Except that 1 copy for your friend is also typically illegal. You can't
share an MP3 with a friend, and I can't use the same copy of Windows for my
wife's computer without breaking the law.

The most you are typically allowed to do with any electronic media is make
one backup copy which cannot be used at the same time.

You also can't xerox a whole book or magazine article and give that to a
friend. I'm not sure where you got that information.

Pete
_____________________________________________________
Pete Brown - Gambrills, MD (Near Annapolis)
Visit my personal site : http://www.irritatedVowel.com
(wallpaper, western maryland ry, .net, photography, model rr)





_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:49 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: No full-proof copy protection


Jim Eckman wrote:

I remember reading on either the ALA or one of the GOV sites that any
work published before 1923 is public domain, period. Everything else
'depends' but probably any works published before 1949 like corporate
reports and stuff are probably fair game as well because it is unlikely
that the companies spent the money to renew the copyright a second
time.

In principle, you can check on renewals through the LOC but it is
not easy. You certainly would not do it for minor matters.

ALA.org (American Library Association) has a fair amount of stuff on
what constitutes fair use for libraries.

Jim raises a very important point: fair use. Making copies,
whether Xerox or electronic, for personal use has always been
permitted, and it extends to a copy for a friend, for HIS personal use.
For 100 friends, nope. Where is the boundary between 100 and one
friend? This is one of those "gray areas" in the law. Obviously more
copies become more problematic.
I think the reason many people react badly to restrictions
responding to the internet problem we are discussing is that your
viewing at home feels like a personal use, and downloading a copy for
printing out or electronic archiving feels the same way. But the
internet really is more like publication: it goes all over the world to
a potentially enormous number of "personal users." This seems likely to
exceed the number of 100 which I just mentioned <g>. That's why
"sharing images," an acceptable behavior under "fair use," becomes
something else when carried out on the internet.
Whether new copyright rules will eventually provide a
balance between personal use and copyright protection is unclear. The
"Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually known as the Copyright Term
Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic copyright errs, in my view, in
totally subsuming fair use to corporate protection. I hope the pendulum
swings back.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history