Conversation

Notices

LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Saturday, 25-Mar-2023 13:43:12 UTC LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864}
- Ji Fu
I didn't read much about the case, but seeing that IA followed the same practices that publishers required libraries to follow, this is *bad* news.

In conversation Saturday, 25-Mar-2023 13:43:12 UTC from nu.federati.net permalink
- LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Saturday, 25-Mar-2023 17:46:33 UTC LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864}
  in reply to
  - Ji Fu
  @fu https://mstdn.social/@maxkennerly/110081989107256650
  
  If you scan a physical book, you've infringed copyright? This needs to be challenged. Format-shifting of items purchased is legitimate.
  In conversation Saturday, 25-Mar-2023 17:46:33 UTC permalink
  Attachments
  1. Max Kennerly (@maxkennerly@mstdn.social)
    
    from Max Kennerly
    
    Attached: 1 image The central holding of the #InternetArchive court opinion is, if you own a physical book and scan it, you infringed the author's copyright by creating an unauthorized copy—even if you never use both at the same time. (This also implies that printing an ebook = infringement.) That's quite bad. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf http://blog.archive.org/2023/03/25/the-fight-continues/
- GeniusMusing (geniusmusing@nu.federati.net)'s status on Saturday, 25-Mar-2023 18:07:46 UTC GeniusMusing
  in reply to
  
  @lnxw48a1
  >Format-shifting of items purchased is legitimate.
  
  For media (video/audio), for personal use, as long as DRM is not present, in the US.
  
  Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Wikipedia
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
  
  When it comes to sharing, we know how that ended.
  
  A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Wikipedia
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc.
  
  MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Wikipedia
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.
  
  As is the custom, follow the money.
  In conversation Saturday, 25-Mar-2023 18:07:46 UTC permalink
  Attachments
  1. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
    
    Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the “Betamax case”, is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use. The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for contributory infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market, as it created a legal safe haven for the technology.The broader legal consequence of the Supreme Court's decision was its establishment of a general test for determining whether a device with copying or recording capabilities ran afoul of copyright law. This test has created some interpretative challenges to courts in applying the case to more recent file sharing technologies available for use on home computers and over the Internet. Background In the 1970s, Sony developed the Betamax video tape recording format. Universal Studios and the Walt Disney...
  2. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
    
    A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th. Cir., 2001) was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.While A&M Records served as the lead plaintiff, Napster was sued by 18 different record companies, all of which were members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Additionally, songwriters Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller were included on the Circuit Court appeal, representing the interests of "all others similarly situated." Background Napster was started in 1999 by 18 year-old Shawn Fanning. Napster provided a platform for users to download compressed digital music files, specifically MP3s, from other users' music libraries. Unlike many peer-to-peer services, however, Napster included a central server that indexed connected...
  3. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
    
    MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast (maker of Morpheus), could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios. Background Entertainment industry lawsuits against new technologies that enable the copying of copyrighted content date back to the 1980s, when the movie industry sought court injunctions against the sale and use of VCRs. In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a technology manufacturer cannot be held liable for its users' copyright infringement if widespread unauthorized copying is unlikely, and if the technology enables significant non-infringing uses as well.The advent of file sharing via the Internet in the late 1990s, and its enabling of easy and more widespread copying of copyrighted materials, inspired new arguments from the entertainment...
  LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} repeated this.