4 ms·
Tough to argue with that, all I can say is that your usage of the word "private" does not agree with either the dictionary definition or common usage.
by burkaman 4y ago
Tough to argue with that, all I can say is that your usage of the word "private" does not agree with either the dictionary definition or common usage.
- googlryas 4y agoLook up the term with relation to copyright law. See also: personal use, fair use. e.g. (pdf) https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1019&context=computersci_fac https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?r...
- burkaman 4y agoThat link does not define the term, and I haven't been able to find a legal definition of "private use". The paper seems to be using the normal definition, though. > It sounds controversial that a defense of private use exists at all; after all, one usually buys a book for her private use. This use may mean that one can make photocopies of a legally possessed book, in order to read it, for example, not only in the office, but also at home. One may also loan the book to a friend. I would be pretty surprised to find a legal definition that says if you put something online just for fun it doesn't count as copyright infringement. I don't know why we're talking about this though, I'm not a big fan of copyright but that's not what this is about. It's not "you put my drawing on Reddit without my permission", it's "you publicly released a tool on Reddit that allows anyone to effortlessly create infinite variations of my work in my name, please don't do that". I don't care whether or not it's legal, I think it's immoral to create a tool that could not exist without ingesting someone's life's work and then ignore them when they ask you not to do that.