3 ms·

Maybe it fits under fair use as critique. It's a critique showing the bloatedness of the original article. And it's only using 0.6% (0.006) of the original to m

Maybe it fits under fair use as critique. It's a critique showing the bloatedness of the original article. And it's only using 0.6% (0.006) of the original to make its point.

crispyporkbites 7y ago
> it's only using 0.6% (0.006) of the original When you think about it this way it’s clearly fair use.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Usually copyright laws refer to a substantial part of a work, it maybe be 0.6% of the delivered web page, but it's 100% (presumably) of the article. The article counts separately as a work (and each image within an article could count as a separate work, there are conditions on that). But, in any case if all the textual context was copied that's still substantial. Interpreting things in a purely numerical way like that would be clearly ridiculous. Such gotchas don't work in law in general (in my very limited experience).
  - fnord123 7y ago
    Gotchas absolutely do work in this way in law. You just need to be willing to fight it in court.
nightcracker 7y ago
That's genius. I doubt a judge would accept this reasoning, but I love it.
- capableweb 7y ago
  Indeed, as intent matters a lot. If the page didn't show the full article but rather just a snippet and then said "This page could have been X while it's actually X", then the intent is just to show the size difference. But in this case, the intent is to show the full article without anything else, so most likely copyright infringement.
jerf 7y ago
"Critique" isn't just a vague "something could be construed as critique if you squint hard enough", there needs to be an actual human critiquing something. I see no human here, nor any critiquing text. This would be more like meta-critique, which has no protection I've ever heard of. Stretching the definition of "fair use" is a favorite internet past time. People have gotten pretty good at it. It isn't anywhere near as flexible as people seem to think, and I mean, like, by a couple orders of magnitude. This particular example isn't even close, honestly.
- fnord123 7y ago
  Yeah, I'm not a lawyer and don't understand 100% of 0.6% being an issue. Copyright holders get to eat their cake and keep it too. Journalists can record and publish phone calls verbatim (Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P. 742 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2014)). >Stretching the definition of "fair use" is a favorite internet past time. Absolutely! It's really enjoyabe.
  - jerf 7y ago
    It isn't really 100% of 0.6%... copyright isn't based on byte-count. You may or may not be able to get a straight answer about what it is based on out of the literature, but it's certainly much closer to the human experience rather than the raw byte count. In legal terms, it's basically 100% of 100% of the article being republished. (I'd say it's 100% of 100% if the header image had been included.) Nobody showed up to that page for the 4MB of other stuff, minus the aforementioned header image. Strengthening the case for infringement is that monetary damages are also being experienced, because what is mostly being stripped is the revenue generation portion of the performance of the work. Basically, if you take the four criteria for something being fair use [1] in the US, which isn't the end-all, be-all of analysis but is a darned good start, this absolutely faceplants on all four. (And while it is technically up to the discretion of the judge, I'd say it's closer to an "AND" than an "OR" on the 4 criteria. You really, really don't want to be standing in front of a judge solid on only one out of four. This is to preclude the usual arguing about #1; even if I grant it, which I don't, it really isn't enough on its own.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Maybe it fits under fair use as critique. It's a critique showing the bloatedness of the original article. And it's only using 0.6% (0.006) of the original to make its point.

crispyporkbites 7y ago

> it's only using 0.6% (0.006) of the original When you think about it this way it’s clearly fair use.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Usually copyright laws refer to a substantial part of a work, it maybe be 0.6% of the delivered web page, but it's 100% (presumably) of the article. The article counts separately as a work (and each image within an article could count as a separate work, there are conditions on that). But, in any case if all the textual context was copied that's still substantial. Interpreting things in a purely numerical way like that would be clearly ridiculous. Such gotchas don't work in law in general (in my very limited experience).
- fnord123 7y ago
  Gotchas absolutely do work in this way in law. You just need to be willing to fight it in court.

nightcracker 7y ago

That's genius. I doubt a judge would accept this reasoning, but I love it.

capableweb 7y ago
Indeed, as intent matters a lot. If the page didn't show the full article but rather just a snippet and then said "This page could have been X while it's actually X", then the intent is just to show the size difference. But in this case, the intent is to show the full article without anything else, so most likely copyright infringement.

jerf 7y ago

"Critique" isn't just a vague "something could be construed as critique if you squint hard enough", there needs to be an actual human critiquing something. I see no human here, nor any critiquing text. This would be more like meta-critique, which has no protection I've ever heard of. Stretching the definition of "fair use" is a favorite internet past time. People have gotten pretty good at it. It isn't anywhere near as flexible as people seem to think, and I mean, like, by a couple orders of magnitude. This particular example isn't even close, honestly.

fnord123 7y ago
Yeah, I'm not a lawyer and don't understand 100% of 0.6% being an issue. Copyright holders get to eat their cake and keep it too. Journalists can record and publish phone calls verbatim (Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P. 742 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2014)). >Stretching the definition of "fair use" is a favorite internet past time. Absolutely! It's really enjoyabe.
- jerf 7y ago
  It isn't really 100% of 0.6%... copyright isn't based on byte-count. You may or may not be able to get a straight answer about what it is based on out of the literature, but it's certainly much closer to the human experience rather than the raw byte count. In legal terms, it's basically 100% of 100% of the article being republished. (I'd say it's 100% of 100% if the header image had been included.) Nobody showed up to that page for the 4MB of other stuff, minus the aforementioned header image. Strengthening the case for infringement is that monetary damages are also being experienced, because what is mostly being stripped is the revenue generation portion of the performance of the work. Basically, if you take the four criteria for something being fair use [1] in the US, which isn't the end-all, be-all of analysis but is a darned good start, this absolutely faceplants on all four. (And while it is technically up to the discretion of the judge, I'd say it's closer to an "AND" than an "OR" on the 4 criteria. You really, really don't want to be standing in front of a judge solid on only one out of four. This is to preclude the usual arguing about #1; even if I grant it, which I don't, it really isn't enough on its own.) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use