ghmerrill wrote:
It seems pretty clear what the intention of the law is. It usually seems pretty clear when people are intentionally attempting to circumvent it or violate it. But given the government's own view of the vagueness and uncertainty of the law in any specific case, the answer to whether something is a violation or is inviting a violation is at times very unclear.
Copyright law as practiced is continuously evolving. As an example, the sheer mass of photographic images that are now created by the use of digital cameras results in many more images that have close similarities to each other, therefore narrowing the scope of copyright protection on many individual images.
One aspect of copying changed when it became common to sell digital files of software. It was recognized that as a practical matter buyers would need, and were permitted, to immediately create backup copies to protect against disc failure or file corruption. But to protect against market dilution (which is the primary purpose of copyright law) it was specified that use of the copy was conferred by ownership of the original. That is to say that the original and copy could only be used by whoever had possession of both.
In a similar manner, although for a different purpose, owners of copyrighted audio files are permitted to make copies for personal use. This evolution of copyright law was an accommodation for the need of consumers to play music through different playback devices. The important thing to keep in mind here is that copying of this sort does not dilute the market value of the copyrighted material because the consumer will only listen to one device at at time *as long as the original and copy remain in the possession of a single individual*.
It can safely be assumed that a percentage of the of the sales of audio CD's on eBay are copyright violations because the sellers have copied the CD's and remain in possession of digital files. This of course dilutes the copyright owner's market value — the effect is exactly the same as if the seller had kept the CD and sold the digital file. Either way the result is that now two people have simultaneous access to content but the composer/performer has been paid only once.
Because the application of copyright law must be consistent through various media (books, software, art work, etc.) regarding fair use and copy protection, the standards that have evolved for digital files can be a helpful guide to copying of printed matter. For instance, the example of copying sheet music to protect against rain damage would seem to be a reasonable fair use. However, the copying would have to be done as a backup in anticipation of possible damage, not after the fact. Asking a second party for a replacement pdf, regardless of why it needs to be replaced, is a clear violation. The principle here is that any permitted copy must be made by and for the owner of an extant original. Additionally, if an owner sells or gives away an original, he loses the right to use any copy he made.
Hup