Legality Question

[jaerdaph]

Not necessarily... someone had to have bought the copy that was then scanned. So there is at least one authorized copy and if I download that authorized copy which becomes my authorized copy because I too bought an authorized copy. Geez... how many times did I have to use the word "authorized"?

Again, it has to be YOUR copy that the copy you download was created from to be fair use.

Another thing I should mention: That article does not list every instance covered in the DMCA of 1998. Read the full document, if the legal-ese doesn't make your head spin.

Look, everyone can argue this to their blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to download copyrighted material in the United States without the permission of the copyright holder.

You asked if it was illegal, and assuming you are American, yes it is.

Whether or not it is enforceable is an entirely different matter.

 

[jaerdaph]

IANAL. That's legally. Morally, i'd say it's fine provided the following things are true:

• you own the book (as you've already said)
• you do not use both copies simultaneously--no fair loaning your friend the hardcopy because you can just use the digital one
• FFG is not now distributing a commercial digital copy
• should FFG start distributing a commercial digital copy, you either buy the legal digital copy, or destroy your illegal digital copy
• you do not distribute the digital copy--you can't control what others do, but you can make sure that you're not facillitating illegal/immoral activity

Ack - don't bring morality into it!!!!

Here's my morals in a nutshell: If I ever saw someone stealing a book from my FLGS, I'd report it. If I see a homeless person stealing food or diapers from the grocery store, I usually look the other way.

 

[Janx]

Defecate or vacate.

Go download it if you want it so bad. Find out what happens. If it gets prosecuted and it goes to trial, you are automatically trying the law as well as yourself (most people kinda forget that the law is also on trial, the assumption is that the law wins).

It's a dumb law, poorly written to protect members of the RIAA.

The juries still out on whether pirating even hurts publishers. NPR just aired an interesting article about an economics study on mp3 piracy. The study concludes that piracy is NOT hurting the music industry.

The fact is, people who pirate usually aren't going to buy the product anyway. Meaning, if they weren't downloading copies of MP3's, they wouldn't buy the CD anyway, and the company wouldn't have gotten the money. Short of it, they don't want it that badly.

Go get your book fixed. That should be done, regardless of what you decide. The laws say it is probably illegal. You can decide what you want to do next.

 

[jaerdaph]

The fact is, people who pirate usually aren't going to buy the product anyway. Meaning, if they weren't downloading copies of MP3's, they wouldn't buy the CD anyway, and the company wouldn't have gotten the money. Short of it, they don't want it that badly.

That has got to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

People who don't really want it not only don't buy it they don't download it either.

 

[WayneLigon]

Also, you can always get permission from the copyright holder. Couldn't hurt to mail them, explain the situation and see if (1) they'll replace the book or (2) give you written permission to scan it.

 

[Zerovoid]

Go ahead and download it. While the legal status may be questionable, there's no question to me of what's right. If you've paid for the book, then you should have access to the information contained in it. You've already supported the creative work of the good people of FFG by purchasing one copy of the book.

 

[mythago]

For one thing, you DON'T know that the person who originally scanned in that PDF bought a copy. Certainly they didn't scan it purely for for their personal use, because they're putting it out for others to download without checking to see if those others own it.

Let me put it this way. Say my friend Joe shoplifts a CD. Joe rips it and puts it on a P2P network. I bought that CD legally and own it. I go on the P2P and download Joe's ripped MP3. Is it OK because I already own the CD? Or is it wrong because the MP3 came from a CD that was stolen?

To get back to your point and away from the legal hypotheticals: You're asking if it's OK to break the law because you'd rather not bother complaining about a defective product.

 

[billd91]

I am not a lawyer. I don't want to be a lawyer. But no corporation is going to bother bringing legal action against someone who has scanned copies of books he has also legitimately purchased. No corporation has that kind of time.
I say download it if you can find it and don't worry about it. Just store your paper copy somewhere. I have no qualms about having electronic copies of stuff I own even if someone else digitized it. As long as it's stuff that I also own and I'm not distributing it, I don't have a problem with it.
Should the person who digitized it be distributing it? No, not really. But I don't see it as a problem in the cases in which he's distributing it to people who already own the work. The RIAA and other corporations may not see it that way, the courts may not see it that way, but you're extremely unlikely to suffer from getting copies of stuff you already own this way.
You bought the book. Even if you got a digital copy from a pirate, you are not the problem. Most corporations, assuming they have realistic lawyers and limited litigation budgets, will see it that way.

 

[woodelf]

I just can't believe that it is illegal even when you've paid for the content. Copyright governs intellectual property (or so I've been led to believe). The copyright isn't on the paper... it is on what is written. I've paid for what is written so no matter how I get or use that property shouldn't matter.

Actually, you've got it backwards. Copyright is the right to copy something--it is very specifically about the presentation not the underlying content/idea. Copyright can not protect an idea, only a specific expression of it. You need patent to protect an idea. The point of copyright (at least originally) is very precisely to prevent anyone but the creator or authorized agents from making more copies, so as to provide the creator with income from any copies that are made/distributed. The idea is to give incentive to creators to create, so as to benefit the common good. The part that has been forgotten (or changed) is that the original idea wasn't that intellectual property could be owned (thus the very clear delineation that copyright doesn't protect an idea), but that creators wouldn't create if they couldn't benefit from their creations. So society gives them a limited-term exclusive right to benefit from teh creation, and in turn society as a whole benefits when this time is up and the work passes into the public domain. Problem is, thanks to people like Disney and the RIAA, it's quite possible nothing will ever pass into the public domain again, so the contract has been broken. But, then, the concept of IP as an inherent commodity, rather than one artificially created by law, has also come into being, which changes the playing field (or perhaps is a result of the field being changed--i'm nto well enough versed in the history of the evolution of IP law).

But, short version: no, you haven't paid for the IP, you've paid for the copy.

 

[woodelf]

You hit the nail right on the head. Would the RIAA come after someone who downloaded some MP3s and low and behold they own every album that those songs came off of? As long as they weren't distributing the songs I doubt they'd have a case against the person.

They might not have a copyright-infringement case, but they could still prosecute you for theft: you did not pay the rightful owner for it, nor get permission to take it.