this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
100 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53462 readers
1491 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

That's why the Archive is appealing: they still believe they are right.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There's really no credible argument that their distribution of books even might be legal.

Their only defense is fair use, and there's no precedent for a "fair use" defense justifying copying a work wholesale for mass distribution. (Yes, "one copy at a time" to multiple people is mass distribution.) Copying a whole work has effectively only qualified as fair use when that copy is not re-distributed, and is actually for a personal backup.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Their distribution of books is completely legal.

Corporations just have more money to warp the laws in their favour.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences.

[–] nintendiator@feddit.cl -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh, you believe law is fair? You sound so cute.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago

What did I say that implied that? I'm pointing out a contradiction in kilgore's comment, I'm not adding anything of my own here.