Staples refuses to print my PDFs....

[jdrakeh]

But if you read the case, it's not just printing one copy for one person; it was printing out copies for a whole class, copies of material they knew they didn't have permission to copy. I'm not sure anything would have come out differently if it had been the professor making the copies for free.

Actually, Kinko's didn't make copies for a class, either. They took it upon themselves to copy portions of textbooks, shrinkwrap them, and sell them off the rack as "course packets" to anybody who wanted to buy them.

As I mention far earlier in this thread, this was the crux of the case, not the fact that they made copies of the material in question (although that was certainly part of issue). That is, it was the re-selling of reproductions that got them hauled into court. Simply making copies of the material in question for a professor or student wouldn't have raised so much as a blip on the IP holder's radar.

For the record, a professor making such copies (or having somebody else make them for him) would be covered under Fair Use, provided that the professor doesn't distribute the material for profit (as Kinko's did).

 

[dcas]

Actually, Kinko's didn't make copies for a class, either. They took it upon themselves to copy portions of textbooks, shrinkwrap them, and sell them off the rack as "course packets" to anybody who wanted to buy them.

I remember those Kinko's "course packets" and -- at least at the Kinko's located near my alma mater -- they weren't being sold "off the rack to anybody who wanted to buy them." You went to the desk and asked for a certain course packet. (Of course, I could be misremembering -- it was 15 years ago. ) And I don't think they were taking it upon themselves -- they put the course packets together at the request of the professors teaching the courses.

 

[Rykion]

The whole Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp case doesn't have much to do with someone going into a copy store with a PDF and receipt for the purchase of said PDF and asking to get a single copy made. Kinko's was actively seeking business from Colleges by sending brochures that implied that they would put together course packets, and get the proper copyright permissions for the packets. The following are some of the court's findings. Kinko's did not try to get the copyright holders' permission. They did not credit the copyright holders in the packets. They published entire chapters, and sometimes multiple chapters from the same book, which constituted substantial and important parts of the works. They were selling the packets directly to the students rather than the instructors. There are education related copyright rules that specifically prohibit using copying to create anthologies such as the packets Kinko's was selling. In a nutshell, there were a ton of things Kinko's was doing that are completely unrelated to printing out a PDF. That is not a professional opinion as I am not a lawyer.

Ironically, Kinko's could create D20 and OGC anthology style packets and market them to roleplayers for profit as long as they followed all the rules.

 

[jdrakeh]

I remember those Kinko's "course packets" and -- at least at the Kinko's located near my alma mater -- they weren't being sold "off the rack to anybody who wanted to buy them." You went to the desk and asked for a certain course packet. (Of course, I could be misremembering -- it was 15 years ago. ) And I don't think they were taking it upon themselves -- they put the course packets together at the request of the professors teaching the courses.

Even so, they were re-selling the packets for personal profit to anybody who requested one (which is significantly different than making copies for a professor and charging the professor for the duplication service). The latter, assuming that the professor was distributing the packets free of charge, wouldn't have been illegal. Again, it was selling the packets for store profit that got them in trouble. They couldn't genuinely claim that they were simply providing students a service, as they were charging for the end product, as a retail item, not merely the cost of materials and the service of duplication. There are numerous allusions in the Fair Use Act that dicusses disingenuine claims.

Selling something for profit while claiming no direct gain is one such claim

 

[the Lorax]

I remember those Kinko's "course packets" and -- at least at the Kinko's located near my alma mater -- they weren't being sold "off the rack to anybody who wanted to buy them." You went to the desk and asked for a certain course packet. (Of course, I could be misremembering -- it was 15 years ago. ) And I don't think they were taking it upon themselves -- they put the course packets together at the request of the professors teaching the courses.

That is correct - they were made at the request of, and with masters provided by, professors.

 

[the Lorax]

Ironically, Kinko's could create D20 and OGC anthology style packets and market them to roleplayers for profit as long as they followed all the rules.

And those rules would include written permission from the copyright holders to make reproductions of their material.

 

[Rykion]

And those rules would include written permission from the copyright holders to make reproductions of their material.

Nope. As long as they are reproducing OGC only, and they include the OGL and give credit to the original sources in Section 15. They probably have to type it out rather than directly copying the original sources' pages. The whole point of the OGL is to allow use of the work without requiring permission.

 

[jdrakeh]

Nope. As long as they are reproducing OGC only, and they include the OGL and give credit to the original sources in Section 15. They probably have to type it out rather than directly copying the original sources' pages. The whole point of the OGL is to allow use of the work without requiring permission.

I think [he] meant to infer that the OGL itself constitutes written permission, as all individuals who utilize the license are bound by its stipulations (one of which is that at least 10% of the product content must be designated OGC).

 

[Rykion]

I think [he] meant to infer that the OGL itself constitutes written permission, as all individuals who utilize the license are bound by its stipulations (one of which is that at least 10% of the product content must be designated OGC).

I guess that might have been what the Lorax meant, but then I don't understand [his] response as I mentioned they would have to follow the rules, meaning the comparatively simple OGL. I was just pointing out the irony that now the D20/OGL market has provided an easy way for them to legally publish compilations of other people's material by following the OGL. I wonder if they will ever think to start a partnership with PDF publishers themselves to allow customers to just walk into a copy center, buy the PDF and get it printed out at the same time.

Edit: clarified my meaning.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On the one hand, its clear that Kinkos screwed up all those years ago, and now the pendulum has swung well into paranoia.

OTOH, Copyright law is complex enough that you can have a variety of views on it, even between lawyers. We shouldn't neccessarily expect Kinko's workers- or even managers- to interpret the law properly.

What may have to happen is that there is some kind of way that Kinko's can reliably ascertain that they are permitted to copy something- perhaps some kind of master file or directory their computers can check against or possibly some kind of PDF with self-contained computer code that either permits or denies copying.