I wanted to offer someone else's e-book to my subscribers. They offer it publicly for everybody to give away. But the e-book was .exe so I asked if I could turn it into a pdf. They replied that I couldn't as it might affect the books copyright. I don't intend to steal it or make it easier for others to steal it. Does anybody know what laws apply?
How are you going to translate an exe e-book into pdf format? Do you have permission from whoever wrote the book? That's really the key thing as far as the law is concerned.
Of course it doesn't! You're still ripping off someone else's material to change it from one format to the next.
Agree, the author has the right to offer the e-book in whatever format is best for him. Change it to pdf might be considered "reverse-engineering", often associated with thieving
I see that you're in New Zealand. Where is the copyright holder located? Below is my understanding of US copyright, but I couldn't say whether it would be the same in other countries. I know that until last year, it was illegal to change the format of a copyrighted work without permission in Australia. That included burning CDs you owned to MP3 format to put on your iPod. Every country is different. Changing the file format will not change the copyright. Copyright is given to the content, not the format. If I change a website into a magazine, I haven't taken the copyright away. If I include song lyrics in a book of short stories (as a story, not a song) the lyrics are still copyrighted and I could be sued. The author (or the copyright holder if they are not the same) has control over distribution. If they say no, then you can't do it. However, if they are giving for free and they allow others to give it away for free, and the main issue is how changing it might alter the copyright status, you may be able to appeal to the copyright holder. Of course, the real issue may not be a worry over losing copyright but losing control of the content if the format is more easily altered. Unless you can get the copyright holder to change his mind, you'll just have to offer it in exe.
Not sure how the file format will be changed, thats up to the designer. I have permission to use the e-book but not to change file format. They said no because they were afraid they would lose copyright - which I'm not sure is the case. Therefore if I could prove that they wouldn't lose copyright they would allow it. Please reread my post. I've actually done good business with you in the past. I can't believe you would accuse me of ripping someone off. It's not my intention to rip it off, otherwise why would I ask in the first place, I would just do it. I plan on leaving a copyright theirsite.com and getting them to approve the book before I offer it to anyone. Thank you very much for that answer. You seem to be the only person who read my post carefully and thought about it. About what you said: "If I change a website into a magazine, I haven't taken the copyright away." That's what I was thinking, which is why I was suprised when they said they were worried about loosing the copyright. I would think the words are the intellectual property and file format is irrelevent as long as you get permission to change it. "Of course, the real issue may not be a worry over losing copyright but losing control of the content if the format is more easily altered." I had thought about that. I said I would make only one copy and they would have to approve it before I sent it. It could also be the case that a pdf isn't as profitable a format for them as the.exe has their website all over it. If they had given this for a reason I would have understood.
Here is what I would do: 1) Make the new format (do not distribute it) and include as many URL/Logo/Name references as you can 2) Do a little research about copyright law in the country of the copyright holder to demonstrate that the copyright is not lost by having it in a second format (write down appropriate laws, sections, etc...). 3) Then provide the new format with the gathered information to the copyright owner and hope for a better answer.
If you want to offer it to people, why not just link to it on the author's site? That eliminates all of your problems, doesn't it?
I'm not sure how that could be proven? In the US, a person could argue ( and probably loose ) that changing the file format would make it a new item, and a "derivative work" piggybacking on, but not identical to, the first file format. A court would say no, and strike the whole thing down. But, at least in the US, it would need to go before a court, because we don't have any statutory laws about changing file formats to deliver the same content. Congress is a bit behind on technical matters... So, I don't know how that translates to your corner of the globe?
There is plenty of both written and case law regarding this issue in the US. That being said, most of it (not all though) is for normal media. Digital media is under a different set of laws in the DMCA. It might possibly be argued that changing the file format would make it a derivative work, but that is a right held exclusively by the copyright owner (17 USC 106(2)). Even if the judge agreed with you, you would gain nothing. Other examples of when this has been dealt with in the US: - Copying radio or records to tape -- This is allowed under the fair use clause if: a single copy is made, the copy is made for a person who purchased that material, and no copies are distributed, or it was a radio broadcast of a public performance, otherwise it is illegal - Copying television broadcasts to vhs -- TV broadcasts of public performances can be copied under fair use - Converting VHS to DVD -- If a single copy is made, not distrubuted and the copy is made for the person that purchased the product in the original format - Recording streaming audio from the web -- Not allowed unless the provider of the streaming audio has a liscense granting this permission - Publishing articles written for real-world periodicals being used in the online version -- Some states allow for this, New York only allows this if the original contract mentions publishing it online as well. Those are just some examples. Essentially, if it is not fair use or explicitly stated in the copyright statement by the holder, then it is not allowed. Something that came up when I was looking. Let's say a musician wants to put a cover of a song on their upcoming album. If permission is given by the copyright holder to do this, then he/she could never refuse this to anyone else. I'm not sure if they could charge more, or anything like that. However, it could be taken (though I have found neither statute nor case law to back this up) to mean that if they give you permission to change the format, they have to allow anyone else that requests to do so the same permission.
It serves to both thank the reader for subscribing in the first place and to entice new subscribers. Somehow "sign up to our free newsletter and we'll give you a url of another site where you can read about blabla" isn't as enticing as sign up for our free newsletter and get a free ebook". I think the person who created the e-book has had copyright problems in the past and doesn't want to have any more. Regardless of what a court would say I don't think she wants to deal with it. That's interesting. Perhaps a similar thing is at play. In any event she said no for a second time so I'm giving up. Thanks to everyone who gave decent answers .