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 and require recognition of property rights as a thing worth having. 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.
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
81 points (96.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
538 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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 youβre making the copy for personal use and arenβt selling/distributing, you are fully in the clear:
- Itβs okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-Rβs, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) β but not for commercial purposes.
https://www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/
As far as ethical, this is mostly up to you, but unless itβs from an independent artist/distributor, I personally see it as: if you were never going to be a customer to begin with, they're not losing anything. I am, however, against then reselling it yourself. Ymmv.
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?
Recycling is definetly in the clear, however donating to libraries would be more meaningful; as it offers a chance for more people to read them.
Would it be legal also if I had scanned it for myself only beforehand to access digitally? I also think it'd be more meaningful but the local library here gives you a form to fill if you want to donate anything so that gets me in doubt
Legal? Likely not, as you're turning one copy into two copies.
Would anyone pursue you? Likely not. No one is going to get a warrant to search your devices to see if you've photocopied your books before giving them away; unless you're sharing the digital files publically.
Do not share the digital files publically, as that is definetly not legal.
Technically speaking youβre 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.
who cares, do it anyway
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.
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
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.
Ethics and legality are far from the same, or even linked.
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.
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.
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...
The Mona Lisa is in the public domain, so no, that's not really a good analogy for a recently published book.
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.
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