Originally posted by: C3PX

Originally posted by: MarvoloSince he did not reproduce the book in any form he can not be charged.

How is it that he did not reproduce the book in any form??? The book was very much reproduced. What he did was completely illegal. Low quality images has nothing to do with anything, it is still reproduced. Where did you come up with this technicallity between scanning and photographing? They are essentially the same thing. This is like saying that filming a movie in the cinema is not piracy and is perfectly legal because it is merely a low quality taping of a film and not an actual reproduction of the DVD or a screener.

As long as other things are in the image you can't be charged, I looked it up. A couple years back they tried to copyright any photos taken of the eifel tower. They were trying to make it so any photos taken of the eifel tower could not be posted publicly because the eifel tower image is trademarked. The courts said they couldn't stop people publishing their photos as long as other objects were in the image or background. This is because the person could say he was taking a picture of something else and the eifel tower was in the shot but he took the shot anyway. The person who took these pictures can argue the same logic, such as, " I was taking a picture of my hand at different angles when turning pages to visually determin the stress on joints and how the muscles in my hand would flex, since this was the book I had at the time it became part of the experiment." Also, the person who originally posted all the images didn't title them in any specific way so his intentions may not have been the reproduction of the book. If a lawyer will argue a case of someone suing McDonalds for making them fat and win, then this kid could win his case. Also, Scolastic is the one who said libraries could open the boxes early, that is their own stupid mistake.