Comments on: Access Copyright’s newest blunder

By: Brenda

Brenda — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:56:30 +0000

I enjoy reading your posts, keep them coming

By: Berlynn

Berlynn — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:53:51 +0000

As a Canadian writer who is an affiliate of AccessCopyright I thank the organization for licensing my work with libraries, schools, governments, businesses — you name it — and collecting payments on my behalf. The payment is less than our monthly grocery bill. But when you’re a freelancer, a mother of teens, a volunteer, every little bit helps.

By: Mary M

Mary M — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:25:43 +0000

Libraries in the U.S. that qualify as Section 108 libraries are shielded under 17 USC 108(f) which reads:

(f) Nothing in this section—
(1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright infringement upon a library or archives or its employees for the unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its premises: Provided, That such equipment displays a notice that the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law;

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/108.html

That’s why you’ll always see a notice by library photocopiers saying that use of the equipment is subject to U.S. copyright law.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:44:08 +0000

>No doubt it’ll next be going after libraries and mom’n’pop stores offering photocopying.

Nearly every post office has a photocopier, I wonder why they didn’t extort the government first ?

Oh yea

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:56:10 +0000

“Have they actually seen someone walk into a store and make and copy an entire novel?” Think how much this will cost! its almost cheaper to buy the book.

Next Access Copyright will sue Access Copyright for running a web server which could be hacked and have copyrighted info uploaded to it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:20:15 +0000

That’s fuckin’ ridiculous. Next they’ll be trying to sue internet cafe’s, libraries, schools, and every other do-it-yourself copyshop. First of all, their claims are unjustified. Nobody can be held responsible for the actions of their customers. Even if they were, it would be impossible to control such actions, save for a store member standing over the customer’s shoulder to make sure he/she doesn’t copy more than a few consecutive pages.

Secondly, what proof do these idiots have? Have they actually seen someone walk into a store and make and copy an entire novel? These are nothing but unfounded speculations, based on their insane theory that no restrictions = chaos. Captain Copyright should take that finger and shove it up his arse.

By: RobfromCalgary

RobfromCalgary — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:19:26 +0000

Quoting from paragraph 43 of the CCH Supreme Court Judgment:

“First, there was no evidence that the photocopiers had been used in a manner that was not consistent with copyright law. As noted, a person does not authorize copyright infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment (such as photocopiers) that could be used to infringe copyright. In fact, courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. Although the Court of Appeal assumed that the photocopiers were being used to infringe copyright, I think it is equally plausible that the patrons using the machines were doing so in a lawful manner. ”

How is Access Copyright going to prove that Staples authorized copyright infringement merely by making available photocopiers?