←back to thread

390 points pyman | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.429s | source
Show context
trinsic2 ◴[] No.44491270[source]
I'm not seeing how this is fair use in either case.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't these works being digitized and transformed in a way to make a profit off of the information that is included in these works?

It would be one thing for an individual to make person use of one or more books, but you got to have some special blindness not to see that a for-profit company's use of this information to improve a for-profit model is clearly going against what copyright stands for.

replies(8): >>44491399 #>>44491424 #>>44491457 #>>44491657 #>>44492008 #>>44492099 #>>44493528 #>>44495414 #
1. NoMoreNicksLeft ◴[] No.44492099[source]
Digitizing the books is the equivalent of a blind person doing something to the book to make it readable to them... the software can't read analog pages.

Learning from the book is, well, learning from the book. Yes, they intended to make money off of that learning... but then I guess a medical student reading medical textbooks intends to profit off of what they learn from them. Guess that's not fair use either (well, it's really just use, as in the intended use for all books since they were first invented).

Once a person has to believe that copyright has any moral weight at all, I guess all rational though becomes impossible for them. Somehow, they're not capable of entertaining the idea that copyright policy was only ever supposed to be this pragmatic thing to incentivize creative works... and that whatever little value it has disappears entirely once the policy is twisted to consolidate control.