Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The first is I'm now trying to profit from someone else's copyrighted work. That's always going to be an issue.

For the later, read the judges ruling. The EL was not the issue, but what came out is that the CDL was never what they claimed. By being so cavalier they ruined what could have been a great test case.




> The first is I'm now trying to profit from someone else's copyrighted work. That's always going to be an issue.

It's an authorized copy. Is Amazon in trouble because they sell used books, i.e. are trying to profit from someone else's copyrighted work?

Doesn't the copyright holder also profit from selling the used books, by taking them off the market so the next customer has to buy a new one?

> The EL was not the issue, but what came out is that the CDL was never what they claimed. By being so cavalier they ruined what could have been a great test case.

It seems clear that the judge in that case was intent on finding against the Internet Archive, and explicitly stated that they wouldn't have been allowed to win regardless:

> Even full enforcement of a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio, however, would not excuse IA’s reproduction of the Works in Suit.

See also concluding that the use wasn't non-commercial despite being a non-profit who didn't charge for it, because members of the public might have liked that they did this and made a donation. Which likewise moots the implications of them selling used books (as they're indisputably allowed to do), because the next excuse was already lined up.

One wonders how a use could ever be non-commercial under this line of reasoning.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: