jcp wrote:I assume if this is done that the copyright holder would be contacted for permission first.
. wrote:As far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong) we are all permitted to obtain and keep one copy of what we buy for personal use and as a backup should out copy become damaged or destroyed. And as far as I'm aware, no permission is required from the copyright holder to do this. Am I wrong?
. wrote:As far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong) we are all permitted to obtain and keep one copy of what we buy for personal use and as a backup should out copy become damaged or destroyed. And as far as I'm aware, no permission is required from the copyright holder to do this. Am I wrong?Now, if you go to Kinkos and photocopy your purchased copy of CZ:UW as your means of backup, is Kinkos breaking the law by fascilitating the buyer from exercising their rights under the law? Or if he asks his sister, who is not the lawful owner of said copy, to go to Kinkos to make a copy, is she breaking the law?If not, then surely asking a friend if he can make a digital copy is also not against the law. Ergo, no permission required and perfectly legal.It only becomes illegal if someone who has no right under the law to a copy is given a copy, but I would be most interested in your take on this, as it is a very intricate matter.Aside, a digital copy with OCR in the hands of Trigee would fascilitate easier republication. So there is an upside, but I'm not gonna go there, as I have a vested interest in keeping the CZ:UW price as high as possible. I'm still sitting on a cases and a half of these babies.
You're right. The only people who ever get on their high horse about it are people with no vested interest at all.
I purchase the right to own the product forever.
jcp wrote:There is no provision to digitally copy printed copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. If you do so, you do so of your own choice, but making those digital copies available to other people most certainly crosses the line and is illegal.
jcp wrote:......Case in point is the 2nd trial of the woman in MN who was found guilty yesterday of willfull copyright infringement for downloading 24 songs resulting in a fine of $1.92 million dollars. ....
There is a world of difference between downloading pirate music off of Kazaa and making a personal copy of a document for your own use. Trying to compare the two is both erroneous and assinine.
Umnnn how about some links to that story
And in any event, the only person who has any legal claim, and it is only a civil one, is the copyright holder. No other party, and no other organization may bring a claim for copyright enfringement.
When it runs contrary to the general feeling of society, the law is an ass, and only by ignoring it can you demonstrate how foolish it is.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
jcp wrote:The world of difference is not so great. The fundamental connection is that both are illegal in the context you provided. You may not like that fact or agree with it, but that is the case under current copyright law.
That is my dilema.
. wrote:The difference is, she downloaded copyrighted materials she had neither paid to listen to, nor had any intention of paying to listen to, and then fabricated a series of lies when questioned about it, and put the claimant through two court actions.Where as I, and presumably the recipient if I gave it to someone who I knew owned a copy, have both paid for the right to read and use the materials, and would be willing to pay for backup digital copies if they were made available, and neither party would lie of fabricate evidence in order to deny what we had done.Clearly the woman in question intended to break the law, and clearly I do not. I merely wish to protect my investment, and the work of a much esteemed writer when I know there are likely less than 500 copies worldwide. In twenty years time there will likely be much fewer copies than that, and I will still hold the PDF file.Clearly the law is an ass if it prevents an individual from protecting his own property, and the best way to deal with that is to ignore it and then defend it if the needs arise.
The bottom line is, odd or not, the law does not provide you with the right to make copies of the books and games you own. That said no one is going to come to your house and raid your game room looking for illegal copies you made for yourself of stuff you already bought. The minute you distribute those items to anyone else though you are most certainly crossing the line and it doesn't matter if the other person claims to own the item in question or not.