This is my final paper (from a copyright course in my MLS program) on the "personal use" of copyrighted material and its relevance to libraries. I found this topic particularly interesting, especially after reading Jessica Litman's excellent article on the subject, "Lawful Personal Use," and I came away from my research with two strong convictions: the importance of libraries in advocating for the rights of their patrons and the importance of equity, especially in the copyright debate.

1. Running head: CONFUSED COPYRIGHT 1
Confused Copyright
The Personal Use Debate and the Need for Library Involvement
Rose Epp
Emporia State University

2. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
Abstract
Many of those who use copyrighted works for personal things, such as for school assignments or
for making a movie of their summer vacation or for backing up copies of music on their
computers assume that copyright law permits all noncommercial copying. Contrariwise, many
industries that produce copyrighted works, such as movie studios or publishers, assume that all
copying is illegal whether it is commercial or not. Libraries try to take a middle road but often
are unsure as to what the law really says or what the real controversies are concerning the
personal use of copyrighted works. The definition, the history, the controversies, the current
practices, and the imagined future of personal use all involve libraries, if not just because
libraries are full of copyrighted works that the public makes personal use of. Libraries are
relevant and needed parties in the personal use debate, and especially need to be the
spokespeople of a public who might not even be aware that they have as big a stake in copyright
as creators.
2

3. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
Confused Copyright: The Personal Use Debate and the Need for Library Involvement
Introduction
Some have said that the world, or at least the United States, is beginning its decline into a
failed utopia not unlike George Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. They fear
a decline of society due to restrictions on what one can and cannot watch, read, and listen to
resulting from the conspiring of governments to censor ideas. They believe that if this continues
people will be forbidden from sharing new ideas and we will lose our First Amendment rights.
However likely or unlikely the reality of this is, this is truly how strongly some people feel about
copyright law, specifically, on how it deals with personal use. What is personal use? Someone,
anyone, listening to the radio, singing that song on the radio, printing off a copy of the lyrics of
that song to memorize, reading a book about the artist of that song, or copying a page of that
book to stick up on the wall for motivation. Basically, “personal” means any individual and
“use” means using a copyrighted work for that individual’s own enjoyment. So? People who
sing songs, make music, and write books about those artists want you to enjoy (and buy) their
creative works. What is the big deal? The big deal comes when that individual copies or shares
something of theirs. Then they protest, “You can’t do that! You need to buy another copy
because I own the right to copy and share my work!” And, maybe the original artist does not
particularly care about one’s personal use but the producer or publisher does and that one
individual could end up in a heap of trouble. The lines of personal use seem upfront when one is
using something for its intended purpose but become increasingly fuzzy as one attempts to truly
enjoy a work by sharing it with others. Enter the library! Libraries are full of copyrighted
material that one uses personally. Additionally, they represent the rights of their patrons in a
world of fee-fi-foeing corporate giants. After all, copyright was originally conceptualized as a
3

4. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
balancer between the rights of the general public to know and an incentive for creators to create.
Libraries are a relevant and a needed party in the personal use debate and this can be
demonstrated through discussing the definition, the history, the controversies, the current
practices, and the imagined future of personal use.
Definition of Personal Use
Now, despite the fact that a very simple and literal definition of “personal use” has been
provided in the opening paragraph, there is actually a small amount of controversy as to what the
proper definition should entail. First, what does copyright law itself have to say? In Section 101
(17 U.S.C.), the beginning of the lengthy document of United States copyright law, there is
provided a list of definitions. Unfortunately, “personal use,” or any related term, is not defined.
There is also no mention in the law itself of what the user of a copyrighted work is permitted to
do with said work, besides what is granted in Section 107 (17 U.S.C.) via fair use and various
recently added bits mostly pertaining to specific uses of digital content. As such, Jessica Litman
(2007), in her article, “Lawful Personal Use,” points out that personal use is not defined by
statute in the United States, as it is in other countries. For instance, although this legislation is
highly controversial, Canadians are permitted to make copies of music for personal use by way
of a levy placed on recording media (Geist, 2005). For the purposes of this paper, the focus will
be on the United States, which has established accepted personal uses based on custom, court
cases, and personal opinion. Patterson and Lindberg (1991) state that “a personal use can be
defined as the private use of a work for one's own learning, enjoyment, or sharing with a
colleague or friend – without any motive for profit” (p. 193) and then later propose the following
“rule of personal use” based on what copyright law suggests:
An individual’s use of a copyrighted work for his or her own private use is a personal
4

5. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
use, not subject to fair-use restraints. Such use includes use by copying, provided that
the copy is neither for public distribution or sale to others nor a functional substitute
for a copyrighted work currently available on the market at a reasonable price. (p. 194)
Litman (2007) defines personal use as “a use that an individual makes for herself, her family,
or her close friends” (p. 1894) while also assuming that some personal uses will be unlawful
and some will be controversial. The owner of a website containing music states, “Personal
private use is that which occurs within you [sic] immediate biological family” (Jordan, 2000).
Deborah Tussey (2001) gives her definition as: “‘Personal use,’ in the broad sense, means
consumption or adaptation of intellectual properties by individual users for their own
purposes, including uncompensated sharing of those works with others.” Since the law has
not defined “personal use,” it is important for a library to know all sides of this issue so that
they will either be ready to suggest reliable sources to any patrons who have questions about
copyright or to engage in a copyright education campaign, something that is sorely needed
with the many conflicting views of copyright at large in the world.
Early Views of Personal Use
As asserted by Litman (2007), there have always been conflicts between authors,
publishers, and libraries due to their fundamentally different goals. Early views of personal
use, copying, and libraries reach back to before there was the thought of copyright law.
Gasaway (2010) tells of the copying of works by the Great Library of Alexandra. Ptolemy I
asked for documents from other rulers and even searched for and confiscated documents from
incoming ships so that the library could copy them and add to its collection, sometimes only
returning the copy of the original to its owner. It was common for early users of libraries,
such as monks in the Middle Ages, to copy materials by hand. Even the Library of Congress
5

6. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
encouraged photocopying at the turn of the twentieth century (Gasaway, 2010). Just half a
century ago, it was widely believed that the use of copyrighted works was permitted if that use
was noncommercial, and, generally, the law did not care to address such uses by the general
public (Litman, 1994, 2007). This seemingly indifferent attitude may be, in part, because of a
distinct difference in the way copyright was viewed when it first became law. At the time of
the Copyright Act of 1790, copyright was “reserved for mechanically reproduced, useful, and
important works of enduring value” (Anderson, 2007, p. 13). In other words, a copyrighted
work was something special. It is also interesting to note that before the Copyright Act of
1870, authors had no control over their work after they published it, save for publication
rights. People could make derivative works as they pleased (Anderson, 2007). So, what
changed? Julie Cohen (2005), Deborah Tussey (2001), Jessica Litman (1994, 2007), Michael
Grynberg (2010), and the Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging
Information Infrastructure (2000) all agree that it was rapid growth of technology and, with it,
the ability to easily, and without loss of quality, digitize information.
Present Views of Personal Use
Currently, because of this massive influx of information, views on personal use from the
interested parties of the public, publishers, and libraries, are varied and hotly debated. Copyright
law is even more confusing than it was a century ago but it now “touches everyone and
everything” (Litman, 1994, I section, para. 2). The public’s view of what constitutes lawful
personal use still seems to be the same as it was before. They generally believe that copyright
law pertains to creators who want to profit commercially from their work but does not
particularly pertain to them because their uses of copyrighted works are private and
noncommercial (Litman, 1994). Just a little over 25 years ago, the court, in the landmark case of
6

7. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ([Sony v. Universal], 1984), asserted
that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves
was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It
emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the
noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted
entirely within the home.” (para. 12).
This could be seen as something of an acknowledgement of what the public already thought.
Although, some contend that this view of the courts has largely changed to instead favor
copyright holders, particularly since most copies now being made are digital, instead of analog as
they were when the case was decided (Litman, 2007). Although the views differ on the extent of
allowable personal copying, it is largely agreed upon by everyone, save a conflicting district
court opinion (UMG Recordings v. MP3, 2000), that personal uses that involve “time shifting”
(Sony v. Universal, 1984) and “space shifting” (Recording Industry Association of America v.
Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. [RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia], 1999) are permissible,
albeit grudgingly on the part of affected industries, as they appear to desire control over all
copies of their works. Concerning the copying of materials for personal use in libraries, some
libraries and library patrons continue to copy print materials without abandon, as they have done
for centuries. Fortunately, with The Copyright Act of 1976 and the addition of Section 108
(Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Reproductions by Libraries and Archives) to copyright law,
this practice has been addressed. Section 108 gives permission to libraries to make copies of
writings (such as journal articles and books) for users and for other libraries through inter-library
loan, as long as the library meets certain criteria. However, rights-holders are now expressing a
fear that, in the future, Section 108 will broaden to include digital files or licensed databases and
7

8. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
libraries will become competition (Saylor, 2010). The polar views expressed here stem from a
view of copyright itself that Cory Doctorow (2010) points out is an all or nothing approach. He
asserts that “…we treat copyright as absolute. And when we do, we turn a system with a real
purpose (providing a framework for participants in creative businesses) into a caricature of itself,
one that no one can respect” (last para.).
Controversies
Although libraries have not been ones to take absolute views, since they wish to be
intermediaries of sorts between the public and industry, they have a conundrum to overcome.
They have the noble call of providing free information to everyone, and as a part of this, want to
demonstrate a good example of citizenship. This includes adherence to copyright law in spite of
bias that views their patrons more favorably than big business. So, it is sometimes difficult to
navigate their patron’s requests and right holders’ claims and with this uncertainty comes an
inability to stand up for patron’s rights. These next few paragraphs will unpack some of the
underlying intricacies of the personal use controversy in order to give libraries a “head’s up” on
various controversies. Personal use with no copying involved, but rather involving one using the
copyrighted piece as intended, is rarely controversial. Therefore, this section will mainly
concern itself with issues involving the copying of copyrighted works.
Personal Use Copies
Copyright law defines “copies” as:
material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now
known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or
otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device (17
U.S.C. § 101, 2009)
8

9. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
The Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure ([The
Committee], 2000) has brought up a question of whether the term “copy” is still a good concept
in light of recent technological advances. Unlike copies of print materials, digital copies are
indistinguishable from the original. Hence, there is no natural end to redistribution and the
information contained within is more susceptible to unwanted change. This is a major concern
of rights holders and a reason for them to claim that all copying is unlawful. The Committee
does not attempt to resolve the personal use issue but does take the same stance as Doctorow
(2010) in stating that not all personal uses are fair use and not all copying is unlawful, while also
further maintaining that the notion that all noncommercial copying is fair use is far too
widespread.
Licenses
Copyright owners have sought to combat unfettered personal copying by supplying
licenses for those uses. Litman (2007) makes a note that companies have essentially redefined a
“commercial” use to mean an “unlicensed” use. The Committee (2000) tells how licensing
“constitutes a limited transfer of rights to use an item on stated terms and conditions” (p. 35).
Contract law, not copyright law, governs licenses and the problem comes when the terms of the
license end up being more restrictive than what is granted under the first-sale doctrine. This
leaves the public, and potentially libraries, without the provisions that copyright law provides to
remove undue burden on the user of copyrighted works (The Committee, 2000). This issue
almost literally bombed the library community only two months ago. The publisher
HarperCollins announced that the license on their eBooks sold to libraries would expire after
twenty-six checkouts. In other words, libraries will need to repurchase an eBook every time the
limit is reached on that book. Two other publishers, Macmillan and Simon & Schuster, do not
9

10. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
even permit their Ebooks to be circulated in libraries (Hadro, 2011). Libraries have already
reluctantly agreed to check out Ebooks to one patron at a time. This is consistent with how
books are traditionally checked out and mirrors normal personal use. When one purchases
something, one does not expect it to have the equivalent of a time bomb inside that will render it
useless. To be fair, the publisher’s concerns do have a ring of legitimacy and will likely be
resolved in a way that resembles what database publishers already do (Hadro, 2011) but the
rights of the reader must also be considered. It is not so much a matter of money as it is a matter
of “the exclusive right to read” (Litman, 1994) and a matter of what constitutes property.
Fair Use
Michael Grynberg (2010) suggests that common law property rights could serve as a
baseline for interpreting the legality of personal use of copyrighted works. He points out that the
property of two parties interferes with one another via copyright. There is the intellectual
property of the copyright holder and the physical (or digital) property of the one who purchased
the work. He also explains that fair use does not adequately cover uses resulting from the need
for autonomy or self-expression and proclaims that “if the Copyright Act neglects to give
copyright owners the power to forbid a particular copyright use, users have that right as part of
their basic common law rights, not as a matter of federal neglect or statutory vacuum”
(Grynberg, 2010, p. 467). Dennis Kennedy (2005) also demonstrates, by way of logical
reasoning, how fair use is too shaky a platform to set personal use on. He articulates that the
common sense ways in which one interacts with copyrighted works for private use should not be
confounded by their digital medium, even though, technically, automatic “copying” occurs as a
part of the normal computer process. It could even be asserted that fair use was not intended to
be applied to the ordinary individual using a work for ordinary personal uses. To add to this
10

11. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
spaghetti bowl, some believe that a person’s basic motivations and purposes for copying can
affect whether a use is permissible. Patterson and Lindberg (1991) make the claim that copying
is only acceptable when the objective is for personal growth or learning. The obvious response
on the part of the individual is, of course, “No one can tell me what my needs are! Only I can
make that decision!” One can acknowledge that the implied suggestion to limit personal use
based on intent does begin to rumble deeply of a future dystopia.
Accepted and Legal Personal Uses
There are many more controversial issues that could be touched on, however, it would
not be wise to ignore the practical aspect of personal use. What exactly is permissible? As
demonstrated, the lines are not cut clearly but libraries can make logical decisions, moving from
sure-fire uses into unsure ones. To begin with, one can be very certain that sitting down to read a
print copy of a legally acquired book will not be contested. Nor will listening to a legally bought
CD on a CD player. These are both uses of works being used as they were intended to be used.
If someone happened to find a cartoon of Unshelved in a newspaper that he liked, cut it out, and
taped it on his wall, that would also be permitted. But what if that someone with the cartoon
worked at a library and happened to tape it to the front desk for patrons to see? It would be a
public display, an exclusive right of the author, as stated in the law (17 U.S.C. § 106). Well, for
one, it is next to impossible that Gene Ambaum, Bill Barnes, or any of their associates will send
a cease-and-desist letter. Secondly, presuming that someone owned the newspaper the cartoon
was clipped from, there is an exemption that allows for the owner of a copy of a work to display
it publicly (17 U.S.C. § 109c). Like this example, there are a few statutory exemptions for
personal use. Generally speaking, Litman (2007) states that all private performances, displays,
and distributions are definitely permitted since the rights holder is limited to “public”
11

12. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
distributions (17 U.S.C. § 106). People are also allowed to make back-up copies of computer
programs (17 U.S.C. § 117), and make noncommercial copies of recorded music (17 U.S.C. §
1008), among other things. However, the law does not address many other personal issues, such
as music played loud enough for the neighborhood to hear, back-up copies of files that are not
computer programs, or a child who practices drawing by copying cartoon characters (Litman,
2007). Now, not many of these have anything to do with the library. However, in the bizarre
event that a patron would ask for permission to check out and copy a library CD, or something of
a similar nature, one should be prepared with the correct answer. The answer, of course, is “no”
since the patron does not personally own the CD. If the patron was inclined to be difficult they
may claim that they do, in fact, “own” the CD since it was their tax dollars that bought it. This is
a thoughtful argument but of a dubious nature. One could venture to explain that the library can
only assist in copying when the object in question is part of a journal or a book.
Personal Use in the Library
As stated before, the copying of print materials for personal use within a library is a very
old practice. And, as referred to before, Section 108 (Copyright Act of 1976) gives libraries and
archives permission to copy works for their patrons or other libraries. Certain conditions must be
met for this to be permitted. The collections of the library must be open to the public or to all
“persons doing research in a specialized field” (p. 19), the copy must be made without any
purpose of commercial advantage, and the copy must include a notice of copyright.
Additionally, the exemptions do not apply “to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural
work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual work dealing with
news” (Copyright Act of 1976, p. 22). Libraries must include a warning notice that states that
the work may be under copyright on order forms and where people come to request copies. The
12

13. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
request must be for only a portion of a work, for only one article out of a magazine issue, must
be used for private study or research, and the copy must become the property of the owner. If the
requested portion is for all or for a significant part of a work, then a copy of the work must not be
available for a reasonable price. Hirtle, Hudson, and Kenyon (2009) point out that just because
something is restricted under Section 108, does not mean that it is not permitted under a different
statute, such as the one for fair use. Interlibrary loan activities, providing copies for patrons of
other libraries, is specifically permitted in Section 108(g). What if the CD-wielding patron
decides to use one of the library’s own computers to make a copy? Is the library liable? Not
under Section 108(f). As long as the library equipment, such as its computers and photocopiers,
displays a warning of copyright, the library takes no responsibility for the use of unsupervised
equipment by unscrupulous individuals.
Conclusion
Now, having settled the issue of copying in libraries, all that is left is to contemplate the
future. The future of personal use is, of course, as uncertain as all futures but one can speculate a
little. William Patry (2006) makes note that other countries, such as the UK and Australia, have
moved toward specific provisions for personal use, in lieu of fair use. While some think it too
narrow, he makes the claim that “civil law countries tend to have more generous personal use
exemptions, and a more consumer-oriented attitude” (para. 2), giving the impression that it might
give us a better deal, where “fair use” hasn’t seemed to work on the user’s behalf as it was
supposed to do. Dame Brindley (2009) presented a paper and the 2009 ALAI Congress
concerning the changing role of libraries. He makes a point the one aspect that will need to be
addressed in the future, as more and more content becomes digital, it the relationship between
contracts (licenses) and copyright. The British Library did a study on one hundred contracts
13

14. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
offered to them for electronic databases and journals and found that over ninety percent of them
“undermined the exemptions in the law that relate to core library activities” (Brindley, 2009, p.
6). He proposes that the relatively simple permissions given in copyright law have the ability to
“trump” such contracts since they interfere with libraries being able to copy items for patrons,
among other things. Litman (1994) makes a proclamation that the U.S. Copyright Office needs
to become the general public's copyright lawyer “…to persuade all of us…that the public's
interests are compatible rather than adverse to the interests of copyright owners, but also to make
it so…The Copyright Office…has failed to attend to the danger that the bargain [of copyright
law] might unbalance to the detriment of the public. All it would take would be for the Office to
view the public as its copyright client.” (section VI, last para.). It may well be up to libraries to
be the ones to encourage this and to fight for the rights of public, certainly no one else
understands the need for accessible information as well as them. The personal use debate needs
the opinions of librarians, the ones who interact practically with copyright every day, concerning
the definition, the interpretations of history, the controversies, the current practices, and the
future of personal use. Then, the world may forestall the doom of a utopia without creativity,
however over-dramatized.
14

15. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
References
Anderson, E. (2007, December). Pimps and ferrets: Copyright and culture in the United States,
1831-1891 (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University). Retrieved from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Anderson%20Eric.pdf?acc_num=bgsu1193529137
Brindley, D. (2009). Phoenixes in the internet era: the changing role of libraries. Paper
presented at the 2009 Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale (ALAI) Congress
in London, England. Retrieved from http://www.alai2009.org/programme.aspx
Cohen, J. E. (2005). The place of the user in copyright law. Fordham Law Review, 74, pp. 347-
374. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=814664
Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure (2000).
The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Retrieved from The
National Academies Press website: http://www.nap.edu/ openbook.php?
record_id=9601&page=R1
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 108 (2009). Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/
title17/92chap1.pdf
Doctorow, C. (2010, January 26). Copyright, companies, individuals and news: the rules of the
road. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/26/
copyright-cory-doctorow
Gasaway, L. N. (2010). Libraries and copyright at the dawn of the twentieth century: The 1909
Copyright Act. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 11(3). Retrieved from
http://www.ncjolt.org/sites/default/files/Gasaway_Laura_v11i3_419_460.pdf
Geist, M. (2005, August 8). The failure of Canada’s private copying system [blog post]. Michael
Geist. Retrieved from http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=content&task=
15

16. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
view&id=924
Grynberg, M. (2010). Property is a two-way street: Personal copyright use and implied
authorization. Fordham Law Review, 79(2). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=1729411
Hadro, J. (2011, February 25). HarperCollins puts 26 loan cap on Ebook circulations.
LibraryJournal.com. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/889452-
264/harpercollins_puts_26_loan_cap.html.csp
Hirtle, P. B., Hudson, E. & Kenyon, A. T. (2009). Copyright & cultural institutions: Guidelines
for digitization for U.S. libraries, archives, & museums. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Library. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1495365
Jordan, R. (2000). Permissions and copyright. Lutheran-Hymnal.com. Retrieved from
http://www.lutheran-hymnal.com/index.html
Kennedy, D. M. (2005, June 6). iPods and time-shifting: Fair use, personal use and the digital
copyright morass. Between Lawyers. Retrieved from http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/
archives/2005/06/06/ipods_and_timeshifting_fair_use_personal_use_and_the_digital_co
pyright_morass.php
Litman, J. (1994). The exclusive right to read. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal,
13(29). Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm
Litman, J. (2007, June). Lawful personal use. Texas Kaw Review, 85. Retrieved from
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/LawfulPersonalUse.pdf
Patry, W. (2006, November 30). Fair use and personal copying exemptions [Blog post]. The
Patry Copyright Blog. Retrieved from http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/11/fair-
use-and-personal-copying.html
16

17. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
Patterson, L. R. & Lindberg, S. W. (1991). The nature of copyright: A law of users’ rights.
Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., F.3d (9th
Cir.
1999). Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054784.html
Saylor, K. B. (2010, May 20). Limitations on copyright owners for libraries and archives: Points
of contention and agreement in an examination of Section 108. Copyright Alliance.
Retrieved from http://www.copyrightalliance.org/files/examination_of_section_108_--
_saylor.pdf
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Retrieved from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm
Tussey, D. S. (2001, January). From fan sites to filesharing: Personal use in cyberspace. Georgia
Law Review 35, pp. 1129-1193. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/
deborah_tussey/7/
UMG Recordings v. MP3, 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Retrieved from
http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Copyright/UMGvMP3.pdf
Confused Copyright
17

18. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
The Personal Use Debate and the Need for Library Involvement
An Annotated Bibliography
Rose Epp
Emporia State University
Anderson, E. (2007, December). Pimps and ferrets: Copyright and culture in the United States,
1831-1891 (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University). Retrieved from
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Anderson%20Eric.pdf?acc_num=bgsu1193529137
This is a doctoral dissertation written by Eric Anderson and submitted to the
Graduate College of Bowling Green University in partial fulfillment for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy. It concerns the culture of copyright in the United States from
1831-1891. He mostly discusses what people thought about copyright during that time
period and what it meant to them. He uses magazine and newspaper articles, letters, and
editorials as his sources to demonstrate that the general public often thought about
copyright in ways contrary to lawmakers. This paper mostly pertains to the area of
personal use in that it can shed light on how copyright might have been initially
constructed and what purpose it might have been meant to have. It is a very good
overview of this.
Brindley, D. (2009). Phoenixes in the internet era: the changing role of libraries. Paper
presented at the 2009 Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale (ALAI) Congress
in London, England. Retrieved from http://www.alai2009.org/programme.aspx
Dame Brindley is the Chief Executive at the British Library and this paper was
18

19. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
one of the keynote speeches at the 2009 ALAI Congress. He addresses key issues for
libraries in the Internet Age and how their basic functions are changing as a result of the
digitization of information. Of importance to the personal use and libraries subject, is the
section entitled “Access to digital content.” He discusses the relationship between
contract and copyright law and proposes that copyright law be allowed to override
individual contracts. This is not a very in-depth look but it is valuable for the statistics
provided concerning a study of the British Library on its electronic media contracts.
Cohen, J. E. (2005). The place of the user in copyright law. Fordham Law Review, 74, pp. 347-
374. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=814664
Julie Cohen is a Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She
asserts that the place of the user in copyright law is nonexistent. She demonstrates the
effects of this absence and proposes that a picture of the user be made, how he uses a
work and what his purposes are, in order to restore balance. She gives the three main
“theories of the user” and proposes a new one through which the purpose of copyright is
advanced. Section II of the paper is devoted to private copying and other sections
address other personal uses. It is an interesting read and a refreshingly different take on
copyright reform.
Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure (2000).
The digital dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age. Retrieved from The
National Academies Press website: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?
record_id=9601&page=R1
This is a government publication from the National Research Council by the
Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Emerging Information Infrastructure. It
19

20. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
covers a variety of topics, including music, public access, private use, and protecting
digital intellectual property. Of particular interest to those interested in personal use is
chapter four, “Individual Behavior, Private Use and Fair Use, and the System for
Copyright” (pp. 123-151). It gives equal credence to both the public and rights holders
and puts many things into perspective, especially concerning the advantages and
disadvantages of digital media. One big advantage of the book is that it can be read for
free online and can be searched with results displayed by chapter and then by occurrence.
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 108 (2009). Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/
title17/92chap1.pdf
This is specifically referencing Section 108 of U.S. copyright law. This section
deals explicitly with the exemptions for libraries and archives. It contains within it
exemptions for personal use copying of library materials. These documents direct from
the Copyright Office were easy to read and surprisingly easy to understand.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, 2887 (title IV amending
§108, §112, §114, chapter 7 and chapter 8, title 17, U.S.C.), enacted October 28, 1998.
This copyright act does concern personal use in a very large way, most notably
because it prohibits the sale of device meant to circumvent copying restrictions placed on
digital media. However, it does not closely concern personal use and libraries, so I
choose not to include it in my paper.
Doctorow, C. (2010, January 26). Copyright, companies, individuals and news: the rules of the
road. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/26/
copyright-cory-doctorow
According to his profile on The Guardian’s website, “Cory Doctorow is an
20

21. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
activist, science fiction author and co-editor of the blog Boing Boing.” His profile also
lists several articles that he has written that concern copyright. This short article
discusses how people do and should view copyright. He claims that most view it as a law
of absolutes when nothing could be farther from the truth. This is a good thought-
provoking article on what should be considered a personal use and what should not be.
Gasaway, L. N. (2010). Libraries and copyright at the dawn of the twentieth century: The 1909
Copyright Act. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 11(3). Retrieved from
http://www.ncjolt.org/sites/default/files/Gasaway_Laura_v11i3_419_460.pdf
Laura Gasaway is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs & Professor of Law
at the School of Law, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Obviously, her paper
mainly concerns the 1909 Copyright Act. It is very thorough in its discussion of this.
This source was important for this paper because it reported on the copying activities of
libraries and their users in times past (pp. 425-427 and section IV).
Geist, M. (2005, August 8). The failure of Canada’s private copying system [blog post]. Michael
Geist. Retrieved from http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=content&task=
view&id=924
According to his website, “Dr. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University
of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.”
This short article discusses the effect of the levy placed on recording media in Canada in
order to allow for personal copying of music. Since it concerns Canada, not the United
States, it only afforded a brief mention in my paper. It is valuable in that it effectively
demonstrates that the grass is not greener where there is civil law for personal use, as
some in this country are inclined to believe.
21

22. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
Grynberg, M. (2010). Property is a two-way street: Personal copyright use and implied
authorization. Fordham Law Review, 79(2). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=1729411
Michael Grynberg is an Associate Professor of Law at the Oklahoma City
University School of Law. He takes the stance that copyright is the intrusion of one
person’s intellectual property into the other’s physical property. He states that common
law property rights should be a baseline for copyright and that this can help the implied
license doctrine. He has a particular section on “the problem of personal use” and also
discusses user property rights and suggests implied authorization as a solution. This is a
very thorough article.
Hadro, J. (2011, February 25). HarperCollins puts 26 loan cap on Ebook circulations.
LibraryJournal.com. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/889452-
264/harpercollins_puts_26_loan_cap.html.csp
There is no mention as to who Josh Hadro is but, since this is primarily a news
article, that fact is not terribly important, especially since Library Journal is well-known
and quite reputable. This is an article written just after HaperCollins did the unthinkable
and put a check-out limit on its Ebooks. It is not much more than a news article but it
does provide a link to a follow-up article.
Hirtle, P. B., Hudson, E. & Kenyon, A. T. (2009). Copyright & cultural institutions: Guidelines
for digitization for U.S. libraries, archives, & museums. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Library. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1495365
This is a book primarily aimed at institutions that wish to digitize their collections. It
is a derivative work of a similar book written for institutions in Australia changed to
22

23. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
reflect U.S. law. This is a very good resource that explains copyright in easy to
understand language and flowcharts and heavily discusses the role of libraries and
archives in Copyright Law, along with best practices for those institutions. It does not
discuss personal use as it pertains to the individual but Section 108 (17 U.S.C.) is
discussed in great detail in Chapter 6.
Jordan, R. (2000). Permissions and copyright. Lutheran-Hymnal.com. Retrieved from
http://www.lutheran-hymnal.com/index.html
The Richard Jordan is a Reverend who posts midi files and other religious
musical paraphernalia on his website. He has no connection to the personal use debate.
His personal and rather strict views on copyright were just particularly interesting.
Kennedy, D. M. (2005, June 6). iPods and time-shifting: Fair use, personal use and the digital
copyright morass. Between Lawyers. Retrieved from http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/
archives/2005/06/06/ipods_and_timeshifting_fair_use_personal_use_and_the_digital_co
pyright_morass.php
According to his profile on Between Lawyers, Dennis Kennedy “is a computer
lawyer and legal technology expert based in St. Louis, Missouri.” His article takes a
logical and progressive approach on deciding which personal uses are permissible. It is
relatively short, but enlightening, and he raises some good questions, primarily
concerning music and converting from analog to digital.
Litman, J. (1994). The exclusive right to read. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal,
13(29). Retrieved from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/read.htm
Jessica Litman is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan. This article
takes the position that the rights of the user have been neglected when preparing the
23

24. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
“bargain” of copyright law between the user and industry. She advocates for the
Copyright Office to be the public’s copyright lawyer and for a copyright law to be
drafted that even school children can understand. She uses many, many sources and it is
an enjoyable read since it is written in a largely casual style.
Litman, J. (2007, June). Lawful personal use. Texas Kaw Review, 85. Retrieved from
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jdlitman/papers/LawfulPersonalUse.pdf
Also by Jessica Litman, this article uses so many sources and footnotes that they
probably take up more space than the article itself. In it, Litman discusses just what the
title says, “lawful personal use.” Her topics are: copyright as it relates to the enjoyment
of copyrighted works, court cases that are “stingy” with copyright holders’ rights, a
definition of personal use, personal uses that are noncontroversial, an analysis of
copyright owners’ rights, and a look at the idea that all nonlicensed uses are infringing
unless excused in the law. This article is a real wealth of information and one that I
referred to often.
Patry, W. (2006, November 30). Fair use and personal copying exemptions [Blog post]. The
Patry Copyright Blog. Retrieved from http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/11/fair-use-
and-personal-copying.html
William Patry is a copyright lawyer and this article is from his personal blog. It
is mainly a something of a rant about the Wal-Mart and Warner Brothers deal that
requires one to purchase separate copies of a movie for one’s computer and iPod but
there are some good thoughts contained within concerning personal use and civil law.
Patterson, L. R. & Lindberg, S. W. (1991). The nature of copyright: A law of users’ rights.
Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
24

25. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
Patterson and Lindberg, according to a review from Library Journal, are
professors at the University of Georgia. I did not look at the book in its entirety but only
at pages 193 to 196, in which they provide a good definition of “personal use.”
Recording Industry Association of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., F.3d (9th
Cir.
1999). Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054784.html
This case concerned whether an MP3 device was permissible under copyright
law. The court found that “space shifting,” like “time shifting” was legal.
Saylor, K. B. (2010, May 20). Limitations on copyright owners for libraries and archives: Points
of contention and agreement in an examination of Section 108. Copyright Alliance.
Retrieved from http://www.copyrightalliance.org/files/examination_of_section_108_--
_saylor.pdf
Kathleen Saylor served as an intern at the Copyright Alliance during the spring of
2010. She takes a different view than others who discuss the exemptions to libraries in
Section 108 and looks at the effects that the exemptions might cause on rights holders. It
is demonstrated that the main problem that rights holders have is the copying of digital
materials by libraries. This article is a good look at the other side of the issue.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Retrieved from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm
This case concerned a device marketed by Sony that would enable individuals to
tape TV programs and watch them later. It is important to personal use since it was
directly stated that “time shifting” was permissible under copyright law.
Tussey, D. S. (2001, January). From fan sites to filesharing: Personal use in cyberspace. Georgia
Law Review 35, pp. 1129-1193. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/
25

26. CONFUSED COPYRIGHT
deborah_tussey/7/
Deborah Tussey is a Professor of Law at Oklahoma City University School of
Law. Her topics are: “personal use under traditional regimes,” “the shortcomings of
traditional regimes in cyberspace,” “the rightholders’ solution: converging protections,”
“why personal use should be preserved,” and “defining a personal use privilege.” It does
not discuss libraries, but this is a good overall resource for individual personal use.
UMG Recordings v. MP3, 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Retrieved from
http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/program/law/08-732/Copyright/UMGvMP3.pdf
In this case, UMG Recordings brought suit against MP3.com for copying music
CDs onto its servers so that its users could listen to CDs they owned from any computer
in the world via the internet. The case itself does not particularly touch on personal use.
However, a statement in the court’s opinion does: “Copyright…is not designed to afford
consumer protection or convenience but, rather, to protect the copyrightholders’ property
interests” (p. 8).
26