You can. You just can't enter that duplicate into commerce. This applies specifically to IP stuff like computer software, but not material stuff like patented items. For example, under 35 USC 271, "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." (bolding mine) There's no "fair use" when it comes to patent infringement.

That means you can't make your own zig-zag girl, even if it's just for personal use, provided the zig-zag is patented and you didn't pay for the rights or buy one.

I'd like to interject that all of these things are legal solutions to real world problems. They may not be morally correct, but only pragmatic. For example, if you have a patent on the zig-zag girl, and I read it and get an idea for an improvement, I'm not beholden to you at all. I owe you nothing if my invention is different enough, even though it is derivative and it was your original work that inspired me. Morally, I may be on the hook and owe you something. Legally, I am not.

I would argue they aren't even remotely pragmatically correct either.

This is pretty much as correct as it gets. Unfortunately, for the authors, there are no laws protecting information you have learned from their books. A magic book has no more protection than a novel. You can buy a novel, read it, and tell the story all you want. However, only one person can possess or own a book at once. It's not a simple thing to understand, and I for one don't understand how it all works!

As we already discussed here, it seems to be mostly accepted to make archival copies as long as you destroy or transfer the copies with the book if you transfer ownership. However, if you have made the archival copy for yourself in case you loose or destroy the original, you must also destroy the copy when that happens. I remember there was some discussion about people making copies of moves and the argument was usually that people wanted to make the copy for regular use and retain the original as a master in case the DVD or VHS tape gets damaged. Not only is that legal, it's smart. This is the same sort of license you get now with movies when they come with a copy for portable devices.

Another thing that always confused me was libraries. Libraries are basically distributing the information to everyone who "borrows" the book. I have read many magic books in a library, does anyone think I shouldn't be allowed to use what I learned there? I doubt it.

To wrap it all up, fair use laws would tell you that information cannot be taken out of your head. If you have learned it, you may use it how you wish. As long as your not selling or reproducing the material, you should be legal. None of this can be confused with effect secrets. Published effect secrets are yours once you learn them, legally speaking. My opinion differs from the law as far as how I feel about selling someone else's magic secrets. It is legal, but I won't do it because of my personal moral standards.

This is the kind of point that gets me confused, or maybe I'm just overthinking. So if you have an original and an archival copy and damage/lose/destroy the original, you must also destroy the copy. But, if you damage/lose/destroy the archival copy you can keep the original. It makes sense but still doesn't seem even somehow.

Well, it's not really "legal" to make the copy of the book at all. It is just something that is socially acceptable, I suppose. To the best of my knowledge, it is legal to copy digital media like DVDs and CDs, but it's really not legal with printed material. I say socially acceptable, because most people seem to think its okay. But the concept of destroying the copy is from the digital media. If you buy a CD and import it into iTunes, you have not infringed on the copyright because you own the original CD. But the license is not transferred with the copy on the computer. But if you lose the original CD, you would have to delete the files on your computer. While not really legal to copy the book, I don't have a personal problem with it. But if you lose the book, the copy doesn't seem legit to me any more.

We got wrapped up with the lingo "intellectual property", but books and music are protected by copyright law. Copyright protects the written word of the book, but not what you learn from it, that's a simpler way to explain why it's okay to continue to perform what you learned even after you no linger own the book.

There's an interesting legal twist on "contents of someone's mind" that's been recently argued in court. Suppose there's some evidence that you've been downloading magic DVDs illegally. The cops get a warrant and seize your computer. When they search it for incriminating evidence, they find the hard drive is encrypted. The question before the court is whether they can compel you to give them the password or not.

On the one hand, they have everything the warrant demanded. There is no compulsion for you to incriminate yourself and they can do what they like with the evidence. On the other hand, without the password they have nothing of use. The password is part of the "contents of your mind" and it's in doubt whether or not compelling you to release it constitutes an invasion of privacy or a necessary consequence of the digital age or something else.

Personally, I'd like to magic move down the path that music has. Sheet music is different than performance rights and so on. But we don't yet have a way to easily compare my ambitious card to yours or that other guy's. Not quite like matching melodies. For now, I suppose we'll have to put up with props being patented (some protection) and the uniqueness of one performer over another -- the value being in the person, David Copperfield, and not in the tricks. This, I suppose, would mirror how classical music is treated instead of pop music.

" the value being in the person, David Copperfield, and not in the tricks."

Few have recognised this as the important factor, not just as a solution to "theft" of ip, but for becoming a better performer.

I'm not sure if this fits here or not, but recently I've been wondering how, if at all, rights are going to be applied to things like streaming digital media, or ebooks, especially the part about destroying ALL backup copies.

Let's say I have a computer system which is backed up daily, but then the weekly, monthly, yearly backups are actually moved somewhere offsite for safekeeping.

I purchase an ebook, which goes on my computer.

Several years later, I want to sell the ebook.

Would I really be expected to track down each backup, go through it, and destroy the copy of that ebook which exists on that backup archive?

I just can't imagine anyone doing that.

Will archival companies be required to come up with the means to be able to do that?

Intellectual property doesn't really work in the digital age. Look at youtube. They promised that they would take down information that violated copyright. And they did, for a time. But then youtube got too big, and there's no way they can take down and investigate every infringing thing off their site. It's just too darned big. In order to take down copyrighted works, you have to hire people to scan the internet for them, that takes money, and with intellectual property diminishing in value on a daily basis, that simply doesn't make any sense.

If you like some old, long out of date thing like The Magician, starring Bill Bixby, you can go watch it on youtube. You can watch the WHOLE SERIES on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEnGkQS1lb8

In fact, you can watch the whole series there. Is that copyright infringement? Yes. Does youtube know about it? Yes. Does NBC know about it, and HUNDREDS of other shows youtube has up there? Yes. Could they complain and have it taken down? Yes.

But it just isn't worth their time. It isn't even worth a phone call or an email. No one is buying this series, and NBC doesn't stand to lose any money by Youtube violating the copyright. As for NBC's current stuff, you will notice it is well protected from youtube.
What about something that NBC currently sells, like 30 rock? Well, that's not going to be up on youtube. At least not in full form. A few clips will slip thru, but NBC's not going to go after a few clips. That's an advertisement for the show.

And look what's happened to people who usually enforce copyright? Newspapers, Television Networks, Music Companies, Publishers. What's happening to them right now? They're virtually going bankrupt. No one needs these giant companies anymore. People can transmit information directly over the internet. They don't need an entertainment company to produce entertainment, to distribute written works, to distribute information of any kind. Why buy a newspaper when you can check the news on the internet for free? Why buy a book on plumbing when you can learn what you need from the internet for free?

Being free is very stiff competition, particularly when the information on the internet is good quality and people contribute for it for free. Which of you right now is willing to go out and buy a set of encyclopedias for $2000? We aren't going to do that anymore. We have wikipedia.

It's a paradigm shift: information is free, if you want to make money off it, you sell advertising off your site. Look at the magic Café itself, it runs by the same model: free information, and sell advertising. The Café was way ahead of it's time. That's how everything is going to be pretty soon.

>Well, it's not really "legal" to make the copy of the book at all. It is just something that is socially acceptable, I suppose. To the best of my >knowledge, it is legal to copy digital media like DVDs and CDs, but it's really not legal with printed material. I say socially acceptable, >?>because most people seem to think its okay. But the concept of destroying the copy is from the digital media. If you buy a CD and import it into >iTunes, you have not infringed on the copyright because you own the original CD. But the license is not transferred with the copy on the computer. >But if you lose the original CD, you would have to delete the files on your computer. While not really legal to copy the book, I don't have a >personal problem with it. But if you lose the book, the copy doesn't seem legit to me any more.

It's perfectly legit. You are allowed to make backup copies according to copyright law. As long as the purpose of the backup is use only by you the user, there is nothing wrong with having a copy for your car, a copy for your home, and a copy in your safe in case of flooding. All perfectly acceptable. What you cannot do is copy something and sell it to another party or give it away for free. And yes, you can make backup copies of a book with a photocopy machine if it's for your own personal use. I can photocopy every one of my magic books and put it in a safe. As long as in my will both the copies and the original go to the same person, there's no problem.

There's a lot of misinformation about the above ^ by many entertainment companies. They want to make you think that any copies are illegal. It's an easier message to get across to consumers, so they claim that all copying of copyrighted works is illegal, but that's not true.

"As long as in my will both the copies and the original go to the same person, there's no problem."

That doesn't seem to be true with digital media depending on where you got it. Amazon / Google play / iTunes all have user agreements which bascially say that you are purchasing the rights to listen to the music on a number of devices which you own, but that you don't own whatever it is you purchased.

So, for example, if you purchased a lot of albums off iTunes, you would not be able to leave your iTunes account to someone. You could leave your device, with the albums on them, but if they then wanted to transfer the albums to their own device, it would be an issue.

Of course their user agreements say that.

And Nintendo also claims that owning a copy of a Rom for a game you own is illegal and they will prosecute you.

Whether that will stand up in a court of law is another question. It's in the interest of corporations to give you bad legal advice. And user agreements say all sorts of crazy stuff. What the law is and what user agreements tell you is entirely a different question. Laws supercede contracts.

I'm not aware of anyone EVER having been prosecuted for having a copy for personal use or archival use. People are prosecuted for distribution.

If you no longer have the book or other media source, you are required to go to Anchorhead and have your memory erased.