Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That link does not define the term, and I haven't been able to find a legal definition of "private use". The paper seems to be using the normal definition, though.

> It sounds controversial that a defense of private use exists at all; after all, one usually buys a book for her private use. This use may mean that one can make photocopies of a legally possessed book, in order to read it, for example, not only in the office, but also at home. One may also loan the book to a friend.

I would be pretty surprised to find a legal definition that says if you put something online just for fun it doesn't count as copyright infringement.

I don't know why we're talking about this though, I'm not a big fan of copyright but that's not what this is about. It's not "you put my drawing on Reddit without my permission", it's "you publicly released a tool on Reddit that allows anyone to effortlessly create infinite variations of my work in my name, please don't do that". I don't care whether or not it's legal, I think it's immoral to create a tool that could not exist without ingesting someone's life's work and then ignore them when they ask you not to do that.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: