4 ms·

The post you responded to doesn't agree with your definition of what copyright is for. The post claims that its about allowing the author to profit from it. Me

The post you responded to doesn't agree with your definition of what copyright is for. The post claims that its about allowing the author to profit from it. Mere reproduction doesn't stop them, till you try to sell at some scale. It's the equivalent of asking your friend to draw you something. Now, you're free to disagree. But if you're just stating a different definition, you're not engaging in a rebuttal, just an ignor-al.

monocasa 3y ago
I'm correcting them by stating the legal definition rather than the definition they made up. Copyright is ownership of the right to make copies of a work. Asking your friend to reproduce a copywritten work is also copyright infringement.
- kamikaz1k 3y ago
  alright The world moves on though, I guess.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    I mean, there's a couple centuries of case law, explicit US code, and international treaties codifying what I said. It's not exactly something the world will move on from without explicit legislation and statecraft.
- Tadpole9181 3y ago
  Your definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a kid draws Pikachu? That's why copyright law is very vague and relies on context-specific judgements of severity of infringement on multiple categories.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    > Your definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. ...it's an entirely legal term. It has no definition outside of its legal one if you're trying to figure out how litigation would work. > The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a kid draws Pikachu? That's why copyright law is very vague and relies on context-specific judgements of severity of infringement on multiple categories. There's a different argument made in that case if it hits the courts than the original poster's argument: de minimis. Basically that the claimed damage is too trivial to waste the court's time. It's not clear that automation at just about any scale will allow for a de minimis defense.

monocasa 3y ago

I'm correcting them by stating the legal definition rather than the definition they made up. Copyright is ownership of the right to make copies of a work. Asking your friend to reproduce a copywritten work is also copyright infringement.

kamikaz1k 3y ago
alright The world moves on though, I guess.
- monocasa 3y ago
  I mean, there's a couple centuries of case law, explicit US code, and international treaties codifying what I said. It's not exactly something the world will move on from without explicit legislation and statecraft.
Tadpole9181 3y ago
Your definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a kid draws Pikachu? That's why copyright law is very vague and relies on context-specific judgements of severity of infringement on multiple categories.
- monocasa 3y ago
  > Your definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. ...it's an entirely legal term. It has no definition outside of its legal one if you're trying to figure out how litigation would work. > The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a kid draws Pikachu? That's why copyright law is very vague and relies on context-specific judgements of severity of infringement on multiple categories. There's a different argument made in that case if it hits the courts than the original poster's argument: de minimis. Basically that the claimed damage is too trivial to waste the court's time. It's not clear that automation at just about any scale will allow for a de minimis defense.