3 ms·
It's not, I disagree with GP's argument. Safe harbors in copyright law exist to allow this.
by moralestapia 4y ago
It's not, I disagree with GP's argument. Safe harbors in copyright law exist to allow this.
- isthispermanent 4y agoIt's quite likely a fair use violation... 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 3. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Particularly 3 & 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
- worldsavior 4y agoTho now I think about it more, it might be damaging the site money of income (ads, etc). But it's still not a copyright violation.
- isthispermanent 4y ago"it might be damaging the site money of income" Which is one of the key factors of determining Fair Use and Fair Use falls under copyright.
- moralestapia 4y agoIt could also be bringing new money to those sites by referring users to them. So, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The issue with Google had more to do with antitrust behavior than with copyright infringement.
- shawnz 4y agoI might be bringing new money to movie publishers by pirating their movies and sending clips to my friends, but that's not a valid basis for calling it fair use
- gnopgnip 4y agoSafe harbor covers hosts of user uploaded content. The copyright owner can pursue the infringer, they are not protected by safe harbor.