Every once in a while I point out what the copyright or patent law says.
I almost always get responses from people who feel they should be able
to do something other than the law states -- for example, a lot of
people feel that they should be able to build a patented item for their
own personal use, while the law specifically forbids it. Or photocopy a
book that's out of print. And so forth. I think most people don't really
want to know what the law says -- they'd rather keep their notion of
what they think it should say.

I don't make the laws. I don't enforce them. And, shoot, I'm not even
qualified to say what they are or what they mean. Anyone really
interested in learning what the laws say can go to http://www.uspto.gov
or a bunch of other authoritative sources. Better yet, see a qualified
attorney, who can also tell you how they're enforced. Then do whatever
it is your conscience (or rationalization) lets you do. Most people are
probably going to do what they want anyway, no matter what the laws say,
and come with reasons to justify it.

Want to know why the law says what it does? Ask your congressperson.
Have a complaint? Tell your congressperson. But be warned -- people who
like sausages or have respect for the law shouldn't look too closely at
how either is made. And it ain't pretty.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

donut wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about copyright law. If a hobbyist wants to
photocopy out of print work for his own use, or even to redistibute to
others with like interests, how is it a copyright violation unless he
either profits from it, or deprives the legal owner of the copyright from
profit?

I understand the concept - I just don't understand the way the law is
applied these days.