Charging the net...

[mathew]

a_rubin at dsg4.dse.beckman.com writes in <a_rubin.673041764 at dn71>:
>In <PBX8114w164w at mantis.co.uk> mathew at mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>>woods at robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
>>>   [ Concerning a free copy of a book...]              I can photocopy
>>> it and put the original away for safe-keeping.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>No you can't. That's breaking copyright law, and is explicitly prohibited in
>>the copyright notices on most books. You know, the bit which says "No part of
>>this publication may be reproduced [...] in any form or by any means [...]
>>photocopying [...] or otherwise."
>
>I think you are wrong here.  Copyright law protects the CONTENT, not the FORM.

Yes, and you are copying the CONTENT when you photocopy the book.
 
>I have no idea whether that clause is enforceable.  Besides, the clause preports
>to be a license agreement, rather a copyright condition.

No, the prohibition against reproducing the book in any form is a copyright
condition; it is merely stated explicitly.

>>And you can make "fair use" copies of sections of the book. But not the whole
>>book.
>
>Actually, not entirely true.  If a textbook is out of print, but still under
>copyright, you can copy it for use as a textbook.  I don't know if that is under
>the "fair use" regulations, or some other.

Oops, yes, I forgot that. Fair use regulations are pretty obscure.

>>>                                                  I can give away the
>>> photocopy and destroy the original.
>
>>You can't do that, either. "This book is sold subject to the condition that
>>it shall not [...be...] circulated [...] in any form of binding or cover
>>other than that in which it is published."
>
>You may be right, although that preports to be a license agreement,
>rather than a copyright condition.

Ah, but...

To photocopy the book you must have the permission of the copyright holder.
The notice is merely stating that even if you did have the permission (which
you don't), you would not have permission to re-distribute the book in a
different form.

Copyright notices in books generally spell things out more explicitly than
they need to. In the UK, the law has changed quite recently, and they are now
even more explicit; they have an extra paragraph saying "The right of the
author of this work to be identified as copyright owner is asserted under the
1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act" or similar.

>>> Shareware, as distributed across Usenet, cannot exist in practice, 
>>> since the "license" it is shipped with is un-enforcable.
>>In what sense?  It has already been enforced on occasion -- I have read that
>>companies have been forced to pay up for shareware they have copied -- so
>>your claim that it is "unenforcable" is curious.
>
>I don't think it's enforcable either.  It may violate company policy at some
>companies, but it's not enforcable.  Do you have specific examples?

Well, according to the Federation Against Software Theft, "exceeding the
evaluation period of shareware is also an offence" according to the act
mentioned above. [ FAST are sponsored by Ashton-Tate, Lotus and Microsoft,
amongst other companies. ]  I haven't read the act, but I'm inclined to
believe FAST.

Of course, it's entirely possible that US law is more lax about copyright. It
always has been in the past. [ Miaouw! ]

>>>                  Once something is published, control over use or
>>> distribution cannot be done.
>>Again, this is simply not true. There are many cases of books and albums
>>being recalled after publication because of copyright violation.
>
>Examples???  Books that were published in violation of copyright can be recalled
>(after publication), but that's not what you said.

The album "1987: What the Fuck is Going On" by The Jams was recalled after
release when it was found to be in breach of copyright. The court ordered
that all copies and the master tapes be destroyed. So it isn't just books
which can be recalled.

>>For free, yes; you can give a book to a friend. For profit, no; you can't
>>lend a book, hire it out or re-sell it. Not legally, anyway; again, in
>>practise the publishers turn a blind eye to people selling second-hand books
>>for charity, on market stalls, and so on.
>
>I doubt this very much.  (Haven't you heard of used book stores.)

Yes, but they generally do not sell books which are in print. Not in the UK,
anyway. I suspect that this may be another legal difference; the UK still has
the Net Price Agreement, whereas the US does not.

>>Are you sure you're up-to-date with your copyright law?  Your references to
>>"the Copyright Act" leave me in doubt.
>
>I'm not sure what Greg means by "the Copyright Act", but you don't seem very
>familiar with copyright law either.

Ha!  At least I don't confuse form with content, and I have a pretty good
idea of legal differences in our respective countries.


mathew

-- 
mathew - mathew at mantis.co.uk or mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew