Post #3991099
2026-07-21 13:46 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie 2026-07-21 14:36
@petersuber@fediscience.org Compare the $3k per title with penalties of file sharers corrected for inflation. Or an individual stealing cable/satellite service (can be €100,000, seizure of all electronic equipment and closure of buiness). Anything less that shutting them down, seizing data centres and ruling all titles & sites used was illegal is endorsing it. Web sites & books are content for humans to read.
-
@LeslieBurns@esq.social 2026-07-21 15:18
@petersuber@fediscience.org @kamellatate@mastodon.social No it didn’t. It made that fair use ruling a year ago. This settlement was about obtaining the books illegally not, technically, the fair use question.
-
@miah@hachyderm.io 2026-07-21 14:26
@petersuber@fediscience.org sorry just training my actual intelligence on copyrighted material I pirated...
-
@raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie 2026-07-21 14:31
@petersuber@fediscience.org Disgusting USA Courts stealing creative work again. Google's scanning was also not fair use. Meanwhile evil corporations get copyright extended (Even Life+25 is plenty for an Estate), use DRM to control & Surveilled and lock works forever. The USA DMCA is also not about creator's copyright but corporate control. The USA courts and adminstration / government seems to only exist for the benefit of large USA Corporations.
-
@joshisanonymous@h4.io 2026-07-21 14:42
@petersuber@fediscience.org Pretty insane that a company with that much capital just decided that they'd pirate books instead of buying them.