Everyone - this may be a snooze for you so....delete now.
I did not label it as NJC because I think everyone can benefit from a dialogue
about the real intentions of copyright - not the property notions that are
pushed by multinational corporations (the ones in the music biz are
affectionately called the Cartel).
I don't have my bookmarks with me which provide the simple analysis without all
the code language. So:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 108
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html
(f) Nothing in this section -
(1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright
infringement upon a library or archives or its employees for the
unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its
premises: Provided, That such equipment displays a notice that
the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law;
(2) excuses a person who uses such reproducing equipment or who
requests a copy or phonorecord under subsection (d) from
liability for copyright infringement for any such act, or for any
later use of such copy or phonorecord, if it exceeds fair use as
provided by section 107;
(3) shall be construed to limit the reproduction and
distribution by lending of a limited number of copies and
excerpts by a library or archives of an audiovisual news program,
subject to clauses (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a); or
(4) in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by
section 107, or any contractual obligations assumed at any time
by the library or archives when it obtained a copy or phonorecord
of a work in its collections.
And here is a fairly decent analysis of the fair use section, 107 along with
some supporting case law.
http://www.eff.org/pub/Intellectual_property/fair_use_and_copyright.excerpt
"The defense 'permits and requires courts to avoid rigid application of the
copyright
statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is
designed to foster.'"
I am admittedly not a lawyer, but can you honestly tell me that I would be
charged with infringement and that I could not prevail using the fair use
doctrine, if I made one copy for my own noncommercial use?
I know that libraries set their own rules, some stating no copying and others
posting the rules for copying relative to fair use.
If there is precedent that shows an individual being charged with infringement,
I'd welcome seeing it.
(I think I've posted more today than all year! ; )
Brenda
n.p. - Cotton Avenue
FYI- Music companies are paid a royalty for each blank cassette, each blank
music CD-R and each audio recording device sold. (Now the data CD-R's....that's
another story!)
"Brenda J. Walker" wrote:
> Um ...yes it does. When I get back to my home computer, I'll give you the
> exact wording and the interpretation that shows it to be so.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 4/23/01 6:03:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > << Actually, there is. It's called fair use. It's the reason why you can
> > > check CD's and videos out at the library. And guess what? You're not
> > > breaking the law if you make one copy for you own personal use.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > Fair use does NOT include copying something you checked out of the library,
> > whether it is for personal use or not.
> >
> > Paul I
