body: In the following, all parties live and all actions are taken entirely within the United States.
  
  
  
  > 
  > Let us say that a person (Bob) has purchased a book from the book
  >  store. Bob likes the book enough to give one or more copies to
  >  friends. Bob does not want to part with his own copy, and Bob does not
  >  want to pay more than he already has, so Bob photocopies the book and
  >  gives the copy to Sue.
  > 
  > 
  > Sue knows that the copy she is receiving is a copied book that Bob made for her and that
  >  copying an entire book is a copyright violation in the United States.
  >  Still, Sue accepts the book, reads it, and enjoys it enough that she
  >  passes it along to Alice.
  > 
  > 
  > Alice knows that the copy she is receiving is a copied book and that
  >  copying an entire book is a copyright violation in the United States, though she is not aware of its origins.
  >  Still, Alice accepts the book, reads it, and enjoys it.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  In doing my research, I can easily see that Bob has violated the copyright. In trying to figure out whether Sue or Alice are also in violation, all the material I am finding is focusing entirely on the act of reproducing the work or of giving it away. I am having difficulty finding anything about receiving such a copied work.
  
  
  I understand that Sue and Alice could possibly be held accountable for being complicit if they requested the book, especially if Bob copied the book as a direct consequence of such a request. For the purposes of this question, I would like to ignore the "complicit in Bob's copying" aspect of this situation.
  
  
  **Is accepting the book a violation of anything (except being complicit, as mentioned above)? Especially, does is it a violation of copyright?** Does the answer change at all between Sue and Alice since Alice can see the book is copied, knows Sue herself did not copy it, but knows nothing of its origins?
  
  
  Since the receivers of copies are rarely targeted by the copyright holders (or publishers) and generally the illegal distributors are targeted instead, I realize that this may not have been pressed in court, and maybe never will be. If that is the case, "There is no precedent." could be an acceptable answer, and it would explain why I cannot find an answer. However, I expect that there are at least some cases where a precedent of some sort was set and that they are merely being drowned out by all the other information.
  
  
  
title: Is it unlawful to receive a photocopied book?