4 ms·

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 pub

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
- fnord123 7y ago
  It doesn't face plant on all four (there are no ads in the distillation so it's informational, original work is reporting of speculated facts, it is 0.6% of the whole, and as news orgs are losing money, this lost less money for NG Media than had I visited the original with my ad blocker). There is a strong case for all four. But it seems closeish to Folsom v Marsh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_v._Marsh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_v._Marsh Anyway, courts have seen more outlandish claims - and gone with them (Oracle v Google), so whatever.

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

fnord123 7y ago
It doesn't face plant on all four (there are no ads in the distillation so it's informational, original work is reporting of speculated facts, it is 0.6% of the whole, and as news orgs are losing money, this lost less money for NG Media than had I visited the original with my ad blocker). There is a strong case for all four. But it seems closeish to Folsom v Marsh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_v._Marsh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_v._Marsh Anyway, courts have seen more outlandish claims - and gone with them (Oracle v Google), so whatever.