Supposing you borrow the book from someone or a library. Copyright laws are against unauthorized copying of books but supposing you have the time and the equipment would you go ahead and photocopy the book anyway? I would if the book was expensive and I had no need for it once it had served its purpose.
Nope. Considering that you can buy used books on Amazon as low as $4, I can't justify wasting a ream of copy paper to copy a book. I especially wouldn't if it was my home copier which uses $30 ink cartridges.
Copy the whole book? Of course not. Besides, if I'm renting it from the library then I already have access to read the whole thing for free anyway, so why do I need to copy the whole thing? That being said, back when I did rent from the library, it was perfectly fine for us to copy pages from the books there. There were no rules against it and it was a-okay to copy a few pages if you need to save some of the content (just not the whole book). For example, copying a recipe wasn't a big deal. Copying a few pages to continue writing an essay was fine, too.
I have copied books before, only because they were very rare, and I couldn't get a hold of them in any other way. I neatly bound them in an old-fashioned way and created a cover for them. They are some of my most treasured books on my shelf.
If I needed some pages for an assignment then yes I would. If I wanted or needed the entire book it would be cheaper to get a used copy. If I had a stubborn professor ask us to get a really expensive text book just so we can use it 1 time and then it would never be useful again, what I would do find a copy online. It's technically the same as a photocopy in terms of being illegal but it's free and wastes no paper.
The book you probably copied was in the public domain anyway...in fact any book published before 1923 is. But, be careful if you ever photocopy without permission, copyright law in the US and UK are strongest, but it is also pretty harsh all around the world, and generally doesn't need a lot of evidence to decide in favor of the copyright holder.
I used to do this in school when it was a lot more difficult to find copies of certain books and also if I only needed specific chapters, but if I needed the whole book then I'd usually just buy one since having it copied takes some effort and time in needing to arrange and double check the contents anyway. Plus, a book is way easier to carry around and read for me, but it agree that it's a great way to save some money in certain occasions.
The only books I photocopied were study manuals back in my university days. These days I can either buy books used or wait until I find good deals online and get them shipped for free to my doorstep. While photocopying is a good way to save on books there's too much hassle involved when you consider the fact that you can buy them cheap from all over the place. Not to mention that a photocopied book has almost no esthetic value, and I love to watch my books sitting on the shelves
No, photocopying whole books or certain pages is now a thing of the past in my opinion. Now that we are in the digital age, it's now easy to find a 2nd hand version or a digital version of a book online, and it saves you from having to own an unsightly "paperbook".
Copyright law allows you to photocopy reasonable amounts for studying and personal use. I have scanned a few chapters I needed for a class as there were only three copies in the library. First it was cheaper (free) and it was easier to store. I only needed to read them for a discussion in class and then didn't need them again. Most e-books are cheaper than the cost of photocopying these days with ink being so expensive. So there are better options than photocopying now. With public domain books, you can download them for free on several sites.
Nah, photocopy the whole book? That's just too much work. There are so many ways to find book in a much cheaper price nowadays. Why go through the whole photocopying process and spend money for the whole ream of papers and then paying for the photo copy machine plus all the work that you need to do to complete the whole thing when you can just easily look it up online, maybe download a pdf copy or buy it on amazon on a much more lesser price.
These days with the price of books falling to low level photocopying should be unnecessary and please consider that each time you use paper some tree in some Forrest somewhere had to be cut down to make it. SO the less photocopying you do the better it is all round. I buy all my books both as new or used.
No, that would definitely be a waste of paper as well as illegal. Just check the book out from the library or buy it cheaply online until you have used it for its needed purpose. If you buy it you can often resell it online as well. It seems like a complete waste of time as well, photocopying a book would take a long time.
I prefer to buy used books rather than to photocopy them. It is always easier and much cheaper to afford used books. Also, I find it really boring to read photocopy books as they are too dull. The books are more colorful and more interesting to read. I find the cost of buying a photocopied books to be same as that of buying used books. Hence, I usually prefer the second-hand books. Also, there is an option of selling the books after using them, which can never be done with photocopied books.
No I wouldn't! What would be the point when you can buy so many cheap ebooks or audio books online nowadays! I don't think its against the law if you are using it for study purposes but why would you want to? It would take ages and then be horrible and dull to read. Why not just go to the library and rent the book.
I used to like photocopying textbooks back in college. They were much cheaper. Me and my classmates had complete disregard for copyrights back then. We were always short on funds so we had to improvise and make use of what we had. I would usually photocopy entire textbooks and just have them soft bound. The cost would be 1/3 of the original textbook. I never tried photocopying novels though. For my reading fix, I would always go to a book sale and search for cheap best sellers there. Reading a photocopied novel is not satisfying IMO.
I would have to say it just depends on how expensive it is and how important it is. I have copied college books that some of my classmates had that were really expensive. I mean like 500.00 is what it cost and I can tell you it was worth every piece of paper I used. It may not have been right cause at the moment you dont think about copyright. It just depends to me on what i need it for me.
No, the cost of ink and paper would be enough to stop me from copying a complete book and the law is the other reason I would not copy a book. I try to find copies of books or find one at the library, ebay or amazon to avoid purchasing the book brand new.
I would, or should I say, I did. When I was in college, my parents didn't really have a lot of money to spare for all those expensive books. So, whenever there's a chance, I would borrow a book from my classmate who is more affluent, and I photocopy it.
Definitely not. I would make a strong effort to find a digital copy of the book before I went through the waste and exercise of photocopying the book. Especially considering the cost of a digital copy is often far less than the hard copy, it just makes sense. There are great groups around for sharing and lending digital copies of books too, and many libraries are embracing digitized media and will even "lend out" their digital copies.
