>quoting from the document as part of a review).  Also, public libraries
>are not really subject to all of the laws, either, and this is why they have
>copy machines and let you copy articles from magazines, portions of books,
etc.

Items in a library are just as protected as any other.  Libraries let you
copy because they aren't in charge of enforcement.  That doesn't mean it's
legal, just that the librarian doesn't have to act like a cop.  (Our
college librarian just returned from a seminar on this.)

>there for walking the fine-line.  Maybe ten years ago, a landmark and 
>controversial Supreme Court ruling was made in the so-called "Betamax" case
>where Sony had been sued for making (and encouraging) the recording of
>television programs for later veiwing.  This is called "time-shifting"
>among VCR users.  Sony won, and recording fully-copyrighted material so
>that you can watch it later *is* legal.  

Keep in mind that the court was pretty specific on this.  If you record
something off the air and watch it later -- time shifting -- that's OK, but
if you watch it twice you are in violation of the copyright.

>I, too, am not a lawyer -- I write software, and copyrights are really gray
>areas for software (patents are even worse!) so I have studied them.  I
>think Derek would get nailed if he tried to copy and offer distribution of
>the book.  But I think if an individual asked the owner of a copy to copy
>the book, and offered to pay the copying expenses, that this would be on the
>other side of the line -- and only because the book is unavailable.

I also am not a lawyer, but I also write software (and books, and magazine
articles, and games).  I think you are wrong about this.  Just because a
book is temporarily out of print doesn't allow open season.  The copyright
laws don't care if you make a profit or not.  For example, copying $500
worth of software in a six month period is a federal felony -- doesn't
matter whether you sell it or give it away.

>modifications of VW's for robustness, even if you only used a single
research 
>source, such as the book in question is not a copyright violation, just so
>long as it is your work, not a copy.

This is getting into a grey area.  There is an old adage.  Copying from one
source is plagerism.  Copying from several sources is research.

Be careful with this one.  VW has more money to pursue this than most
people on this list.  You might win, but winning might cost you a VERY
LARGE amount of money.