At 12:07 PM 11/5/01, newtontalk_at_newtontalk.net wrote:
>There is just the _one_ copy on the server. If you download the LOTR
>books, _you_ reproduce the books, and you may only do so if you
>own a
>legally obtained copy of LOTR. As long as downloaders respect
>this, there
>shouldn't be a problem. We aren't the usual Napster crowd,
>aren't we?
IA definitely NAL, but I did browse the US Copyright law text at
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
especially the chapter covering "Exclusive rights in copyrighted
works"
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap1.html#106
which grants the copyright holder of a work exclusive rights to
reproduce the work, distribute copies of the work, display the
work publicly, and a few other things. Most courts would
probably agree that Web/Gadget Guru is doing all 3 of these
things with LORD OF THE RINGS (of which Web/Gadget Guru is not
the copyright holder, I presume).
However, there are also a number of fair use exemptions for
purposes such as criticism and education (but only portions of a
work under specific conditions), and copying for personal use,
such as making backup copies of a computer program, burning mix
CDs, or taping a CD for use in the car. Scanning and OCR'ing
LOTR for yourself would probably be covered under personal fair use.
An interesting article addressing such fair use exemptions is
available at <http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html>. However note
what it says at the bottom:
"It is important to note that while consumers have the right to
listen to their own music collection for their own personal use,
they do not have the right, however, to make their music
collections available to others by uploading them onto the
Internet for public downloading."
This seems supported by the RIAA's successful lawsuit last year
against MP3.COM. They had been running a service that allowed
individuals to upload MP3 music files to their server if they
inserted a physical CD containing that song first. The idea was
that people could then access their music libraries from
wherever they may be; MP3.COM felt they were protected against
liability by requiring the physical CD first, but the RIAA and
ultimately US District Court felt otherwise.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,35933,00.html
This addresses musical performances instead of literary works,
but I betcha this precedent would apply.
US Copyright law is incredibly Byzantine and I admit I haven't
read all of USC Title 17, but after a cursory search I can't
find a single citation from US law nor a court decision which
would provide a legal defense (in the US) against the type of
distribution that Web/Gadget Guru is doing. There might be other
moral/philosophical defences for doing it, but no legal ones
that I know of.
If the copyright holder on LORD OF THE RINGS filed civil charges
against Web/Gadget Guru, I'd bet on the copyright holder winning
being granted damages.
I personally don't care too much about the violation, but I
don't like seeing all the wild justifications. (And all the
praise heaped on the violator! Yeesh, if all it takes to get
such laurels and accolades is by making Newton books out of the
copyrighted property of others, I think some people are working
too hard!) Why not just say "hey, this may be illegal, but I
believe if you bought a book you have the moral right to
download a soft copy, so here ya go..."?
-Jeremy
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 20:02:13 EST