There you have me. I don’t know. It’s a rotten thing to do!
Both very good points. Now, I don’t think highlighting and notes change the actual content. It’s like selling an old LP that has some wear and scratches. The actual music hasn’t changed.
Nope. In fact, you’re demanding that the OP buy two copies, in order to enjoy use of the product.
Again, it’s perfectly legal – and has been for decades – to make a backup copy of an LP to cassette (or mp3) to preserve the LP from wear and scratches. Printing an ebook is almost exactly the same.
Where is it written that the OP has the right to a printed copy when he’s only obtained the digital version? The copyright holder has the right to deny printed copies if he wishes.
Cite?
Ok, I’ve done a little more digging on the library website and it says students retain the copyright to their own theses. Basically, by submitting a copy to the library, they are allowing the university to hold a copy for posterity and to distribute it to anyone wishing to read it. Which sounds about right, I think I recall that when you submit a thesis, you sign something to that effect amongst all the other paperwork for it. So, really, the university washes their hands off it once they’ve distributed it to someone. All they’ve done is made it available to the public, they have no control over what someone does with it afterwards. So, if someone say, got a copy for the sole purpose of plagiarizing it for something else, it would be the author with the authority to sue rather than the university.
To be truly sure, I suppose I’d have to get a hold of the writer’s agent and ask if he’s cool with me printing his thesis. Which would actually probably thrill him, since most theses are never read by more than three people anyway lol.
albino_manatee, I have no idea of the specifics of how they would digitize it or the quality of the end product. I guess I’ll find out when I get it! As you say, binding it might be a moot point anyway if it doesn’t turn out so good.
17 U.S.C. S 1008
But I’m suspecting we’ll find that this is a specific exemption carved out for music only. Even if the are obvious parallels to other media, we’d need either a law or case extending it, and I’m not seeing one.
Personally I’d be horrified. Fortunately, I don’t think my committee even read it.
Note making “backup copies”:
1 Re-read the OP!!! I mean, seriously, read it. It won’t take too long, I promise.
The OP is not making a “backup copy”!
2 The status of “backup copies” is very clear in the eyes of big media companies (who basically write US copyright laws). it is not legal.
Which brings up Ruken’s absurd “cite”.
Here is the text of 17 U.S. Code § 1008 - Prohibition on certain infringement actions. This is a generalized legal codification of the Supreme Court’s Betamax decision.
It says that equipment to make digital copies of things are legal. Note the Betamax decision: Just because something has an infringing use doesn’t automatically make it illegal as long as there are non-infringing uses.
You can use your DVD burner all day long for non-infringing uses! That’s it.
Ruken may as well be claiming that the existence of photocopiers means you can copy any document you want.
The existence of copying equipment does not mean that you can use it for illegal purposes! Plain and simple.
Why is it rotten? (assuming that it’s clear to the buyer what’s original and what’s the alteration, so there’s no question of harming the original author’s reputation).
Is it rotten to sell a used car that’s had any repair work? Heck, is it rotten for Ikea to re-sell a bunch of wood and metal that they’ve bought from someone else and altered?
I’m more concerned with what’s clear in the eyes of Congress and the courts.
Here is the relevant text of the law:
The House has interpreted their own law to mean that you can’t be sued for making copies for private use not for direct or indirect commercial advantage, House Report 102-780 - Wikisource, the free online library
And the Supreme Court agrees the purpose of the act is to ensure the home recording of copyrighted music, again private/noncommercial. copyright | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Maybe you think they’re wrong. If so, please tell us why.
The record companies think these statements merely say that that particular law doesn’t cover making personal copies. (Which this thread isn’t actually about, BTW.) They claim the right to sue under other laws.
Sure, people argue a good case for allowing backups of certain things. But the real question is do you want to go head to head against big time copyright owners with lots of lawyers. As long as they think they can sue you, then the little people have to be careful. That’s why I phrased it the way I did.
The Rio case was about the legality of the device. Repeat: the device. This was basically Betamax: The Sequel.
*** Ugh, quoting a quote issue.
Verdict is in. The document has arrived. It’s basically a scanned photocopy of the original, pretty good quality given its age. They watermarked it with “For research purposes only” on every page and attached the standard copyright page that comes with any downloaded journal article or other document. The document itself is encrypted to prevent people from altering it - you can’t copy, edit or annotate the text, can’t remove or add pages, etc. Printing, however, is allowed according to the list of document restrictions.
So, basically, you can’t alter it in any way, but you can print it. If you can print it, you can bind it. After all, it’s the sensible and expected thing to do to a bunch of loose pages, lest they go flying away in the wind (and end up breaking the copyright agreement by falling into someone else’s hands…). Binding is binding - there’s no real difference between stapling the pages together, punching holes in the margin and fitting a spiral coil to it, or having it bound. The difference is purely in how fancy or not it looks. Maybe not quite so fancy with a watermark all over it and occasional dark photocopy blotches but you can’t have everything. And so long as it’s only for private study, of course.
Most of this thread seems weird to me.
For years, if I needed a copy of somebody’s thesis, I could simply buy it from University Microfilms. For a relatively low price, they’d send it to you , printed and bound. They still will, although now their name is ProQuest.
No issues of copyright or Fair Use at all – they handle that. I think they’ll even provide hardbound copies, if you want (I used them for research purposes, so they came paperbound. I used them for private research as well as university and company research.)
This wouldn’t be a violation. As others have mentioned above, copyright law only deals with making copies, not the ownership or disposition of legitimate copies, which can change hands like any other form of property.
But the question goes a little beyond – or maybe just to one side – of that.
Yes, you could buy a bound copy. But… Could you go to a copy shop and have a copy of that copy made – solely for your own private use? (Maybe you’re one of those people who is really rough on the books you read. You want one copy to bash, to fold the corners of the pages, to mark up with a highlighter, and another copy to look good on the reference shelf.)
Yeah, I tried ProQuest. They seem to only do doctoral dissertations and some master’s theses, not senior theses. Figured it was easier to go straight to the source at the university library that holds the original.
Strictly speaking, no. There is no right to backup copies of books, and as others have pointed out, the right to backup copies of digital media is murky at best and widely misunderstood.
But making a complete copy of a legitimately obtained copy of a book violates copyright law. Period. It doesn’t matter why you want it, or whether it’s only for private use, or whether you’re making money on it. It’s not allowed. If you want a clean one and one that you can mark up, you have to buy two. (Fair use would permit copying a small portion of the document for various purposes. How small? There’s no fixed guideline; it depends on the individual case.)
Could you find a copy shop that would do it for you? Probably.
Could you make your own copy with a copier? Yes.
Would either of those things be legal? No.
Is it likely that you would be caught by the copyright holder? No.
Is it likely that you would be sued by the copyright holder? No.
It would still be illegal and wrong.
Alright, since we’ve gotten the legalities settled. Who is this celebrity who wrote the thesis “your sister ;)” is so excited about?
I was going to ask the same thing — not necessarily for the specific person’s identity, if Bibliothecarius doesn’t feel comfortable revealing it, but whether “celebrity” means someone well-known in a specific field of academic research or is actually a writer or actor or pop star or something.
On the other hand, wouldn’t it be amazing if dozens of people suddenly requested the thesis after so many years of it just sitting on the shelf? Maybe Biblio should tell us who it is, and the school s/he got it from.
You have still not provided any evidence of this being true, while evidence has been brought otherwise. 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.
The similar situations brought up do seem to say that personal use is a carved out exception. While it is possible the courts might find otherwise, I’ve yet to see an argument for why they should.
I honestly know more people with copies for personal use than I know people who don’t.
You really, really have to understand that the law doesn’t give fig how many people do something. That has no bearing whatsover on the issue of legality or morality.
Try going to traffic court for a speeding ticket and claim that lots of other people speed, too. You really think the judge is going to be one bit pleased with such a pathetic argument?
Way too many people in this thread are confusing what they get away with and what might happen to them if someone decides to sue. Very, very different things.
The SDMB has rightly set high standards for advice in such matters. We aren’t allowed to talk about torrenting copyrighted material for example.
So suggesting to that people like the OP can do something they clearly are not legally entitled to do runs very much counter to this.
As to cites, umm, US Copyright Law. Okay? So far the “ignore copyright law” crowd, who are actually the ones with the onus of providing cites, has done a really poor job backing up their case.