It. Is. Not. Piracy. To. Convert. An. Item. You. Own. To. Another. Format. For. Personal. Use.
You can debind your hardbound cookbook to make it loose-leaf, spiral bound, or scan for Large Print. You can burn a copy of a CD for your car, or put it on your iPod. We worked this out 25 years ago.
You can debind your hardbound cookbook to make it loose-leaf, spiral bound, or scan for Large Print. You can burn a copy of a CD for your car, or put it on your iPod. We worked this out 25 years ago.
Comments
Do it anyway.
Personal use is the key. The text is to prevent Pro-Am distribution.
(Didn't prevent my 11 year old self from essentially copying a couple of entire reference books from the library in the early aughts, but...Well, I was 11.)
(I did do some googling but only found ads for adobe and instructions for copying large format documents)
It’s just like scanning any other book — you need a steady camera rig, good lighting, and positioning blocks — and it is a lot of work, but for out of print, it’s often the only way.
But a corporate shop won’t.
And the invention of the VCR built a level of spite for the customer that’s still in the atmosphere.
The IDEA that women would tape their soap operas to still watch them (and FF through ads) after work instead of not working was apparently outrageous to executives.
It’s good that we’ve got the basics of copyright into teen heads, but it’s the problem of basics anything in a brain geared for binary thinking — there’s no nuance. And they will stay un-nuanced because there’s no incentive for them to gain more knowledge. (chromosomes, puriteen ship wars)
🧐
Was that the Lock Lizard program thing? Because that sucked mightily. (It was a bad DRM thing that the Big 4 tried and failed at).
I think the limit of only allowing 5 downloads is reasonable, and then it’s up to the purchaser to archive their download, but a print restriction of that nature?
Selling the product of the pattern is some grey-ish area. Personal consumption doesn’t mean business consumption.
But also, most designers aren’t as original as they think. In my personal pattern stash, I have 5 virtually identical knit skater dresses and nobody could prove which pattern.
And recipes aren’t copyright-able, anyway.
Just don’t copy any of the explanatory text or photos, and personally, I’d re-write instructions just because the technical writing language for cookbooks has evolved a lot since the mid-century.
See also this recipe for "tamale pie" from the 1953 Better Homes and Gardens New Cook Book.
If Gourmet was the author, then it’s still got 24 years. (95 after publication)
Though Gourmet is dead, Condé Nast lives to sue another day.
Works that were published without a copyright notice before 1977 are also in the public domain, as are [...] those published before 1964 if the copyright was not renewed 28 years later.
Not that I'd risk my livelihood on it, but it's not as simple as it appears.
But they were actually talking about capitalism, subscription/rent/streaming capitalism, where you'll rent and subscribe to everything and never know personal ownership again.
I don’t put DRM on them, and if you prove to me you’ve bought it (and I don’t charge much anyway!), I’ll send you clean copies.
But also? I got burnt by fictionwise. I will never forget losing access to 5 years of library because a company failed.
That fucking rootkit bricked my laptop and a friend managed to unbrick it, barely, after 3 days
Oh, if only.
And at that point, I realized I would never feel bad about using a fake name to get 11 tapes for 1 penny from BMG. The war was ON.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_investigation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/21/technology/norwegian-teenager-appears-at-hacker-trial-he-sparked.html
And that binary is actually a mathematical number.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html