response 173 of 206:

Sep 26 03:12 UTC 2000

 But society makes moral judgements all the time, and enacts them into law.
 Not everybody agrees.  Too bad.
--
Which is why I prefer to talk about ethics rather than law. Too many laws are
morally abhorrent to me. I follow them (for the most part) because I recognize
it as a cost of living in a civil society. *shrug* And because there are
enough laws in this country that *are* good, and because this country is one
of the better ones on the planet right now.

For the bit about the RIAA, I find it sad anytime one agency has so much power
in an industry that it can dictate matters of law. The movies have the MPAA,
the comics have the Code, music has the RIAA, and so on... if you're not "in"
with the governing body, you can be leveraged out of serious distribution.
And I don't question that the RIAA exploits its power... the speed of the
spread of the Tipper Sticker is anexcellent example. (I also find it sad that
every major entertainment industry has allowed the government to strong arm
it into setting up "voluntary" rating systems that are now being enforced
nearly with the force of law in increasing jurisdictions -- I understand that
it's not technically *illegal* to let a 16 year old into an R-rated movie,
but movie theaters act as if it is. (I find this especially sad because I
think voluntary ratings ARE a good idea, but only if they remain as parental
guides, rather than replacing parental judgment, which is what has happened.))

Anyway, all that aside. It's an issue of, Does the RIAA's amoral or immoral
behavior justify infringing them, and in so doing injuring artist who are
genuinely trying to protect their copyrights? I've said it before, I'll say
it again -- Most of RIAA's biggest interests arent art, they're commercial
tripe, and as such, the concept of protecting the artists and the creativity
is bunk. An industry that gav us Samantha Fox, Milli Vanilli, and NSync isn't
really all that interested in the foundations of artistry and creative growth.

I'm not sure if photocopying an entire book from the library *is* entirely
fair use. Legally, it may be (but I thought it wasn't). Morally, I don't feel
it is, unless (and pay attention here, McNally) the work is otherwise
unavailable (hear that, McNally?). Most of the photocopied books that I have
are out-of-print (the rest were made at a time when I just couldn't afford
another $50 academic press book).

Other odds and ends --

Thank you for providing the source. As a lawyer, you demand precise use of
words with precise legal definitions; as an academic, I stress the importance
of actual citation. Not that I always do it myself. ;}

Motive is clearly the word I meant. My mistake, and sorry it caused so much
confusion.

response 175 of 206:

Sep 26 05:31 UTC 2000

Somewhere back there it was claimed that borrowing a boat without the
owners permission but returning it is not larceny, however the definition
of larceny included the phrase "...with intent to appropriate it to use
inconsistent with the latter's rights'. The owner's rights include access
to the boat at any time the owner wishes. Hence borrowing and returning is
larceny if not specifically permitted by the owner.

response 177 of 206:

Sep 26 19:43 UTC 2000

Re 175.  You could make a case for that.  But if the hypothetical rowboat
were returned undamaged, and you didn't notice its absence, my guess is
that you would have a hard time convincing the police to take it
seriously.

Real life would add all kinds of wrinkles to this, of course.  Most
likely the item would suffer wear and tear, and even a brief
unauthorized absence could create severe inconvenience or even loss.
What if you needed the rowboat to save someone else's life?  Or,
someone borrowed your fire extinguisher just before you had a fire?
Returning the fire extinguisher in perfect condition would not make
up for its absence at the crucial moment of need.

response 179 of 206:

Sep 26 20:04 UTC 2000

You would probably not be charged with anything, though it would be
right for someone to buy a new boat for the owner. Coommitting larceny
and being charged with it are two different things.

response 181 of 206:

Sep 26 22:11 UTC 2000

        You three enjoying your item?

response 183 of 206:

Sep 26 22:34 UTC 2000

Re #176: And how does the Riparian right to 'use of the entire surface' of a
navigable body of water come into play?  It might depend on whether you own
some shoreline property yourself. ;>

----

I think, unfortunately, that our "fair use" rights are going to start
disappearing.  I base this on the fact that even if it's legally impossible
to remove them, it's technically possible.  Examples:

- Digital audio encryption.  The distribution schemes I've seen would tie a
song to a player.  You'd need to buy one copy for your home stereo, one for
your portable, one for your car...  Yeah, you could break the encryption and
copy the song, but the DMCA says that kind of lock-picking is illegal
regardless of what you do with the results.

- With digital cable boxes, it would now be trivial to add a Macrovision
circuit like the one in DVD players.  If a cable channel is running, say, a
movie, they command the box to turn on the Macrovision, and no one can tape
a copy of it to watch later.  Turn it on all the time, and the Home
Recording Act becomes essentially irrelevent.  Build a device to defeat the
Macrovision encoding (which isn't hard) and you're probably running afoul of
the DMCA again.

response 185 of 206:

Sep 27 05:34 UTC 2000

Re 178,180.  If I was representing the boat owner, I would probably at
least consider advising him to bring a civil suit against you for taking
without permission -- and then carelessly losing -- his boat.  I'm
guessing that such a suit would have a high chance of success. 

Whether a judgement for the value of the boat could be realistically
collected from the defendant is another matter.  The boat owner's lawyer
might ask to be paid up front.  :-)

By contrast, criminal charges for larceny would be problematic from
several standpoints.  If the defendant really saved a drowning child, the
prosecutor and police are going to be wary of the political repercussions
of prosecuting him.  If the defendant's intent was consistently to save
the child and return the boat, it's probably not larceny.  Even if the
case went to trial, it's hard to imagine a jury convicting him.  If the
charges weren't actually dismissed, the prosecutor might accept a guilty
plea to something like "reckless boating," and a nominal fine.  Net gain
for the boat owner: nothing.

response 187 of 206:

Sep 27 13:52 UTC 2000

My attitude as well. The only times I could see copying an entire book  as
fair (morally if not legally) would be:
(a) It's your book
(b) It's public domain
(c) It's out of print and not attainable (new)
(d) It's your copy of a book, and your reason for copying it is to preserve
the original while you make notes, etc.

Going to the library and copying an entire Stephen King novel, front to back,
is as immoral (and should be as illegal) as dubbing an entire CD you borrow
from a friend (that latter of which is apparently technically illegal, but
immune from prosecution, according to posts placed here earlier).

Not the "as immoral" in the context of my earlier posts. =} Definitely a
"shame on you, naughty boy" level of offence, not a "burn in hell you impudent
creature of evil" level of offense.

response 191 of 206:

Sep 27 19:41 UTC 2000

If the book isn't in print, and there's no way to contact the copyright holder
to provide you a copy of your own for a price, then OK, that seems reasonable
that you should be able to make your own copy, if borrowing the library's copy
doesn't work.  But if the book *is* in print, if it's supposedly fair use to
make one's personal copy via reproduction, why doesn't the instructor just
tell the students to each go and make their own personal copies?  That just
couldn't be right, as the copyright holder would be shorted compensation many
times over.  (Of course, it's not a practical reality, as, at 10 cents a page,
the cost and aggravation of making a photocopy of an entire book is not likely
to be practical.)

response 193 of 206:

Sep 27 20:11 UTC 2000

Yes, as I said, OK if out of print.  But I was referring to *in print*.

response 195 of 206:

Sep 27 20:19 UTC 2000

You also hit the nail on the head there, btw.

Why copy a 200-page book which costs $25, when the copy would cost $10 (100
copies at 10c), in order to get a much worse copy?

that's why, in grad school, I only copied the academic books, which run much
more than $25... academic press runs can cost anywhere from $40 into the
hundreds (of course, part of that is because of the limited market, which is
further restricted by people making copies... hence the vicious cycle).

response 197 of 206:

Sep 27 20:25 UTC 2000

Er, I should say, finding a specific old book is time-consuming, expensive,
and often futile, even with Ebay and Bibliofind.