Legality Question

[woodelf]

I personally don't see why it matters as to who owned that particular copy of the book that was scanned as long as they were from the same edition and there were no changes (no downloading a copy of a 3.5 PHB just because you bought a 3.0 PHB). You are getting the same material that you paid for... just in a different format.

Yes, but copyright is all about the copies--not the content.

 

[billd91]

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.

I think you've got a relatively subtle mistake here. True, copyright isn't about the protection of the ideas. But it is about the protection of the expression of those ideas and the right of distribution control of that expression. It doesn't really matter if the format is in text or audiotape, it's the way the ideas are expressed that is protected by copyright.
For example, rolling a d20 for to hit rolls is an idea and it can't be copyrighted. The specific instructions in a given rule-set IS copyrightable and it's the same copyright whether it's on paper, audiotape, video, or semifores.
That's how I understand copyright to work. It's not the physicality of the work that's protected by copyright, but the copying of the expression of the content.
But again, I'm not a lawyer, I've just done some research on it and this is what I've been able to glean.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Too confusing... I'm just not going to bother with the PDF at all.

 

[Dingleberry]

A common way to think about copyright is that a copyright is a bundle of rights giving the copyright holder control over whether/how the work is duplicated, distributed, performed, displayed and used as the basis for a derivative work. When the copyright holder licenses the copyrighted material, the operative question becomes: which rights were granted, and which were not?

Picture it as a bundle of sticks: when you buy a license, the copyright holder hands you one or more of the sticks, but (and this is the important part) keeps the rest. So which sticks did you buy? In this case, did you buy the sticks that permit you to use the written work and also duplicate and use the content in a different format, or did you buy only the right to use the written work?

Obvously, fair use complicates this oversimplified analogy - to extend it, anybody can just take certain sticks from the copyright holder.

 

[woodelf]

I think you've got a relatively subtle mistake here. True, copyright isn't about the protection of the ideas. But it is about the protection of the expression of those ideas and the right of distribution control of that expression. It doesn't really matter if the format is in text or audiotape, it's the way the ideas are expressed that is protected by copyright.
For example, rolling a d20 for to hit rolls is an idea and it can't be copyrighted. The specific instructions in a given rule-set IS copyrightable and it's the same copyright whether it's on paper, audiotape, video, or semifores.
That's how I understand copyright to work. It's not the physicality of the work that's protected by copyright, but the copying of the expression of the content.
But again, I'm not a lawyer, I've just done some research on it and this is what I've been able to glean.

Chalk that one up not to my poor understanding, but to my poor writing. I concur entirely on what you say: the expression is copyrighted, but not the idea. However, it's often easier to get people to think of it as the object (even if that "object" is a collection of electronic bytes) that is protected, with that protection extending to include copying of the object (even into other formats).

Of course, if what i've read is true, that MP3 rips of CDs you own are legal, that's yet another exception to the rule, and is one more piece steering the concept towards IP ownership, rather than merely use: it supports the argument that you've bought it and can use it however you want, much like a tire.

And, just to muddy the waters further, there's a concept in copyright that if the expression can't be divorced from the idea, the expression can't be copyrighted, either. Thus, frex, you can't copyright a math formula--you can copyright a math textbook, and you can copyright a story problem in the book, but an actual equation is just a statement of fact, there is no "expression" involved. Thus, under this logic, it's possible that the very basic rules in an RPG (such as "d20 + mods ≥ DC") aren't eligible for copyright, period, and it gets fuzzy as to how "built up" a ruleset has to get before it becomes copyrightable (or, conversely, how much of it you can copy, and how exactly, without infringing).

 

[Altalazar]

Practically speaking, if you paid for the book, getting a .pdf version of it likely won't ruffle any feathers - especially given that it is falling apart.

But to be sure, you can contact the publisher, explain your problem and ask them for permission - so even if you don't need it, you have it. Then there is not a shred of doubt it is 100% legal.

Btw, I'm just a law student, not a lawyer, so I can't charge you for that and you can't take it as real legal advice.

 

[mythago]

Picture it as a bundle of sticks.

Hey now! You're only supposed to use the bundle of sticks for real-property hypotheticals. I'm telling your Property professor on you!

Seriously, this is a good way to think about it. The right to make and distribute electronic copies is a particular stick, separate from the right to read and use your copy of the book in your gaming.

If you're all concerned about the big bad RIAA and similar groups, consider that "I own it, I can make PDFs of it" is exactly the argument that publishers use to deprive authors of electronic rights. When you scan and distribute your work, you're doing exactly what BigPublishCo does when it sells an author's work in e-book format and doesn't pass on a dime to the author.

I am a lawyer, and my recommendation would be simply ask permission to make a PDF. A lot of times you can get what you want by just asking nicely.

 

[Ranger REG]

The issue isn't really about my book. I'm just curious about the legality of downloading a PDF for a book that I've bought a paper copy of.

I don't know if it is unlawful to download and possess an illegally distributed material, but it is pretty much right up there with buying a stolen car (or was given a stolen jewelry), whether you have prior knowledge or not.

I would rather do the legwork myself and scan my own book for my own personal use.

Downloading the unlawful material may be a shortcut and a convenience to you, but at the end of the day what you have is still an unlawful product.

 

[S'mon]

I think the MP3.com case didn't fall under 'fair use' because the MP3.com company was making money off (unlicensed) exploitation of copyright works, so it interfered with commercial exploitation of the works (ie the c-owners couldn't make money off such a service if it was done for free), ergo fair-use exemptions didn't apply to MP3.com - that's different from saying that the consumers who used MP3.com to make copies of works they possessed were breaking the law.

I agree that downloading a copy of a work you already own seems to be 'legal limbo' in the USA in the absence of a statute specifically addressing this (I'm a UK law lecturer so I may have missed something). In Canada it appears to be definitely legal. In the UK it's in limbo too, but suing you would be pointless as damages would almost certainly be £0, unless the EU Copyright Enforcement Directive changes that.

As to whether it's immoral - IMO clearly not. But Your Morality May Vary.

 

[knitnerd]

This topic also comes up often on the knitting messageboards. The general opinion is that you can make one copy of a pattern you have bought for your own personal use. It is only when copies are sold or given away that problems occur because the designer does not get paid for them.
Poorly constructed books are also a problem. Some of us take them to Kinko's or Staples and have a spiral binding put on.