4 ms·

Exactly. Similarly, when you buy a book, you can't photocopy it repeatedly and sell the copies. You bought one physical copy, and the copyright prevents you f

Exactly. Similarly, when you buy a book, you can't photocopy it repeatedly and sell the copies. You bought one physical copy, and the copyright prevents you from duplicating it.

blasdel 17y ago
the copyright prevents you from duplicating it No, it gives the copyright holder the default right (except when specifically waived) to enjoin you from freely making copies via legal action. It also causes a number of relatively-narrow federal criminal statutes to automatically apply to persons that the feds find to be infringing on the owner's copyright.
- pyre 17y ago
  > (except when specifically waived) Realize that it's pretty hard to put something into the public domain... which is why we have all sorts of licenses like Creative Commons to try and work around the holes in the law.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    And those licenses, like all elective copyright licenses are specific (and usually conditional) waivers to some of the rights afforded automatically by post-Berne copyright law. Even the most draconian shrinkwrap EULAs will specifically grant the licensee the right to install (copy!) the software onto a filesystem of their own, and allow for an operating system to read (copy!) the work into memory and page (copy!) it back to disk in normal operation.
lutorm 17y ago
Doesn't the Betamax case specifically say that it's fair use to duplicate things for personal use? I can photocopy the book to keep a backup, I can scan it and put it on my computer, I can put my CDs on my iPod, regardless of what the copyright holder thinks.
- rubinass 17y ago
  It doesn't "specifically" say that. If you read the Betamax case, it's clear that the court was looking at the intrinsic qualities of home video taping devices. Time shifting, for example, isn't really an issue with back ups, recorded music, or books. That's not to say that the Betamax case isn't very persuasive when it comes to fair use with other media, but it's not explicit that the holding in that case would apply to other media.
- dkersten 17y ago
  But you cant distribute those copies to others.

Exactly. Similarly, when you buy a book, you can't photocopy it repeatedly and sell the copies. You bought one physical copy, and the copyright prevents you from duplicating it.

blasdel 17y ago

the copyright prevents you from duplicating it No, it gives the copyright holder the default right (except when specifically waived) to enjoin you from freely making copies via legal action. It also causes a number of relatively-narrow federal criminal statutes to automatically apply to persons that the feds find to be infringing on the owner's copyright.

pyre 17y ago
> (except when specifically waived) Realize that it's pretty hard to put something into the public domain... which is why we have all sorts of licenses like Creative Commons to try and work around the holes in the law.
- blasdel 17y ago
  And those licenses, like all elective copyright licenses are specific (and usually conditional) waivers to some of the rights afforded automatically by post-Berne copyright law. Even the most draconian shrinkwrap EULAs will specifically grant the licensee the right to install (copy!) the software onto a filesystem of their own, and allow for an operating system to read (copy!) the work into memory and page (copy!) it back to disk in normal operation.

lutorm 17y ago

Doesn't the Betamax case specifically say that it's fair use to duplicate things for personal use? I can photocopy the book to keep a backup, I can scan it and put it on my computer, I can put my CDs on my iPod, regardless of what the copyright holder thinks.

rubinass 17y ago
It doesn't "specifically" say that. If you read the Betamax case, it's clear that the court was looking at the intrinsic qualities of home video taping devices. Time shifting, for example, isn't really an issue with back ups, recorded music, or books. That's not to say that the Betamax case isn't very persuasive when it comes to fair use with other media, but it's not explicit that the holding in that case would apply to other media.
dkersten 17y ago
But you cant distribute those copies to others.