2 ms·
That is a pure straw man retort. I was clearly using US (not European) jurisdiction. Also I didn’t parse that statement, merely showed that both topics were in
by eternalban 4y ago
That is a pure straw man retort.
I was clearly using US (not European) jurisdiction. Also I didn’t parse that statement, merely showed that both topics were in development and discussion in tandem, in US. Finally, the existence of special provisions for libraries, etc. All of which shows that the two have somehow coexisted, and that quote of yours is hyperbole.
- horsawlarway 4y agoThe US law is almost entirely based on the same set of laws that originated in 1710 with the Statute of Anne (down to literally the same 14 period). The scope has been modified and changed (mostly in favor of extending the rights of copyright holders, and the duration of the copyright). The two aren't co-existing. Modern copyright law doesn't actually say jack shit about libraries except for a minor footnote that allows libraries limited ability to "preserve" works that are no longer available for sale, even if they are within their period of copyright. Libraries operate almost entirely under the doctrine of first sale... which is also under attack in the US right now. --- Have a good one, I don't think you have enough context on the subject to be worth discussing it with further.