Machinist's Handbook 26 as an e-Book

I was trying to stay out of this BUT... If you own a "legal" copy of a copyrighted item, in Canada you are allowed to make a backup copy. Under "fair use" you can either make use of the original, or the copy but not both at the same time. So if I owned the book, paid copyrightand put it on the shelf and downloaded the ebook and used that isn't the end effect the same? I would have a working copy and the original.

I asked the intellectual property guy here at work ( we have a guy who does only IP stuff) if I'm allowed to have mp3s, he said if you have the cd/vinyl/tape a back copy is legal, I don't have to make it, as long as only

The "depriving someone of an opportunity" argument is simply begging the question. Granted, the opportunity is lost when a casual copy is made, but that doesn't address the question of whether that opportunity was literally the property (as the copyright fundamentalists put it, the chimera of "intellectual property") of the author. It is just as logical to say that eating at a restaurant should be prohibited, because it "potentially deprives" every other restaurant the opportunity of selling me a meal, at least until I am hungry again. The mere opportunity to make a hypothetical sale is not anyone's right.

The copyright doctrine generally excludes works that are "utilitarian". The author of a literary work gets a copyright, but the author of a gourmet dish or a brick wall does not. You can copy the meal or the wall but not the book. Neither "original authorship" nor "sweat of the brow" will in themselves yield a coprightable work. Copyrights are arbitrary creations of government fiat for economic expedience, not legal protections enforcing a moral property right.

"Cheating the IRS" is an apt comparison in at least one regard.

The dollar amount of your taxes due is an arbitrary figure without any moral basis. Perhaps you have heard how 10 differenet IRS agents will come up with 10 different figures when calculating the taxes due on a typical return. And the government changes the numbers from year to year. For example, the death tax will disappear in a few years, yet today it is as high as about 50 percent. So the concept of a "fair share" is absurd; there is no such thing, the numbers are just made up based on politics, and even then they are noisy. The "fair share" is fallacious both as a reification and a quantification. And I can't imagine that you're popular at parties preaching about it.

Now Jesus and Paul taught us to pay our taxes, to keep The Man from hassling you. There's no moral duty to pay 2 drachmas, per se.

I can see why someone might feel that way, but being that copyrights are arbitrary, both in basis and enforcement, who knows? I suspect RIAA would say you need to pay for an MP3 re-encoding even if you own the PCM CD, you didn't buy a license for re-encoding, and those rights belong to the author, too. The dogma is that you don't own the music itself in any Platonic-ideal sense, you only own the one copy of PCM bit patterns on the CD, and (implicitly) a right to make unlimited copies (again, copyright is not about making copies per se) consisting of vibrating air pressure, and vibrations of your tympanic membranes, and neural copies in your brain cells. However, the copies in vibrating air, tympanic membranes, and neurons cannot be in a restaurant or retail establishment, unless you pay yet another public-performance license.

Oddly enough, as a practical matter I agree with this concept. I've even argued for this position a couple of times in my columns.

The reason is that money leaves a trail where, increasingly, copying doesn't. The hope is that such non-commerical copying will not cause enough economic damage to the copyright holder as to render the copyright effectively valuless.

However this is an argument from practicality -- some would say desperation -- rather than principle. This kind of not-for-profit copying still causes economic loss to the copyright holder.

However it is important to note that this is NOT what the law says. This is my opinion of how copyright should work in the 21st Century, and to present it as how things work today is at best ignorant and at worst dishonest.

The point being we've already established at great, excruciating, length that you are utterly and completely wrong.

If this is an expression of personal opinion, fine. That's your opinion about how things should be. But it is not how things are and your repeated attempts to

Wrong again. The principle which underlies both copyright and the exceptions is clear, simple and has been repeatedly enunciated everywhere from court decisions to handbooks on copyright.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is wrong.

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the thief is correct, that still doesn't account for the sales lost from copies of the copies. There is economic damage here, no matter how loudly the theives protest.

Now, that said, you can make a strong economic argument for making some of your work as an author freely available. If you go to the Baen Books web site, you can view or download the text of my first novel "Wizard's Bane" for free. Do it with my blessing. Likewise, I hold compilation copyright on the collection of aphorisms that appear at the head of the chapters of my books. That collection, or parts of it, are widely available on the Web, again with my blessing. As far as I'm concerned, the people who repeat those sayings are helping to build an audience for my books.

Further, the position of the record and movie companies in 'intellectual property' strikes me as absurd and unworkable. Going after a fan who has written a piece of fiction about popular characters is, in my opinion, both pointless and counter-productive.

In other words, I think some large companies are trying to push the whole business of copyright much too far.

However that is utterly different from the kind of 'copy at will' nonsense that some people are putting forward. The record companies' position is damaging, but what these idiots propose would be even more damaging.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

Copyright law is entirely a creature of statute, so it varies from country to country. Canada's position on copyright is generally a lot saner than here in the US -- in part because you don't have big, greedy record and movie companies lobbying the legislature for idiot laws to protect their 'intellectual property'.

--RC(who still can't say 'intellectual property' with a straight face.)

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

Are you claiming that his use of mp3s of media he owns is somehow against the law in the US? Can you back that up with anything at all aside from insults of the people who do in fact deserve insults, but maybe not for this particular case?

Someone who had studied the law would know. The law is significantly different in Canada than in the United States. What Pat was told is probably correct -- in Canada.

The RIAA would like to say that in Canada, just as you like to claim that you're right. Neither of you are correct because both of you are not in accordance with the law. In the RIAA's case, Canadian law, and in your case, US law.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

That question is addressed in the law of copyright. In the United States it is quite clear that the author (or his/her successor) does indeed own that opportunity. That's been settled for about as long as the United States has existed.

Wrong again. As a matter of law authors and other do have such rights.

There is no such exception in copyright law. There is a requirement for some measure of creativity as well as originality, but that can be met by a utilitarian work. See the Supreme Court's decision in _Feist_

Wrong. Both can be copyrighted and at least gourmet dishes have been copyrighted. Presumably one could get a copyright on the design of a brick wall if it was sufficently unique.

Nope.

For once you're correct, at least in the US. The test, as enunciated by the Supreme Court, includes the element of creativity. Read the _Feist_ deicsion, which you cited in an earlier thread.

(And the rest of you, for amusement, might want to look up the "Abie's Irish Rose" case. It was an early example of the limits of 'original authorship.')

That's twice you've been right in one message. That may be a record.

They are most certainly legal protections. And enforcing a moral property right? I'd argue that they do in fact enforce a moral property right.

There is certainly a well-defined legal basis. You seem to have a lot of trouble with the distinction between 'moral' and 'legal. Here's a hint: You can't be put in jail for violating a moral precept. You can be jailed for violating the law.

My God! Three times correct in the same message. The conclusions you draw from the fact are, however, lacking.

The concept of paying the taxes you owe under some legal calculation is not at all absurd however. You still fail to distinguish between legal, moral and (by extension) your own wishes.

Wrong. I sincerely hope you don't do your own taxes on that basis.

But the idea of paying the amount of legally owe is not. Neither is the idea that cheating on your taxes is illegal and can, at best, cost you a good deal of money.

People who can distinguish between what is morally and legally right and those who cannot frequently are.

Most would say there is a _general_ moral duty to obey the law. (Mitigated by the possibility of laws which are immoral in themselves.)

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

The teachers of the law don't agree, much less the students.

I don't want to get into chapter and verse on this detail, but my study of the law (which you seem to hold in contempt, while holding your own background as far above mine) finds an entirely different conclusion than yours. If you'd care to cite a single instance of copyright for a recipe or a bricklaying pattern, that is, that prevents anyone from making copies by making that dish or building that wall, then I'd be thoroughly impressed.

Wrong again. In any event the Supreme Court has the final say and they have made it pretty clear.

Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it isn't a law.

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

I'm stating general principles. Copyright law is different from country to country. (Fact) Copyright law is generally saner in Canada (opinion.) As to whether possessing an MP3 copy of a song for which you own a copy of the media is a violation of copyright law -- Darned if I know. I've never encountered a case on that point.

I gave up citing the facts in this case when it became obvious was obvious he was ignoring them in favor of the products of his own imagination.

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

Very well. Cite your sources. Give us the court decisions and the applicable laws. Heck, let's even see some law review articles.

One of your problems is that you basically haven't cited _any_ sources, except for "Fiest" which you pretty clearly didn't understand. Your only source seems to be some half-digested concepts and your own imagination.

Be prepared to be impressed.

For architectural copyrights:

See especially Section III of the decision.

Note that this decision, while narrowly overturning a summary judgement by a lower court, also discusses the elements of architectural copyright in general. (Unfortunately the end notes are missing from the on line copy.) Also note that design elements can clearly be copyrighted.

For a broader (and more comprehensible) discussion, see:

This wasn't particularly hard to find. It took me less than five minutes to turn this up and there's a lot more where that came from.

Now, where are _your_ citations?

--RC "Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.

Yes.

Falls under "fair use" even by RIAA's interpretation. It's even on a FAQ on their site. I can cite it if you'd like, but I'd have to go find it.

Fair enough. But when RIAA themselves acknowledge that having mp3s of something you own is fine, they should at least be given _some_ ...well, 'credit' is to kind of a term, but let's keep the bashing to actual problems rather than imagined, provably wrong statements. Dilution of point and all that.

Bunk.

Maybe whoever you're quoting (which for some reason, you deleted) can provide a cite? If so, I'd love to read it.

Thank you, Professor Cook.

I suggested a recipe or bricklaying pattern as an obvious example of something utilitarian that would be copyrighted to death if it were possible. You cite instead a case involving a architect's designs for phallic symbols decorating a building. I await your citation of something utilitarian that is copyrighted.

This didn't involve a specific citation, but my general opinion that recent case law on copyright is a mountainous mess of ad-hoc'ery. As opposed to the naive view that copyright case law (especially at SCOTUS) is a neat, tidy, rational body of work based on something other than vacuity.