When I buy a physical book, am I entitled to scan for myself?
When I buy a physical book, am I entitled to scan for myself?
I don't mean to distribute, but to scan for myself to read digitally, am I allowed to do that legally and ethically when I buy a physical book or would that be totally unethical and illegal?
Ethically you can make as many digital or physical personal copies as you want for yourself outside of perhaps a concern for wasting resources but if you sell them you're taking away earnings from an author or rights holder or owner which may each have different moral weight. But if you're caught with hundreds or thousands of copies or copies where they are easily accessible to the public it's going to appear pretty suspicious.
It is legal but in any case why do you care. If it were illegal it's not something that would be enforceable or something they'd be likely to "catch" you for, and it's definitely not unethical. Everyone should be free to do whatever they want with published literature.
We're entering a new world where local AI scans your photos and tells on you. It's only a matter of time before it's used for copyright enforcement.
Who's to say it isn't already? Android randomly identifying similar faces and making collections now
who cares, do it anyway
I did my searching based on music/CDs since the wording is a lot more clear, but the same rules apply since were still talking about copyright infringement.
As long you’re making the copy for personal use and aren’t selling/distributing, you are fully in the clear:
- It’s okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but not for commercial purposes.
Oh, thanks! I have some books that is occupying too many spaces and I was wondering about it, I don't know what I'd do to the physical book afterwards though, would I still be in the clear if I donated the physical book to a public library or would be better if I somehow recycle it since it's mostly paper?
Technically speaking you’re supposed to destroy your local copy of you no longer have the original since the rights stay with the original. That being said, no one is coming to knock on your door for photocopying some books you owned and no longer own.
I imagine it'd be the same as printing of a copy of the Mona Lisa and putting it up on your wall for your own viewing pleasure. Completely legal.
Where as printing it off and then charging other people to see it would be illegal.
The Mona Lisa is in the public domain, so no, that's not really a good analogy for a recently published book.
For work in the public domain, that's one thing, but for work which is still copyright protected, you can actually be sued for (shockingly enough) making copies of it.
Generally, though, most countries only care if you distribute copies of something (even if you're not making money off of it), but that's not to say that the concept of "distributing" hasn't been stretched pretty thin in the past.
Rightsholders have gone after businesses and private individuals just for playing sports events on radio or TV audibly/visibly enough to have an "audience", thereby infringing on broadcast rights. Even if they're not charging a thing for it. Feel free to read this and see how far the insanity goes.
If I buy a book and make copies of the pages to takes notes on, that's usually fine. But if I make a copy and give it to a friend...
Not a lawyer, and I don't recommend asking for legal advice on a random forum. From an ethical standpoint, I see it as perfectly ethical as long as it's for personal use and you don't give anyone access to it. With that said, if you ever sell the physical copy of the book, I think ethically you'll have to delete all the copies you've made.
You are legally permitted to do so, but not entitled.
What's the difference? DRM.
If you license a digital work, you are allowed to make copies for personal use. However, if the publisher includes features to prevent replication, you are not entitled to make a copy; in other words, publishers including DRM to prevent replication of their works is not illegal because you do not have a right to copy digital works you license, but you are allowed to do so.
So basically, they can try to stop you, but you're allowed to win.
I believe the distinction is you have a right to copy for own use/backup but you don't have the right to break the DRM preventing you from doing so.
For example, you have a right to make a copy of a video game (by installing it to hard drive) but DRM willl prevent you from running it unless you have the original disk in the drive.
As long as you don't distribute it it should be fine legally (in the US) and is morally correct (imo) since it is your own copy of the book.
Most countries consider this "private copying" which is legal. Not a lawyer, you should check your country's laws.
Unethical? Copying is not theft.
As long as you don't distribute it it should be fine legally (in the US) and is morally correct (imo) since it is your own copy of the book.
Ethics and legality are far from the same, or even linked.
If it wasn't fair use I'm sure they would have gone after Kurzweil (popular assistive technology program designed explicitly for scanning books) a long time ago
What a depressing read this is, OpenAI has scraped tons of books and trying to scrape the entire internet and they don't have to worry much, but ordinary people have to think twice for scanning and donating the physical book to someone who might benefit from it, such a dystopic reality