How does file sharing differ from making photocopies?

Question

...of books owned by others, such as libraries, friends, etc (for personal use)? The owners already paid the artists for their job, so you're not stealing anything if you make copies of something that has been duly acquired and is now owned by another individual or corporation that lets you. Most car models are also patented, but no one would arrest you for taking a picture of a trafficked road.

As photocopying a book is not the same as binding a book similar to the original!

And if I were to build a car that mimics a model I like, I couldn't be charged unless I tried to sell it!

What about committing a book or a song to memory? If someone could do it completely and faithfully, would it be a violation? They could always retrieve it whenever they wanted and enjoy it. I really don't understand why these arbitrary limits between whats allowed and what's not exist.

Answer 1

Both are generally considered copyright violations. A copyright is the exclusive right to make copies of a work. And that applies whether electronically duplicating the work, or photocopying pages, or writing it out by hand.

And you are confusing patents and copyrights, which have nothing to do with one another. A patent protects how the car is made. It doesn't prevent someone from taking a picture of the car. Just like you have exclusive rights to who can enter your house (real property you own). But that doesn't stop people from writing down your address. Patent and copyrights are very different.

Answer 2

The music industry has a stronger lobby than the book printing lobby.

I would not photocopy an entire book. The music industry was afraid of losing sales to the Internet and cracked down on Napster and others.

Answer 3

Most books are also copyrighted so making copies without permission is also illegal. Taking a photo of a car is not the same as building another car that looks like that one.