3 ms·

> But also, you are allowed to make them. Not of physical media. You're allowed to make archival copies of digital media. > Or reading a book via a computer w

> But also, you are allowed to make them. Not of physical media. You're allowed to make archival copies of digital media. > Or reading a book via a computer would be illegal No you purchased a license (or your library did, in the case of e-borrowing) to read the book on a computer. That makes it legal.

Dylan16807 2y ago
I am allowed to point a webcam at my physical book and read off the screen, even though that makes digital copies of all the text.
- triceratops 2y ago
  FWIW the essence of copyright law AIUI is: copying is not permitted, unless done in a form explicitly allowed by the license holder. This scenario seems quite contrived but is there an actual court precedent allowing it? I'm 100% confident no one will ever prosecute you for doing it but that's not the same thing as "allowed". In another thread I already posted about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_Inc._v._Aereo,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In.... This case was about pointing <recording equipment> at <content someone is allowed to access> and making a copy to transmit it to <only that person>. The Supreme Court held it to be illegal. There was a lot of money on the line, which is why it went so far.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    As far as I can tell there is also a principle that you can have ephemeral copies as part of handling and processing the work. Your example involves transmission and mine doesn't, and that's a whole different can of worms. Also the result of that case was self-contradicting so it's not a great basis to build too much logic upon.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > there is also a principle that you can have ephemeral copies as part of handling and processing the work. I'm not aware of this principle. Where is it spelled out? > Also the result of that case was self-contradicting I agree the verdict was a travesty. An innovative business went to ridiculous lengths to stay on the right side of the copyright mafia (data centers with tiny individual TV antennas for each subscriber FFS!) while providing a better product and experience. They still had the hammer brought down on them.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        > I'm not aware of this principle. Where is it spelled out? Well, do CDs give you a license agreement that allows you to copy the data? I've never seen one. And it's nearly impossible to play a CD without that copying.
        triceratops 2y ago
        > And it's nearly impossible to play a CD without that copying. Exactly. It's how you are supposed to use the CD. That's not true for your example of a book on a webcam. You're supposed to read the book, not an image of the book. That's not the same thing as copying for "processing".
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Well you said explicit license earlier. Would it be a violation to play back a record like a CD and have a digital buffer? That would be pretty silly.
        triceratops 2y ago
        > explicit license Selling you the CD explicitly grants you the right to play it using a CD player. > Would it be a violation to play back a record like a CD and have a digital buffer? I genuinely have no idea lol.

Dylan16807 2y ago

I am allowed to point a webcam at my physical book and read off the screen, even though that makes digital copies of all the text.

triceratops 2y ago
FWIW the essence of copyright law AIUI is: copying is not permitted, unless done in a form explicitly allowed by the license holder. This scenario seems quite contrived but is there an actual court precedent allowing it? I'm 100% confident no one will ever prosecute you for doing it but that's not the same thing as "allowed". In another thread I already posted about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_Inc._v._Aereo,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In.... This case was about pointing <recording equipment> at <content someone is allowed to access> and making a copy to transmit it to <only that person>. The Supreme Court held it to be illegal. There was a lot of money on the line, which is why it went so far.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  As far as I can tell there is also a principle that you can have ephemeral copies as part of handling and processing the work. Your example involves transmission and mine doesn't, and that's a whole different can of worms. Also the result of that case was self-contradicting so it's not a great basis to build too much logic upon.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > there is also a principle that you can have ephemeral copies as part of handling and processing the work. I'm not aware of this principle. Where is it spelled out? > Also the result of that case was self-contradicting I agree the verdict was a travesty. An innovative business went to ridiculous lengths to stay on the right side of the copyright mafia (data centers with tiny individual TV antennas for each subscriber FFS!) while providing a better product and experience. They still had the hammer brought down on them.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > I'm not aware of this principle. Where is it spelled out? Well, do CDs give you a license agreement that allows you to copy the data? I've never seen one. And it's nearly impossible to play a CD without that copying.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        > And it's nearly impossible to play a CD without that copying. Exactly. It's how you are supposed to use the CD. That's not true for your example of a book on a webcam. You're supposed to read the book, not an image of the book. That's not the same thing as copying for "processing".
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        Well you said explicit license earlier. Would it be a violation to play back a record like a CD and have a digital buffer? That would be pretty silly.
        triceratops 2y ago
        > explicit license Selling you the CD explicitly grants you the right to play it using a CD player. > Would it be a violation to play back a record like a CD and have a digital buffer? I genuinely have no idea lol.