4 ms·
The people who maintain the unofficial site would have, at some point, used their CTRL and C keys followed not immediately, but closely by, their CTRL and V key
by taspeotis 5y ago
The people who maintain the unofficial site would have, at some point, used their CTRL and C keys followed not immediately, but closely by, their CTRL and V keys.
- junon 5y agoBut that is copyright infringement. You're not allowed to copy some work, modify it, then slap the original copyright on it. This is an illegal website, prone to being taken down by AWS. It's just strange.
- Acestus 5y agoI would be worried because getting taken down is Amazon’s speciality.
- bsenftner 5y agoActually, having a satire site taken down over copyright is one of the best ways to extort large amounts of money from the copyright holder, because constitutional attorneys will seep from the floorboards and appear in your shower trying to be an attorney on that case. Satire is extremely protected speech.
- taspeotis 5y agoYes mate, Internet Police Officer Jeff Bezos has been dispatched and will take this illegal website down right away. (Using copyrighted material is permitted under fair use; this website is a parody. I’m not a lawyer but at some level preserving the copyright notice is probably better than claiming it as their own.)
- junon 5y agoThis website is not a parody, and fair use does NOT permit you to retain the original copyright notice on the derived work. You may say that the original work is copyright of the respective owners and that this is a parody work. But that's not what the site is doing. The footer contains the original, unaltered copyright, creating confusion as to who owns the derived work. Amazon does not own this, nor do they endorse it, so you're not allowed to say it's copyrighted by Amazon.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sparkling 5y agooh no :o
- isoprophlex 5y agoCan you imagine that some might see your position as one of unmitigated pedantry unfitting in any discussion of this - clearly jocular - website?
- junon 5y agoNope. Because these laws also protect people who make such websites from the corporations they're commenting on, too. The respect must be mutual, else e.g. OSS has no basis for legal protection, either. Being concerned for the proper respect of IP laws is something that benefits everyone.
- gilrain 5y agoYou make more friends defending humans from big companies than you do defending big companies from humans. Your argument would have a small amount of merit if you acknowledged that the laws DO NOT protect people like they do corporations. That is a hollow ideal, not reality.
- junon 5y agoI don't really see your point. My original comment was more pointing out that the operators, if not Amazon, could be seen as infringing their rights. They should update their legalese if they want to be truly protected. How is that defending Amazon? Regardless of your pointed comment, I'm operating in the land of legal objectivity. The law doesn't care about your feelings much.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- colejohnson66 5y agoFair use is not a right. It’s a defense. When you are sued for copyright infringement, you have to argue that you’re doing it in fair use. It’s not the “get out of jail free” card people think it is.
- yholio 5y ago> It’s a defense. That's warped view of the world. A corporation can always take you to court and harass the crap out of you, the court will side with your defense because you were right and claimant was wrong, you had the right to do what you did.
- bsenftner 5y agoSatire is the loophole of Copyright. If you satire ANYTHING you can use their copyrights in the satire. One could safely and legally drive an entire nation's transportation industry thru that loophole.
- junon 5y agoNo, fair use does NOT allow you to retain the original copyright. That would be passing off a derived work as the original copyright holder's work, which could be very damaging. This is a violation of fair use, if it could even be considered that to begin with.
- azernik 5y agoThat's more of a trademark issue, and would require a reasonable consumer to be likely to be deceived. Which they're not.
- junon 5y agoNo, it's not a trademark issue. They copied the work verbatim (including code, which is not covered by trademark law, but by copyright law), modified it, and then put the original copyright notice in the legalese. This is copyright infringement. And consumers are clearly deceived - hence why my original comment asking about it was written and has several upvotes.
- azernik 5y agoThe direct copyright is covered by the satire exceptions. If you want to argue that copying the legalese is different, it's going to be on those confusion grounds, which IIUC aren't a copyright concern.
- bsenftner 5y agoFair use in the case of satire is not retaining the original copyright, it is referencing the copyright. It is a legal split hair, but it stands in court.
- roenxi 5y agoAWS might be smart enough not to make that strategic blunder. They won't want to draw attention to the inaccuracies of their status page.
- junon 5y agoPerhaps, but the status page could exist within legal boundaries with a few trivial changes anyway. Why not just do that?
- chrisan 5y agoNo one cares, including Amazon. This webpage isn't profiting off them. There is no valuable IP here being stolen. Amazon has much bigger legal issues to focus on than some satire.
- junon 5y agoAmazon has taken down trivial things before. This is a dangerous assumption to make - "it's not important to them so I shouldn't worry about the law". Those are famous last words.
- throwaway2331 5y agoDrugs are illegal too, yet people do them all the time. Speeding? Basically a national past-time at this point. Misrepresentation, common fraud, and misappropriation? Par for the course in most small businesses. It's only a crime if someone gives enough of a shit to do something about it; otherwise, it's just life.