So if a contract exists, that means you agree to it?
If the copyright in the book were a real contract, it would be the clerks responsibility to *not sell* to people that didn't agree with the contract.
Would You Sell Your Pirated Songs?
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
If the copyright in the book were a real contract, it would be the clerks responsibility to *not sell* to people that didn't agree with the contract.
Dosen't matter if you agree with it or not, that's what we have jails for. Jails are full of people who didn't agree with the rules.
It's not a contract, it's a restriction, contracts are to do something, a copyright is about not doing something.
It's not the clerks responsability to deal with the inane psudolegalistic ramblings of every yahoo that buys a book, the copyright is printed IN the book.
It would be obvious to anyone that has a moral standard that selling copies of the book is the publishers bread and butter, if you buy a copy you can sell THAT copy but if you make copies of it then you're stealing from the publisher and the author.
If you want to sell books then write one.
Contracts can be full of restrictions. But that's not important at this point of the discussion.
If you don't want to think of it as a contract, then that's OK too. It's still bad law. The reason it is bad law is because copyright takes precedence over physical property. If it's your book, you should be able to do with it as you wish
You can do what you wish with YOUR copy of the book.
But if you make a copy of it then you have something you didn't pay for.
I can copy it as much as I want. It's my book that I paid for, after all. However, it is against the law to distribute (whether free or not) those copies to other people. So, it isn't copying that causes me to get something I didn't pay for according to you, it is giving my copies that I worked for and created with my own hands and time and money to other people. In fact, I own the copies.
I'd get into what property is but I'm out of time. If this conversation progresses, I expect that will be coming soon.
From the front of some random book fool just opened;
"All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions therof in any form whatsoever....."
So, no, you don't get to make copies.
Seeing as how you don't undrstand copyright we all wait with bated breath your proclimations on property.
Do you understand mineral rights?
Sure, there are all kinds of laws and we know how they work. The question for those laws, and for copyright law, is: is the law a good idea or not?
And in a related note; it doesn't matter what it says inside a book cover. The law is set up by the government to be a certain way no matter what it says. If you want to make a backup copy, or a backup for your backup, you can do it. Just as long as you don't distribute your copies.
Property is scarce. If it isn't scarce then the implications of it not being scarce would render the concept of property without meaning.
Not necessarily true. You can say I didn't pay the author, publisher, etc. for the copies but even then the law says I did. What I didn't pay for is the right to distribute those copies for a fee, or even for free in a context not related to educational purposes.
Take, for instance, a book review. In it the reviewer is allowed to quote sections of the book, even rather large sections, without paying any more, or even any money whatsoever, to the author, publisher, etc. In the case of the reviewer receiving a copy of the book free of charge from any of these parties for the purposes of the review, whether it has to be returned or not no money has to be paid, and they are free to quote sections. They are not legally free to quote the entire book for public dissemination, though.
And in the case where they paid for the book the same rules apply. So the same rules apply to those who paid, and those who did not.
And since the government isn't going to go through the trouble of finding out whether you paid or borrowed the book for your review the same rules apply to all people who want to write a review. The same goes for art. And in that a copy of an entire single piece of artwork can be fully shown. Although a copy of an entire book of art cannot. Not legally.
All this in regard to public dissemination, not personal use.
Then we get into educational purposes outside of reviews. Study groups and actual classes, as well as churches, all have the right for the purposes of education in the subject matter they have agreed to discuss and teach and preach to make copies of several materials, even the entirety of the material to disseminate among those who are regular attendees. But not to anyone outside of the class or congregation.
Even church choirs and bands can make copies of CDs to pass out to the members so they can learn and practice the songs in their spare time.
I'm not sure how this works for bands who want to cover a song in concert. They are free to cover the song without paying for it, though. As long as it's only in concert. Even if they are being paid for the concert. If they want to publish a CD with the song they have to pay, unless it's public domain, of course. But making copies of songs that are not for the band to practice them, I'm not sure if it's legal. But I also don't see why it wouldn't be. They can make copies of the lyrics and the tabs and/or sheet music for those purposes.
I do think that copies of full materials are legally supposed to be destroyed when you're done with them, though. Or at least returned to the person who owns the original the copies were made from.
And then there is the fact that if you do own a copy of something that is a legal copy you are allowed to do whatever you want with it in the confines of personal use. I can even create a web page with artwork from books and CDs that I own to show what I own. I can even have a web page full of the music on the CDs I own as long as no one can download them from the site. That's how blip is allowed to be in business.
It is also legal to make mixes to give to one other person, from what I understand. But it is not legal to make copies of entire albums to give to another person.
Exactly!
Is that the end of what it says?
P.S.
What I, and Yorzhik, said above about personal use is true. No matter what the book actually says, verbatim. Because it is understood that the "contract" on the inside of the book is in regard to public dissemination and not personal use. And it still does not apply to reviews where portions are allowed to be reproduced for public dissemination. Nor does it apply to educational or worship purposes.
The biggest issue here is the enforcement of the law.
- Status