5 ms·

Yes mate, Internet Police Officer Jeff Bezos has been dispatched and will take this illegal website down right away. (Using copyrighted material is permitted u

Yes 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 ago
This 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 ago
  oh no :o
- isoprophlex 5y ago
  Can you imagine that some might see your position as one of unmitigated pedantry unfitting in any discussion of this - clearly jocular - website?
  - junon 5y ago
    Nope. 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        I 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.
        gilrain 5y ago
        Your argument is that IP law should be equally observed by everyone because it protects individuals and corporations alike: > Nope. Because these laws also protect people who make such websites from the corporations they're commenting on, too. My response is that your assumption is very obviously wrong: the law does not protect individuals and corporations alike. That’s all.
        junon 5y ago
        > Your argument is that IP law should be equally observed by everyone because it protects individuals and corporations alike That is a weird understanding of what I said, and I don't really think you're arguing in good faith here. There's a lot of bias so I am choosing to not further this conversation.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Let them sue. I see the headline now, "Amazon sues status page website for accurately reporting on outages". Followed by lots of people hosting mirrors to stop.lying.cloud and saying things like "We are all stop.lying.cloud now"
  - junon 5y ago
    This has nothing to do with the validity of the case, though. Just because it's a ridiculous court case doesn't mean it's not legally sound...
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      I have a legally sound case to divorce my wife (anyone does, you can divorce for no reason), however she need not worry as that would be colossally stupid on my part. The same goes here.
      - junon 5y ago
        This is a reductio ad absurdum comparison.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
colejohnson66 5y ago
Fair 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.

junon 5y ago

This 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 ago
oh no :o
isoprophlex 5y ago
Can you imagine that some might see your position as one of unmitigated pedantry unfitting in any discussion of this - clearly jocular - website?
- junon 5y ago
  Nope. 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      I 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.
      - gilrain 5y ago
        Your argument is that IP law should be equally observed by everyone because it protects individuals and corporations alike: > Nope. Because these laws also protect people who make such websites from the corporations they're commenting on, too. My response is that your assumption is very obviously wrong: the law does not protect individuals and corporations alike. That’s all.
        junon 5y ago
        > Your argument is that IP law should be equally observed by everyone because it protects individuals and corporations alike That is a weird understanding of what I said, and I don't really think you're arguing in good faith here. There's a lot of bias so I am choosing to not further this conversation.
willcipriano 5y ago
Let them sue. I see the headline now, "Amazon sues status page website for accurately reporting on outages". Followed by lots of people hosting mirrors to stop.lying.cloud and saying things like "We are all stop.lying.cloud now"
- junon 5y ago
  This has nothing to do with the validity of the case, though. Just because it's a ridiculous court case doesn't mean it's not legally sound...
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    I have a legally sound case to divorce my wife (anyone does, you can divorce for no reason), however she need not worry as that would be colossally stupid on my part. The same goes here.
    - junon 5y ago
      This is a reductio ad absurdum comparison.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

colejohnson66 5y ago

Fair 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.