3 ms·

You can make copies of things. You just can’t distribute them

triceratops 2y ago
You're repeating upthread comments. And no, you can't. There's an archival exception for electronic media. If you want to make copies of physical media you either: 1. Can't Or 2. Rely on fair use to protect you (archival by individuals isn't necessarily fair use)
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your personal archives. The fair use criteria considers whether it is commercial in nature (in this case it is not) and the “ the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” for which a personal copy of a personally owned book is non existent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 You would get laughed at by the legal system trying to prosecute an individual owner for copying a book they bought just to keep.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your personal archives. There's no legal precedent for this. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356042 > the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work A copyright holder's lawyer would argue that having and using a photocopy of a book keeps the original from wearing out. This directly affects the potential market for the work, since the owner could resell the book in mint condition, after reading and burning their photocopies. > You would get laughed at by the legal system trying to prosecute an individual owner for copying a book they bought just to keep. I mean maybe this is true. But the affected individual will have a very bad year and spend a ton of money on lawyers.
    - MostlyStable 2y ago
      >No legal precedent Why do you interpret this to mean "absolutely can't do this"? "No precedent" seems to equally support both sides of the argument (that is, it provides no evidence; courts have not ruled). The other commenters arguments on the actual text of the statute seem more convincing to me than what you have so far provided.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        I was responding to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356240 which said it "absolutely is fair use". > The other commenters arguments...seem more convincing Because you (and I) want it to be fair use. But as I already said in my comment, it potentially fails one leg of fair use. Keeping your purchased physical copy of the book pristine and untouched while you read the photocopy allows you to later, after destroying the copies you made, resell the book as new or like-new. This directly affects the market for that book. Do you want to spend time and money in court to find out if it's really fair use? That's what "no precedent" means.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        > Do you want to spend time and money in court to find out if it's really fair use? No. I'd much rather pirate the epub followed by lobbying for severe IP law reform. (Of course by "lobby" I actually mean complain about IP law online.) If there's no epub available then I guess it's time to get building. (https://linearbookscanner.org/ https://linearbookscanner.org/)
        MostlyStable 2y ago
        Multiple times in this thread you make the very confident assertion that this is not allowed, and that it is only allowed for electronic media. That is your opinion, which is fine. The argument that it is fair use is also an opinion. Until it becomes settled law with precedent, every argument about it will just opinion on what the text of the law means. But you are denigrating the other opinions while upholding your own as truth. And whether or not I am personally interested in testing any of these opinions is completely beside the point.

You're repeating upthread comments. And no, you can't. There's an archival exception for electronic media. If you want to make copies of physical media you either: 1. Can't Or 2. Rely on fair use to protect you (archival by individuals isn't necessarily fair use)

jncfhnb 2y ago
It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your personal archives. The fair use criteria considers whether it is commercial in nature (in this case it is not) and the “ the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” for which a personal copy of a personally owned book is non existent. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 You would get laughed at by the legal system trying to prosecute an individual owner for copying a book they bought just to keep.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your personal archives. There's no legal precedent for this. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356042 > the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work A copyright holder's lawyer would argue that having and using a photocopy of a book keeps the original from wearing out. This directly affects the potential market for the work, since the owner could resell the book in mint condition, after reading and burning their photocopies. > You would get laughed at by the legal system trying to prosecute an individual owner for copying a book they bought just to keep. I mean maybe this is true. But the affected individual will have a very bad year and spend a ton of money on lawyers.
  - MostlyStable 2y ago
    >No legal precedent Why do you interpret this to mean "absolutely can't do this"? "No precedent" seems to equally support both sides of the argument (that is, it provides no evidence; courts have not ruled). The other commenters arguments on the actual text of the statute seem more convincing to me than what you have so far provided.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      I was responding to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356240 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356240 which said it "absolutely is fair use". > The other commenters arguments...seem more convincing Because you (and I) want it to be fair use. But as I already said in my comment, it potentially fails one leg of fair use. Keeping your purchased physical copy of the book pristine and untouched while you read the photocopy allows you to later, after destroying the copies you made, resell the book as new or like-new. This directly affects the market for that book. Do you want to spend time and money in court to find out if it's really fair use? That's what "no precedent" means.
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        > Do you want to spend time and money in court to find out if it's really fair use? No. I'd much rather pirate the epub followed by lobbying for severe IP law reform. (Of course by "lobby" I actually mean complain about IP law online.) If there's no epub available then I guess it's time to get building. (https://linearbookscanner.org/ https://linearbookscanner.org/)
      - MostlyStable 2y ago
        Multiple times in this thread you make the very confident assertion that this is not allowed, and that it is only allowed for electronic media. That is your opinion, which is fine. The argument that it is fair use is also an opinion. Until it becomes settled law with precedent, every argument about it will just opinion on what the text of the law means. But you are denigrating the other opinions while upholding your own as truth. And whether or not I am personally interested in testing any of these opinions is completely beside the point.