I don't think I should have to pay for my e-Books

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Sorry; I forgot. I did know exemptions for time/format shifting had been made--none of which seem to specifically require keeping the original.

In the case of "record a radio/tv show," you don't have the original at all. You're making a copy to keep of something you legally have temporary access to. The same argument could be made for scanning a library book in order to read it on an ereader, or because you read slowly enough that the standard loan period isn't long enough. (E.g. reading it aloud for a sick relative.)

And the right to record sound hasn't been extended to the right to record text, although some recent rulings imply that it would be, if that particular issue ever went to court.

Under UK copyright law, you're only legally allowed to record a TV programme for purposes of "time shifting", after which you're supposed to delete it but, rather curiously, that's not the case with radio programmes; you can record those and keep them forever, perfectly legally, for personal, non-commercial use. Radio drama is still alive and well on BBC Radio, and I've accumulated a very large radio drama collection which I listen to on my iPhone in the car.

See:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyr...gdom#section_5

As you rightly say, though, none of that applies to books.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

I would say that in America the law is not clear, so I personally would advise keeping them. I would say that the law is way behind the technology still. If we are talking purely LEGALLY that is. I am fairly sure that if you can prove you bought and paid for (or otherwise legally obtained) the original, you would be safe, LEGALLY.

But that is my opinion, and not the opinion of a lawyer or judge, so take that as you may.

If this is the law, it simply makes no sense. Any digital copy I make of an LP/CD, VHS tape, or physical book is not going to be the same as a commercially sold version. So just the fact that I have it in my possession likely means I had a "legit" copy to start with. At least that should be the presumption; I should not have to prove my innocence.

[Lemurion]

Going back to the original idea of including a free digital copy with every physical purchase, I should mention that Marvel Comics has started doing that. All of their $3.99 (US) print comics come with a code to redeem for a digital copy of that comic for no additional charge.

Personally, I hate it. The problem is that Marvel also sells those same digital comics for $3.99 without the print copy. So those of us who buy digital comics get less value for our money than those who buy print. This is exacerbated by the fact that other companies discount their comics by $1 or so (some by $2) after a month, while Marvel does not. So a two month old comic from most publishers costs $1.99, but the Marvel costs $3.99.

Needless to say, I buy fewer Marvel books than those of other publishers.

If you're asking for a digital bundle, be careful what you wish for as you may not find you like once you've got it.

[cromag]

I digitize vinyl LPs and "clean" them up as a hobby. The law in the US hasn't kept up with the real world, and I believe the closest legal definition to my digitized files would be "back-up copies" -- although, in reality, the LPs are now the back-ups.

So, yes -- I keep all the LPs I've digitized in plastic bins in the basement.


I'd love to see updated legal opinions, but I strongly believe that I can't sell or give them away to someone else and still keep the files.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

The burning of a book to support antiquated copyright legislation???

That most certainly does not sound fine!

This is not quite like classic book burning cases where the intent is to destroy all copies of the content completely and remove it from circulation (censorship).

You still have a copy and no other copies are affected or likely to be.

Burning the paper one copy of the book was originally printed on is no worse than burning junk mail or a personal document unless you intend to burn all copies of someone else's book.

Helen

[cromag]

Collectors and historians in the future might disagree!

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by cromag

I'd love to see updated legal opinions, but I strongly believe that I can't sell or give them away to someone else and still keep the files.

My understanding of US Law is that if you make a million copies, but keep them all you are fine. Should you want to give away your copy, you have to either give all million copies to the same recipient or destroy any you do not transfer. I believe that is the legal responsibility, but I am not a lawyer or a judge.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Going back to the original idea of including a free digital copy with every physical purchase, I should mention that Marvel Comics has started doing that. All of their $3.99 (US) print comics come with a code to redeem for a digital copy of that comic for no additional charge.

Personally, I hate it. The problem is that Marvel also sells those same digital comics for $3.99 without the print copy. So those of us who buy digital comics get less value for our money than those who buy print. This is exacerbated by the fact that other companies discount their comics by $1 or so (some by $2) after a month, while Marvel does not. So a two month old comic from most publishers costs $1.99, but the Marvel costs $3.99.

Needless to say, I buy fewer Marvel books than those of other publishers.

If you're asking for a digital bundle, be careful what you wish for as you may not find you like once you've got it.

man, I just started a thread on comic ebook prices. Let our voices be heard.


oh, and while on topic: you'd recognize a far more civilized society when citizens would know not to judge a book by its cover: be it a bluray, DVD, download or paper, it's still the same book underneath.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by TheOmegaZoid

We should just throw out copyright. And let the market find its own balance. culture can be supported by the state and private donors... then we'll back to the good old days, and information will be free flowing without the threat of violence because someone doesn't like your ebook or film.

You're a funny guy. Really. Hysterical.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

This is not quite like classic book burning cases where the intent is to destroy all copies of the content completely and remove it from circulation (censorship).

You still have a copy and no other copies are affected or likely to be.

Burning the paper one copy of the book was originally printed on is no worse than burning junk mail or a personal document unless you intend to burn all copies of someone else's book.

Helen

Burning junk is probably fine, but burning a copy of the grapes of wrath, for any reason is not, agreed?

I suppose if the book is very musty you can toss it in the bin, but there's always the goodwill.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Burning junk is probably fine, but burning a copy of the grapes of wrath, for any reason is not, agreed?

I suppose if the book is very musty you can toss it in the bin, but there's always the goodwill.

Actually, you should recycle it....

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Do you know of an actual legal ruling establishing this, or are you just assuming that's the case because it makes sense?

It does make sense; that has no bearing whatsoever on the law.



Except for protest zones around political events, perhaps. And curfews. And the TSA's restrictions on airline travel.

There are rather a lot of laws and penalties that are based on the presumption that people will become criminals if given the opportunity.

They are not based on an assumption that people will commit a criminal act, they are restrictions to enable enforcing a law more viable. Just like highway speed limits. A speed limit is not in place because of a presumption that all people will drive recklessly, it is in place to provide a recognisable boundary. In areas here when the highway was derestricted - i.e., no speed limits applied., only a very small proportion of highway users travelled at above the speeds recommended in areas where speed limits applied.

Restrictions on air travel had to have High Court/Government intervention to override common law and individual rights. Look at the fuss about the Patriot Act and the ability it allowed for things like wire tapping and searches without warrants etc. It was put in place to overcome the legal precept of "Innocent until proved guilty".

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copyright law has no specific exemption (in the US or UK; less sure about other places) for personal copies for noncommercial use. If you make a copy, you are potentially in breach of copyright. Keeping or removing the original doesn't change the act of making the copy.

It does in both the US and the UK. It is not breach of copyright if you legally hold title to anything that you duplicate - as long as you don't part with the original so as to lose your legal status. The quote below applies to the US - if it is wrong then someone had better tell the Harvard School of Law as they claim this is so. The US Government introduced laws governing the type of digital recording equipment that could legally be imported into the US in an attempt to control home recording. The equipment is required to be SCMS certified. (Serial Copy Management System). Why would they do this is all copies were illegal? This certification ensures that all copies can be traced to the equipment used to copy it. It does not apply to all computer copying software - for obvious reasons.

"Under a 1992 amendment, to the Audio Home Recording Act, consumers are permitted to make unlimited private use of legally purchased music and other media content stored on CD. In essence, consumers are free to copy the material so long as they do not distribute the copies to others. Consumers may make cassette copies of CDs to play in their car or copy favorite CDs onto MP3 players. They are not free to distribute the copies to others, even by giving them away."

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If you lose it you won't, the licence is still yours, it can only pass to another if you give it or sell it. If I lose or have my car stolen, it is still mine, the person who stole it or found it does not have title.

Clothing is a whole different mess, not covered by copyright. Can potentially hit trademark rules.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Burning junk is probably fine, but burning a copy of the grapes of wrath, for any reason is not, agreed?

I suppose if the book is very musty you can toss it in the bin, but there's always the goodwill.

Burning a copy of a book with many copies available should be fine, burning a book with only one copy because you deem it to be junk smells strongly of censorship unless you wrote the book and even then it seems a tad arbitrary.

Mustiness has no bearing IMO. Many musty old manuscripts have been invaluable to scholars and museums etc.

Burning the only copy of the Grapes of Wrath would be wrong, but burning one out of huge number of copies would likely affect only you.

Helen

[Scott Nicholson]

Yeah, do away with copyright.

See how many people will write books.

Only those with an agenda besides profit, and frankly, I would trust none of them.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Scott Nicholson

Yeah, do away with copyright.

See how many people will write books.

Only those with an agenda besides profit, and frankly, I would trust none of them.

Well the agenda to make money make me trust people less also.