Hacker News Reader

Comment by bilekas | Hacker News Reader

> 1. just downloading is probably fine because it could be for purposes of fair use, and fair use concerns generally trump even good faith and fair dealing

This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here. Also there is no conditions on the source of the content ? If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ?

Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ?

This whole thing just reeks of "rules for thee but not for me".

View on HN

> This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here

Why do you think that? For-profit companies use fair use all the time. Its not unusual.

Yes, a usage being non-commercial can be a factor in favour of fair use, but its just one factor. Its definitely not a neccesary condition nor is it a sufficient condition.

> If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ?

Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods.

> Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ?

No. That's not the reason this is potentially fair use.

[Although as an aside it uses to be in Canada that only uploading was illegal].

> Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods.

Okay, but if there was no permission to "copy" the content by the owners. I wish I knew more about it all, but seems to me that quoting a snippet from a book while offering comment on it would be classic fair use. Consuming the entire collection for free to charge for transformative services really doesn't feel 'fair'.

And again I can't shake the feeling that if I did this, was brought to court. I would be laughed at for claiming fair use.

My (limited) understanding was that in the USA it was not illegal to read a book you don't own but it is illegal to make a copy (download) of a book you don't own.

I still don't fully grok how Meta can legally download a pirated book as fair use when an individual doing the same would be deemed a criminal act.

It would seem that Meta still don't have the right to make copies of books that they haven't paid for no matter what they do with it.

It's because in the US, you are granted the right to copy (copyright) broadly and under a number of circumstances. The creator is given a right to prevent copying under a limited (albeit very broad) set of circumstances.

Since we have a usage based assessment system on the major chip in the right to prevent copying, "fair use", which by the way is designed specifically for the common good -- enhancing the overall value to society of works that are limited by their creators -- its not about the copying. Its about the usage. Reading by an llm is fair usage in this case according to this judge's early speculations.

> Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods.

    The right to make copies
    The right to distribute copies
    The right to create derivative works
    The right to publicly perform

Copying and distribution are central to what copyright attempts to control.

> This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here

Fair use can be for profit.

> if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use

No, seeding is automatically not fair use. Leeching does not automatically mean its not fair use, just that it might be.

> Leeching does not automatically mean its not fair use, just that it might be.

What do you mean by might be? It either yes or no.

> This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here.

I think you're conflating "fair use" with "non-profit", or at least nudging that direction. That's too simplistic. Fair use is a four-factor test, and profitability is not among the four.

> if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ?

Fair use is just about how you use it, not how you get it. If you download HBO's collection and just watch it, that is fair use even if you are dinged about how you acquired the collection.

If you make a parody of a work in HBO's collection and publish/distribute it, the only question is whether or not the parody is a copy of their work. If it is, then you cannot distribute it; if not, then you can. You may "use" elements of their work in yours (as that is the point of a parody) but that can still be "fair".

Notice how none of that has anything to do with how you acquired the work. It is just not relevant to the question of fair use.

If you pirate a movie, watch it, and talk about it but don't distribute it then yes that's fair use. People literally do this all the time.

What? No. Piracy is illegal.

Fair Use is largely about reproduction (how much of a work you are allowed to copy and use, and for what purpose). It doesn’t deal with the legality of getting the work in the first place.

Sure piracy is illegal but fair use has nothing to do with how you watched it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com