5 ms·
>The decision also comes as a major volte-face for Judge Chin... that the higher court (on which he now sits) wanted him to acknowledge fair use. I find it ve
by x3c 13y ago
>The decision also comes as a major volte-face for Judge Chin... that the higher court (on which he now sits) wanted him to acknowledge fair use.
I find it very disheartening. The reasons given by the judge are very fair and convincing. If it's true that he ruled this way because higher court wanted him to acknowledge fair use, judge was not objective.
I wonder if his stance, now or previously, was politically motivated. Let's wish that the judge came to this decision solely on the merits of arguments for/against "fair use". The alternative is depressing to think about.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> If it's true that he ruled this way because higher court wanted him to acknowledge fair use, judge was not objective. "wanted" is the wrong word here. Chin previously issued a ruling without properly considering fair use. The higher court (the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) took the case on appeal, found that the failure to consider fair use was a legal error, reversed Chin's earlier decision because of that flaw, and sent the case back to Chin with a legally binding order that fair use be addressed. That's what we have appellate courts for; its not a failure of objectivity for a lower court judge to follow binding directives from higher courts.
- jrs99 13y agoi don't think the reasons are convincing. I don't think that it benefits the public is a good reason.
- x3c 13y agoCourts are always mindful of public policy while making rulings. So, benefiting public has been a valid reason for a long time. And I think it's a good reason. Now does this really benefit people or not is another question. I think it does. Do you think it does not?
- jrs99 13y agoi don't think it benefits authors. I think searching for a book and reading a few pages and being done with it. That isn't ideal for authors at all. Some people just need to read a few things in the book.
- warfangle 13y agoOh, man, I hope you don't find out about this terrible place called a library where people do that kind of stuff all the time.
- cmiles74 13y agoOr the bookstore.
- jrs99 13y agobut libraries pay for their books. And a library might buy many copies of a popular book.
- warfangle 13y agoAnd they lend them out. Which is considered fair use. Just like full-text search, now. As was said by a sibling comment to yours, people do this all the time in bookstores too. Corollary: Google shows a snippet of text from a website under their link. If what I wanted to find out is contained in that snippet, I won't necessarily click the link. Same thing, but instead of a pointer to a website (which, in this example, just lost a pageview), it's a pointer to an book that you can purchase. More funnels to conversion mean more books purchased.
- jrs99 13y agoyou can loan a book out to one person at a time. i think it's a little different.
- jrs99 13y agonot every author wants to increase sales. I would rather opt out even if that led to a decrease in sales. I can't make someone else increase sales by making them use my new sales platform for free.
- treerock 13y agoSo what is your view on the law? Those with a utilitarian view would probably say that what 'benefits the public' is really the main aim of the legal system. I take it you disagree?
- dragonwriter 13y agoUsually, whether something benefits the public is a policy question for the legislature, not a decision for the courts to make. OTOH, many specific laws include public interest considerations that require courts to make determination of at least some aspect of public interest to apply the law.
- fpgeek 13y agoAnd, in this case, the pubic interest aspect comes from the US Constitution ("promote the progress of science and useful arts").
- jrs99 13y agoof course i disagree. There are plenty of things that would benefit the public but are illegal. Maybe an infinite number of things.
- ajross 13y agoSeems to be missing the point. Courts pass judgment, typically, on areas of law that are not covered directly by existing legislation. If there was a Federal law saying specifically "You shall not scan and store books without the permission of the author.", it seems unlikely Google would have won. The upthread point wasn't that "benefits the public" was the only criteria for courts to use, just that it was the guiding principle to use in cases of ambiguity.
- jrs99 13y agoi don't think there's any ambiguity. that's just my opinion.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago"It benefits the public" is the only good reason.