"reasonable theoretical harm" I... No.
-
-
-
En réponse à @sarahjeong
Alright, finally finished. GOOD RULING. Huge. Will be assigned in every copyright law class as mandatory from here on out.
2 réponses 1 Retweet 8 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
One thing I want to note— Google Books appears to be inconsistent with UMG v. http://Mp3.com . VERY WEIRD
1 réponse 2 Retweets 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
2nd Cir of course overrides SDNY, so not like it would ever result in a circuit split, but whoa
1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
I suppose in copyrightland, libraries always win and music startups always lose, but it's a marker of how far we've come since the 00s!
2 réponses 2 Retweets 9 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
Clear limits to mass digitization in this case—though I don't think anyone was arguing for something like thispic.twitter.com/OQgPs8Yz20
1 réponse 4 Retweets 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
I also love that this decision really nails what people actually use Google Books forpic.twitter.com/3UrMDDJXpy
3 réponses 35 Retweets 38 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong Google Books is an invaluable tool for finding citations to obvious facts in a legal writing context.1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @bergmayer
@bergmayer I like it for getting exact quotes right too2 réponses 0 Retweet 0 j'aime
@bergmayer basically, the best things GB is good for are all obvious fair use
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.