iBooks, DRM, Copying & Fair Use

[Timo_Existencia]

It does not matter what you believe. The right to fair use cannot be a priori. Not even First Amendment rights are a priori, they were learned through experience or in other words a posteriori.

Ah. You're arguing in the realm of philosopy, where I may or may not agree with you; I'll have to think that through.

I'm arguing in the realm of law. Perhaps to clarify, in my future use here, I'll simply use the term "prior" and not "a priori."

 

[Brammy]

There are rights that exist a prior to congressional acts. Such as the First Amendment. My understanding of fair use is that it is rooted in First Amendment law, therefore, the Courts would need to protect my a priori rights to fair use.

Fair Use is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment essentially states the government can't control what you say in a public setting. Any form of private control, be it from a corporation or individual, are not covered by First Amendment. In other words, Apple, or a publisher, restricting what you can or cannot do with works they hold they copyright on is not violating your First Amendment rights.

The government copyright web site is vague on what constitutes "fair use," and seems to punt that back to the copyright holder.

In terms of the laws keeping up with technology, sadly, they are, by making things like this much harder they were.

 

[calderone]

Ah. You're arguing in the realm of philosopy, where I may or may not agree with you; I'll have to think that through.

I'm arguing in the realm of law. Perhaps to clarify, in my future use here, I'll simply use the term "prior" and not "a priori."

This does not save your claim. You are merely changing the set of characters while keeping the same meaning. In law or philosophy, a right to fair use is not a priori or "prior."

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm going to continue researching this issue; I yet think there's an infringment on a right here.

Final thought: imagine that as part of this discussion (btw, I've using my iPad for this discussion), I go to iBookstore, buy a legal book, and find an interesting passage that pertains here. I'm reading this in a coffee shop, and I'd like to include the passage in this discussion.

I'd be very limited in my ability to do this on the iPad; I'd have to memorize, open up the browser window, recite from memory, go back into the book, memorize more, open the browser, recite from memory, etc.

I think that's ridiculous.

Cheers!

This does not save your claim. You are merely changing the set of characters while keeping the same meaning. In law or philosophy, a right to fair use is not a priori or "prior."

In law, there is an argument to be made that certain rights are prior, whether current law reflects that or not.

 

[samcraig]

Oh yay - you're a star on google for starting this thread. You must be excited. Have you decided what you're going to do with all this fame?

Seriously. There's no case. You are free to hand type whatever you want. You're also free to hold your ipad against a copy machine and make a copy. Or create a snapshot.

Apple is providing a content delivery system. They do not own the material they are providing. That means that they must adhere to whatever policies the publishers require OR not carry that content. It's exactly why Amazon had to make it OPTIONAL for some books to be read aloud or not putting the onus on the publisher. Your "beef" isn't with Apple. It's with the publishers. End of story.

 

[calderone]

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm going to continue researching this issue; I yet think there's an infringment on a right here.

Final thought: imagine that as part of this discussion (btw, I've using my iPad for this discussion), I go to iBookstore, buy a legal book, and find an interesting passage that pertains here. I'm reading this in a coffee shop, and I'd like to include the passage in this discussion.

I'd be very limited in my ability to do this on the iPad; I'd have to memorize, open up the browser window, recite from memory, go back into the book, memorize more, open the browser, recite from memory, etc.

I think that's ridiculous.

Cheers!

You have got to be kidding me? If you do start a lawsuit (which I doubt), I hope you lose everything.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Oh yay - you're a star on google for starting this thread. You must be excited. Have you decided what you're going to do with all this fame?

Oh, I wasn't bragging about it; I just thought it interesting how new this question is relative to the iPad. I didn't even use the term iPad in the google search.

Seriously. There's no case. You are free to hand type whatever you want. You're also free to hold your ipad against a copy machine and make a copy. Or create a snapshot.

Many people in powerful positions believe that there are cases here. This question is not so different than the very question that Google is engaged in over its books project. I'm hopeful Google prevails.

Oh yay - you're a star on google for starting this thread. You must be excited. Have you decided what you're going to do with all this fame?

Oh, I wasn't bragging about it; I just thought it interesting how new this question is relative to the iPad. I didn't even use the term iPad in the google search.

Apple is providing a content delivery system. They do not own the material they are providing. That means that they must adhere to whatever policies the publishers require OR not carry that content. It's exactly why Amazon had to make it OPTIONAL for some books to be read aloud or not putting the onus on the publisher. Your "beef" isn't with Apple. It's with the publishers. End of story.

You may be right; as I said earlier, Apple may even choose to join in future actions here.

 

[Runt888]

Slightly off-topic at this point, but also very relevant:

You can currently use the search feature to copy from DRM protected books. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple closes this workaround in the future, so the legal questions still exist.

 

[pooryou]

Take a screenshot of the page and then either use OCR software, transcribe it yourself, or insert the (cropped) image directly into the document.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm going to continue researching this issue; I yet think there's an infringment on a right here.

Final thought: imagine that as part of this discussion (btw, I've using my iPad for this discussion), I go to iBookstore, buy a legal book, and find an interesting passage that pertains here. I'm reading this in a coffee shop, and I'd like to include the passage in this discussion.

I'd be very limited in my ability to do this on the iPad; I'd have to memorize, open up the browser window, recite from memory, go back into the book, memorize more, open the browser, recite from memory, etc.

I think that's ridiculous.

You don't have to memorize anything; your claim is ridiculous.

 

[Knowimagination]

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I'm going to continue researching this issue; I yet think there's an infringment on a right here.

Final thought: imagine that as part of this discussion (btw, I've using my iPad for this discussion), I go to iBookstore, buy a legal book, and find an interesting passage that pertains here. I'm reading this in a coffee shop, and I'd like to include the passage in this discussion.

I'd be very limited in my ability to do this on the iPad; I'd have to memorize, open up the browser window, recite from memory, go back into the book, memorize more, open the browser, recite from memory, etc.

As others have pointed out you probably don't have much of a case, but a solution to your problems was already found...

 

[old-wiz]

I think the OP is simply a troll. I doubt any bona-fide lawyer would get into a discussion like this on a public forum. The rest of us are hardly qualified to really determine whether or not a lawsuit makes any sense.

 

[GamecockMac]

Thoughts?

Yeah...enjoy wasting your time and money pursuing this dog of a case.

In the end, you will lose, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on.