[jncfhnb]

It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your personal archives.

The fair use criteria considers whether it is commercial in nature (in this case it is not) and the “ the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” for which a personal copy of a personally owned book is non existent.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

You would get laughed at by the legal system trying to prosecute an individual owner for copying a book they bought just to keep.

[triceratops]

> It absolutely is fair use to copy a book for your personal archives.

There's no legal precedent for this. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356042

> the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

A copyright holder's lawyer would argue that having and using a photocopy of a book keeps the original from wearing out. This directly affects the potential market for the work, since the owner could resell the book in mint condition, after reading and burning their photocopies.

> You would get laughed at by the legal system trying to prosecute an individual owner for copying a book they bought just to keep.

I mean maybe this is true. But the affected individual will have a very bad year and spend a ton of money on lawyers.

[MostlyStable]

>No legal precedent

Why do you interpret this to mean "absolutely can't do this"? "No precedent" seems to equally support both sides of the argument (that is, it provides no evidence; courts have not ruled). The other commenters arguments on the actual text of the statute seem more convincing to me than what you have so far provided.

[triceratops]

I was responding to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43356240 which said it "absolutely is fair use".

> The other commenters arguments...seem more convincing

Because you (and I) want it to be fair use. But as I already said in my comment, it potentially fails one leg of fair use. Keeping your purchased physical copy of the book pristine and untouched while you read the photocopy allows you to later, after destroying the copies you made, resell the book as new or like-new. This directly affects the market for that book.

Do you want to spend time and money in court to find out if it's really fair use? That's what "no precedent" means.

[MostlyStable]

Multiple times in this thread you make the very confident assertion that this is not allowed, and that it is only allowed for electronic media. That is your opinion, which is fine. The argument that it is fair use is also an opinion. Until it becomes settled law with precedent, every argument about it will just opinion on what the text of the law means. But you are denigrating the other opinions while upholding your own as truth.

And whether or not I am personally interested in testing any of these opinions is completely beside the point.

[triceratops]

Copyright is a restriction on making unauthorized, full copies under almost all circumstances. Default deny. There's only one documented exception on the books right now which is electronic media. None of these are opinions.

The idea that photocopying a book for archival purposes is potentially fair use is an untested opinion. I'm not denigrating that opinion. I just think it's likely to fail as an legal argument in the unlikely event that it comes up. I'm not a copyright apologist.

I myself believed the "fair use for archival"/"format shifting" thing applied to all works for most of my life. I only learned there was no law or precedent like 10 days ago.

[fc417fc802]

> Do you want to spend time and money in court to find out if it's really fair use?

No. I'd much rather pirate the epub followed by lobbying for severe IP law reform. (Of course by "lobby" I actually mean complain about IP law online.)

If there's no epub available then I guess it's time to get building. (https://linearbookscanner.org/)

[jncfhnb]

You’re now arguing the assumption without a precedent you don’t have the right to do something. That’s not how the law works. If you believe that the courts would laugh at a publisher trying to bring suit against you for doing this, then you believe you have the right to do it.

Such a case would not require a year or a ton of money to defend. In fact, the potential damages would be so small that you could sensibly do it in small claims court.

[anticensor]

Copyright law is explicitly outside the scope of small claims and consumer tribunal systems.

[triceratops]

> You’re now arguing the assumption without a precedent you don’t have the right to do something. That’s not how the law works.

I mean copyright law has always been "You can't make full copies for any reason (almost)". And you were the one saying "it absolutely is fair use [to make full personal copies]", which is quite a strong statement to make in the absence of a precedence.

An archive could argue fair use to make full copies of physical works, because that's their role, and by keeping the copies locked away they don't harm the market for the works. These fair use factors don't apply to individuals. But IANAL and maybe that's wrong, who knows? I do know if it comes up the copyright mafia will fight it tooth and nail, and I'd put my money on them winning.

> the potential damages would be so small that you could sensibly do it in small claims court

The publisher would sue the infringer in small claims court? This seems very unlikely since the publisher would prefer to scare or bankrupt you into submission.

Or would the defendant have the lawsuit moved to small claims court? Are defendants allowed to do this?