4 ms·
That's not a blanket ruling for any kind of copying-all-books, it's a decision that the product Google built out of it's book copying provided a service to the
by jazzyjackson 1y ago
That's not a blanket ruling for any kind of copying-all-books, it's a decision that the product Google built out of it's book copying provided a service to the public and didn't threaten the livelihood of the copyright holders. Fair Use is case by case, there is not a ruling yet on whether producing a chatbot that can author competing works for free is Fair Use, personally I'm bearish considering the forth factor, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
- dooglius 1y agoI am not a lawyer, but I'm assuming that if someone stockpiles for reading later (parent's scenario), without making the copies available to others at all, then that would be covered by the ruling since it's a subset of what Google did.
- AlotOfReading 1y agoYou can't subset a fair use argument like that and necessarily get a valid defense out of it. Fair use is essentially arguing "I infringed copyright in one of the narrow ways expressly allowed for the public interest". If you remove the public interest, you probably fail the first pillar. If you were doing something else (e.g. acting as a public archive), you might not need a fair use defense because you'd fall under different rules.