s your own property, being used solely by you, privately. (As noted above, even if it were formally illegal, no prosecution is even conceivable. A judge would tell the D.A. to find something worthwhile to do.) ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051/53 "2017-02-15T18:51:26Z")
Whew, it really is taking longer than we thought. > [@Trinopus](#): > > It said CDs and DVDs. How the hell could CDs and DVDs be legal to back up, but LPs not? Get real! > [@Trinopus](#): > > I believe that it is legitimate to make backup copies for safety, and I cited this. It has been legal to make backups of LPs for decades now. It’s also legal to make backups of _some_ VHSs – the ones without copy-protection coding. Okay, even though I pointed out how your LegalZoom “cite” didn’t say what you claimed it said, you don’t believe me, I’m just a random guy on the Internet. Fine. You don’t accept my cite from **The Copyright Office** , even though the language is clear and unambiguous. It doesn’t say anything explicitly about LPs, so you don’t want to believe it. (I gave reasons why the specific exceptions are enumerated and not other things, but I’m just a random guy on the Internet.) How about this: [Four intellectual property lawyers](https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-vinyl-lps-be-sold-with-the-cd-back-up--864080.html) explicitly saying that it is a violation of copyright law to make “backup” copies of LPs. I’ll save you the trouble of clicking. A person asks a law advice Web site, “I have a collection of comedy Vinyl LPs & I recorded CD back-ups for all to be able to listen to them in my car. If I sell the LPs, can I include the CD back-up at no extra charge?” Lawyer 1 replies (in part): “What you are proposing is prohibited by copyright law. In the U.S., **you are not allowed to make ‘backup copies’ of anything other than computer programs** , where you are allowed to make an archival copy.” Lawyer 2 replies (in part): “You are free to sell the vinyl LP’s. **You are not free to make ‘backup’ copies of them.** You are not free to sell ‘backup’ copies of them.” Lawyer 3 replies (in part): “NO. In fact **you are already an infringer due to your backup copies**. Tell us under what statute you think you are free to make CD copies of vinyl LPs. Computer software you can backup, but vinyl LP’s, no.” Lawyer 4 replies (in part): “The confusion among consumers is their belief that if they have already paid for a song, whether vinyl, cassette, cd, or a download from I Tunes, they can make as many copies as they want forever for their personal use. **That is simply not correct.** ” It doesn’t matter how many times you’ve heard it, how many other LP collectors have told you or posted it on the Web, or how many people have actually made “backup” copies of LPs. **IT’S NOT LEGAL. IT’S A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT. PERIOD.** The same goes for **all other forms of media** , including, but not limited to, VHS tapes, audio CDs, movies on DVD, magazines, books, and photographs. The only backup exception allowed by U.S. copyright law is computer software. > [@](#): > > It’s your own property, being used solely by you, privately. COPYRIGHT protects the right of the **content creator** , not the purchaser of the content, to control what and how many copies are made. There are no private property rights that override copyright law, except as provided by copyright law, where the primary exception is computer software. Note that none of the lawyers above said there was an exception allowing backup copies of music or movies on disc or tape. _ **Only** _ computer software. > [@](#): > > (As noted above, even if it were formally illegal, no prosecution is even conceivable. A judge would tell the D.A. to find something worthwhile to do.) Once again, you are confused. As I mentioned above, in nearly all cases, copyright law is enforced civilly, not criminally. So district attorneys would rarely get involved in the first place. No one is suing, prosecuting, or punishing individuals who make personal copies, or suggesting they should be. As with any law, it is not possible (or perhaps even desirable) to enforce copyright law perfectly. As I said, copyright holders have to balance the expense of legal action with the potential gains, and typically therefore only go after the most egregious violators. Millions of people make unauthorized copies of all sorts of things all the time. None of us private citizens who have made such copies is likely ever to be discovered, much less sued. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s illegal. It’s still a violation. You don’t have to stop copying. But please stop saying it’s legal. It isn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/printing-and-binding-someone-elses-thesis/779051.md?page=2)