There are certain universities that include library resource usage in tuition or dorming fees, and allow a limited amount of "free" photocopying in a set time frame, or leave it at the discretion of the library staff. Or they just have a monthly paper limit, and photocopies are part of it (for instance if you wanted to send your term paper to a university printer, the amount of pages you print will be deducted from that month's paper allowance).Originally Posted by wiggin
. . .
The government actually tried to forbid us teachers from making digital copies from school books and other materials in order to display them on our electronic whiteboards.
While at the same time demanding that we use the expensive whiteboards more which they bought for us.
When asked how we were supposed to use them without at least sometimes copying pictures and materials: "Well, of course you'll have to buy them!"
Yeah, thanks, we teachers are already buying enough stuff for school on our own, thank you very much.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Another reason to be in research; in four years, I think the total I've spent of my own money towards science supplies is under 50 €
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
More German govt. Neo-Luddism
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Over here, the MPAA tried to fight against the last DMCA revision by saying it was perfectly normal and fine for teachers to use a VHS recorder to record a DVD movie (while playing) if they wanted to make a copy of that DVD for an educational reason.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Been a few days while I was off on a bender, but I wanted to know that I did see people saying things to me.
But in particular, I think Steely highlighted the idea that I find most difficult. I think Flixy got it backwards a bit -- I'm not particularly concerned with the idea that it's unethical if someone gets something for free. My concern isn't even really about the book publishers/distributors. My concern is mostly about the owners of the book's IP.
In my mind, I don't think buying a print book ethically entitles you to owning your own IP in any circumstance. To me, a digital book is enough of a different product from the print book that it's akin to a different edition. People pay for different editions of books, and authors may choose to issue new editions to suck-up money. They wrote the book, and I think it's their right to do that.
I don't think it's a different edition if all of the words are the same. That's just me.
Txt and rtf.... Mp3 and lossless.. EPub and doc...
These are not different editions. These are the same product in converted into different viewing or listening formats
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 06-12-2012 at 03:32 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I don't think so either.
I think a major difference is that Windows 7 changes the way your pc works, it improves your pc. The whole 'service' of windows is to run a pc. The product you buy is running the OS on a system. Installing it on another pc, you basically expand their product without paying for it. With a book, basically the product you buy is the story to entertain you. Whether it's digital or physical, as long as only you read it, the product isn't expanded.
Sorry for using probably all the wrong terms, I hope it is possible to understand what I tried to say
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I assumed he was talking about only having one copy running at a time; MS still doesn't like it if you install your copy of Win7 on another machine (after uninstalling from a previous machine). They have all sorts of limits on this because they want you to buy a copy of Windows for every computer you buy, even if you trashed your old computer. I don't have a problem with installing Windows on a new machine if it is no longer installed elsewhere. Obviously, as you point out, running two instances of Windows at once is a different story.I don't think so either.
I think a major difference is that Windows 7 changes the way your pc works, it improves your pc. The whole 'service' of windows is to run a pc. The product you buy is running the OS on a system. Installing it on another pc, you basically expand their product without paying for it. With a book, basically the product you buy is the story to entertain you. Whether it's digital or physical, as long as only you read it, the product isn't expanded.
Sorry for using probably all the wrong terms, I hope it is possible to understand what I tried to say
I've been trying to imagine what a future digital library would look like, or how it would be similar....yet vastly different....from today's "book depositories". My guess is that publishers, editors, and marketers would become obsolete, at least as they're known today. Instead, it would mean using more computer coding stuff that degrades the text the more it's shared/copied/duplicated. Its text visibility could be regenerated for every advertising "hit" others make, but would have to recognize bots or those clicking on ads repeatedly.....
Maybe future authors will have the option to choose their formats, or devices, and somehow freeze others out. Excerpts or critiques of books on "e-magazines" or social web sites could have links for buying/transferring the whole transcript to a computer file, an e-reader, smart phone, smart TV, or a paid membership to an Amazon-type digital reader service.
then my head starts to hurt.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Indeed, the university made a profit from it which was guaranteed to be reinvested back in the library.
We already have publishers that are attempting this model. They revoke a library's license to lend out the digital material after a set number of checkouts.
College etextbooks also expire once the semester is over, no need to release a new edition every year with only the cover changed in order to fight against the 2nd hand market.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Fine as in "technically illegal, but we don't bother enforcing" or actually fine? I know video taping TV programs has always been in (technical) violation of copyright law, but this was ignored because it's unenforcible and did little to harm the interests of copyright holders.
Are there any examples where this has been done, and what the reaction was?What about a reproduction of a piece of art for public (and insecure) display?
Who are these "many people", though? Are we talking scruffy open source enthusiasts or, like, actual lawyers?Many people suggest that the kind of controls you're talking about are violations of the dictum of 'fair use'.
I thought fair use basically said that you could cite or quote extracts of a work for purposes of criticism or analysis, and nothing about copying a work wholesale and that, in fact, copying a work wholesale was and the distinguishing between doing that and selectively reproducing from the work was in fact one of the main purposes of the fair use doctrine.In fact, I think you have it backwards - the idea of fair use predated software, but it became a real issue with the advent of software/data because software can be duplicated at near-zero marginal cost.
Again, as a response to software and computers, which copy stuff everywhere to do their thing, for example you make three copies of a CD in order to put it on your mp3 player.edit: I want to emphasize that fair use is not the only issue at hand here. The US (and other countries) have implemented a variety of laws that sharply limit the rights of copyright holders and expands the rights of consumers of a work. In general, purchasing some IP - particularly in the form of art/books - grants the consumers far more rights than merely a license to view/read that particular representation of the IP.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
In the US, it is legal. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios from the 80s (dealing with Betamax, but the rule applies to DVR as well). Time-shifting is fair use. Also, that's actually a more stringent case since you never paid for that TV (but it was broadcast for free). If you paid for the book, it definitely falls under fair use.
I can't speak to the UK, but I assume the same basic ruling applies.
This happens all the time, but they're almost always out of copyright so it doesn't matter much.Are there any examples where this has been done, and what the reaction was?
Actual lawyers and judges. The first sale doctrine is well established in copyright law, and implies that you should be able to port your copy of Windows to another computer (or sell it to a third party for their own use) without penalty. This is distinct from making a copy of Windows and running it on two computers at once, though. (Also, I'm not suggesting it's necessarily legal - you might have to break encryption which would run afoul of the circumvention rules of the DMCA, or you might need to violate the separate EULA you signed when you bought it. But these are external to the question of whether the underlying copyright is being violated.)Who are these "many people", though? Are we talking scruffy open source enthusiasts or, like, actual lawyers?
The realities of how it has been interpreted as law for software is largely irrelevant to this question - the legal principles underpinning my argument are sound.
To some extent you're right. If you look at the evolution of fair use copyright law in the US, though (can't speak to other countries) there is an explicit and overarching consideration of, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." If the effect on the market is zero (you've already bought it and aren't keeping anyone else from buying it), I don't think there's an issue here for noncommercial purposes (the burden of proof lies on the copyright holder, then).I thought fair use basically said that you could cite or quote extracts of a work for purposes of criticism or analysis, and nothing about copying a work wholesale and that, in fact, copying a work wholesale was and the distinguishing between doing that and selectively reproducing from the work was in fact one of the main purposes of the fair use doctrine.
To be completely technically accurate, the issues I'm discussing brush but do not completely fall under the category of 'fair use' as defined by law. There are other limitations on copyright holders in US jurisprudence that are related. (Some countries have things like back-up clauses where you're allowed to keep copies of something in an alternative format, which would seem to apply in this case. I'm not sure, though, since it mostly seems to apply to software. It may apply to music CDs/MP3s, though, which would seem very extensible to paper books/ebooks.)
I know you saved yourself with the remark about the EULA, but Microsoft does not permit you swap your copy of Windows 7 between machines. I'm been shot down over that before. Doesn't matter what happened to the previous machine, whatever copy of Windows 7 was on that machine is not going to get authroized on a different or upgraded machine. They even have an automated message on their phone support to inform their customers of this.
I know with Windows XP there was a time frame that previous activations would "fall off" of a Windows XP key, but that doesn't appear to be the case with 7.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
OG, I'm well aware of that, but there's three things at issue here. The first is whether an action is illegal. In the case of Windows, the answer is yes because of two reasons: (1) You are circumventing protections which is illegal under the DMCA, and (2) you are violating a specific agreement you make with Microsoft. Notably it does NOT include (3) you are violating the MS copyright on Windows.
The second issue is whether an action violates copyright law, a very narrow definition (and our basic rubric for determining whether intellectual property has been stolen). In this case, the answer is no as noted above.
The third issue is whether an action is ethical. Subject to my aforementioned concerns about marginal costs and whether anyone is providing a service but not being compensated, I would argue that if the IP owners have been compensated and there is no loss to them, it is ethical.
I think there is a difference between identifying the letter of the law, and whether we should be worrying morally about our actions.
I would ask myself two question:
1. ) First of all, If it were illegal to convert my physical book into a text file on my computer (which i'm not convinced of), would I buy the digital copy, or would I live with the hassle of lugging around the physical book? If you're going to do the second, which can be hard to determine, but if you were going to then they are not losing any money on you having a digital copy because you wouldn't have boughten one anyway. That's what they really care about, so they're not losing any money and you're having an easier time carrying books around. However, If saving you the hassle of carrying the physical book around would result in you buying a digital copy (given you already have the book) then we must go to question 2.
2.) Is it illegal for me to convert on my own accord a physical book I own into a text file (for personal use) (And from there it's not hard to convert it into e-book format, there is free software that will let you). I don't know of any hidden agreement in buying book, that says you can't copy it word from word, on another piece of paper, or on a word file. As long as you keep it for yourself (don't let out multiple copies of it) then I find no issue with converting it, or in a less hassle free way downloading it for personal use. (given you own a legit physical copy).
As an aside question does anyone know the legality on printing an e-book you own?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote