I agree that there should not be a difference, but "should" and "would" are, sadly, often different. Thank you for providing points to buttress my argument on a state list, where name collectors have said they have no patience with people unwilling to share (i.e., give away) their hard work. Their rationale is often that they can't get the book. Alexandra On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:38:58 -5.00 "Paula Wiegand" <[email protected]> writes: > > It seems to me that there would be a legal difference between an > in-print > > book that's still under copyright and an out-of-print book that's > still > > under copyright. > > It doesn't and there is no real reason why it should. Who are we to > judge if and when a copyright holder will reprint his/her work? The > > copyright holder's rights are in no way diminished by their work > being (currently) out of print, although the damages awarded would > be > smaller if they could not show that a reprint was > likely/warranted/planned etc. > > > Is a person expected to hunt all over through interlibrary loan? > > Yes. But you might want to try an out-of-print bookseller, or > contact the publisher to see if they will sell you the right to make > > one copy. > > Paula > [email protected] > > > ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb - > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html > > ============================== > Personalized Mailing Lists: never miss a connection again. > http://pml.rootsweb.com/ > Brought to you by RootsWeb.com. >