undefined | Better HN

0 pointslmm5y ago0 comments

Why would the court be obliged to reason front to back? Surely this is no different from e.g. "the defendant had adequate grounds for killing in self-defence, so there is no need to examine whether they intended to kill the victim".

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

Natsu5y ago· 2 in thread

This is more like deciding whether there was a murder to begin with before deciding it was self-defense.

The thing is that fair use implies the underlying data was copyrighted, but something being copyrighted doesn't imply fair use, which is why I think your analysis is backwards.

colejohnson665y ago

> The thing is that fair use implies the underlying data was copyrighted, but something being copyrighted doesn't imply fair use, which is why I think your analysis is backwards.

For those who may not understand: in the US, fair use is a defense, not a right. By arguing that your usage was fair use, you are admitting to copyright infringement. Just that your infringement was fair use. The analogy above to self defense is a good one; By arguing your killing was self defense, you are admitting that you killed somebody, but that it was justified.

dragonwriter5y ago

> By arguing that your usage was fair use, you are admitting to copyright infringement.

No, its actually fairly common to argue both that an act wasn’t infringement but, if it was, it would be fair use.

One way you might do this is to argue that the thing copied was outside the scope of copyright, bur then argue that, if it was covered by copyright, it would be fair use.

That was, in fact, Google’s argument in this very case.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse