Re: Altering Programs

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu>
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Ari Kahan <akahan[_at_]netcom.com> asks:
> >
> > So do you think Mirage means that if I write marginal notes
> > in a book that I own I've created a derivative
> > work and might only be saved if I scream "fair use" loud
> > enough? (This isn't a rhetorical question, or a question
> > designed to make your argument looks silly: I'm concerned
> > that this may be what Mirage means.)
> >
> *****
>
> In fact, I think this is exactly what Mirage means. It's also a great
> hypo for law students, who believe rather strongly in their unfettered
> right to sell used books back to the bookstore at the end of the
> semester.

     I can't believe that any court in its right mind would ever hold that a student reselling a book that he or she had marked with notes and highlights constitutes the infringing distribution of a derivative work.

     What I could imagine -- though I believe (hope) unlikely -- is a court holding that someone purchasing multiple copies of a single book, marking them all with the same standard set of edits, and reselling them at a higher price is the distribution of an infringing derivative work. Again, I think the logic behind such a ruling (and the Mirage group of cases) flawed; but at least I could see application of the same flawed logic to this situation.

     But would a court apply that logic to the ordinary resale of used, marked up books by students? Naaaah. So your hypothetical law students are safe.

Howard G. Zaharoff
<hgz[_at_]buslaw128.com> Received on Tue Feb 16 1999 - 12:55:05 GMT