I'm not sure this is correct. I believe courts have ruled that you can make copies for personal/backup reasons, but someone with more knowledge would have to back me up here.

> I'm not sure this is correct.

Unless you read, and then promptly burn, the copy, yes, it's correct. The point is that the printed copy might be passed on, at which point it's a clear violation of copyright.

> I believe courts have ruled that you can make copies for personal/backup reasons ...

These rulings apply to computer media, not printed works.

You don't even need to get into complex "I haven't bought the right to print it" legal pseudo contracts. Copyright law says you cannot make a derived work without the copyright holders permission. It's not contract law or licencing law you'd be breaking, it's copyright law.

I blame EULAs for making people think this is all about contract and not copyright law.

Where's your citation for this or is it just pure speculation ?

Consider what happens to the copy unless the copier promptly burns it. Yes, that's right, it will be passed on to a new reader. No citation needed -- that's a violation.

Nonsense - that's like saying you aren't allowed to buy a kitchen knife because you might stab someone with it.

Ah, so, in your world view, it's all right to make copies of, and pass on, copyrighted works. Welcome to reality.

Actually you suggested that copied works would be redistributed - I was addressing the parent comment which covered the notion of printing a PDF to personally consume it in paper form.

If that action is unlawful I'd wager that 99% of offices around the world would be in breach.

Fair use?

Fair use only applies to relatively short quotations as part of a review, literary criticism or parody. It doesn't apply to a complete copy.

That interpretation of fair use is too narrow - there is precedent for for copying whole works, it is the context in which they are used which determines infringement.

A fair use defence of printing a copy of a PDF for personal consumption would probably hold up fine, in the same way that the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use.

> there is precedent for for copying whole works ...

Yes, true, but that is not what is called "fair use".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

"Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test."

> A fair use defence of printing a copy of a PDF for personal consumption would probably hold up fine, in the same way that the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal in some circumstances to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use.

Again, yes, but you're describing another appropriate exception, not "fair use".

You can't distribute it, but you certainly can print pages for yourself from an ebook. You can't distribute that, but if you bought it then you can back it up. The same with most software and music. You can't distribute, but you can create copies to prevent your own loss. A printed copy prevents against loss in the case of loss of any digital playback device.