Disparition_2022 t1_j5lxrfq wrote on January 23, 2023 at 11:00 PM

Reply to comment by NekuraHitokage in Is it ethical to pirate books I already own if I just want an E version? by whydoesyourbedsmell

>*Nonprofit educational. Degrading eyesight makes a digital copy with scalable text make sense. Individual has agreed to one personal use digital copy.

But the OP didn't purchase a digital copy with scalable text, they purchased a physical copy with the text set in one specific size. No agreement between the individual and the copyright holder regarding a digital copy has taken place.

>A physical book that I will boldly assume is available in one font purchased through a proper author to retailer chain.

That is indeed a bold assumption, and raises a good point: Many books are indeed available both in a regular font *and* in a separate, larger-type edition specifically for people who are visually impaired. If you purchase a book in a regular font and then your eyes go bad, do you believe you are entitled to go to the store and grab a large-type edition for free? If not, then why would you be entitled to do the same digital version with scalable text?

Also nothing in the OP mentioned educational use. As far as their post indicates, this is purely personal and for all we know the book could just as easily be just entertainment. There is absolutely nothing in the fair use code that mentions personal archives, and I'm very curious about where you got that stuff you were talking about as far as "three copies" and "as long as it doesn't leave the premesis" none of which appears in the law. What is your source for that stuff?

NekuraHitokage t1_j5m95jt wrote on January 24, 2023 at 12:19 AM

No. That is different. Making one's own larger copy does not equal walking into a store and taking a second copy that happens to be larger. Someone else made that for sale. That a twist of fate made it so a paying customer suddenly cannot read the copy they already purchased should not remove their access and allows exception in this case and in this manner. Any other "whatabouts" you can come up with do not argue that point.

Walking in to a store and taking a premade copy is far different from digitizing a copy for personal use or -in this specific case - downloading a digital copy. Assuming there are no large print copies - especially on release - is only so bood. Large print is only so marketable.

Further, the store theft... You would be stealing the materials and work done on that individual book regardless of access. The supply chain and etcetera that went into producing a number of access points to the story. That is removing one paid for access ticket from the pool of tickets, if you will. That is another entirely transferrable copy. They could, for instance, buy thebigger print one and happily gove away the other copy because it is a legally distributable cooy.

Stealing a published copy is not making your own copy of something you already paid for for your personal use. That is stealing a publically sold and published copy. To make one's own copy for a very good, personal use reason causes no commercial strain on anyone in that chain as the book was already purchased by one person once. You can only ever ask for that first purchase, really. Especially of a book. The hope is that many will like it and the sheer volume of sales make it worth it... But if you have 10,000 copies and all 10,000 sell and someone makes their own personal pdf on a phone somewhrlere, never distributes it, never even tells anyone... Then there is no impact. Maybe on the... Falsified rarity of making only 10,000 copies, but since we started with ethics... That's hardly ethical to me. Art is to be shared. Fairly compensated for, but made freely available.

The skirting here is downloading of a digital copy rather than making one's own copy. What you are describing is not the same as what I am describing. It is not having a single digital copy of the physical work already purchased. This is a false equivalance.

I got the amount of copies from the law. The archival section. I said it was arguable under either, but you stuck on fair use.

Archival allows archives or employee of archives to make no more than one copy for archival purposes. If she were to argue that it was being stored for personal archival purposes, it could likely be arguable under this. Bit again as stated multiple times, I am not a laywer. I am a person giving an asked for opinion on the internet.

It also allows up to three reproductions for the purposes of replacing damaged works.

And an archive is an archive. As long as they follow certain rules, even a personal archive would be an archive.

Law is flexible. What works in one situation does not fit another. In this situation no law is broken in my eyes. That's it. You aren't going to convince me otherwise, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. We both stated our opinions, neither of us are lawyers (i assume) and i'm certain we are merely going to disagree on this interpretation of the law. Shall we merely agree to disagree and move on?

Disparition_2022 t1_j5mf8or wrote on January 24, 2023 at 1:03 AM

Fair enough.

My understanding of "archival law" is that it applies specifically to libraries and other kinds of professional archives, not just any private person who happens to own books, and thus wasn't particularly relevant to the conversation.

NekuraHitokage t1_j5mfi1y wrote on January 24, 2023 at 1:05 AM

Ahh, but that is the beauty of law. I'm certain I could register as an archive or library if I had a certain number of books, allowed public access, etc. With the small scale here i'd say it could be arguable.

Whether or not this all would hopd up? Iunno. That'd be for courts to decide. It's merely how I judge this. Not saying I'm right!

Disparition_2022 t1_j5mh01k wrote on January 24, 2023 at 1:16 AM

>Ahh, but that is the beauty of law. I'm certain I could register as an archive or library if I had a certain number of books, allowed public access, etc. With the small scale here i'd say it could be arguable.

You wouldn't have to allow public access, there are plenty of private archives. I used to work at a university library that had one. But there is definitely a difference between an archive and a random private collection of books. The issue is not the number of books nor the degree of public access but rather the question of the historical nature of those books and the methods you use to preserve them (and the methods you make others use to read them. At the archive in the library where I worked, for example, everyone had to have gloves on at all times and no one was allowed to have a pen or any other kind of ink-containing device anywhere near a book while reading it). Also you can't just like, put a book on a normal shelf and call it an archive. Books age, paper yellows and gets brittle, etc. and archives are often specifically designed to counter or slow the effects of this aging. There's a whole science to it. (and fwiw you can't just "register as a library" either. You have to go to school and get a degree in library science to become a librarian, it's not trivial and it's certainly not the same thing as just being a person who owns a bunch of books and lets others borrow them)

Also, you'd have to have set all that stuff up *in advance* of making whatever extra copies you are entitled to as an archivist. The OP didn't mention anything about doing any of that stuff and has not indicated that they are an archivist of any kind.

Again, one person downloading (or making) one copy of one book is unlikely to end up in a courtroom at all, not because of what the law says but because it's incredibly unlikely any authority figure will ever know about it, so the question of whether it's legal is purely academic anyway, but I do think it's an interesting discussion. My issue is less with the OP's actions and more with your claim about the level of "access" that one purchase entitles you to.