|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 02:43 AM EDT |
MS money maybe?
**IA want to control how your computer works?
So they can control what you see.
Chris B[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 03:09 AM EDT |
There might be some anti-Google thing going on here, as they were one of the
groups that sued Google over the books digitisation project.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:26 AM EDT |
| They are copyright maximalists. That is all. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
I found a copy of their brief here:
Fair-Use-Brief.pdf [arstechnica.net]
From the brief:
As
members of the photography community, Amici are particularly concerned about
fair use in the context of misappropriation of creative works by a
competitor.
Google argued that even if the court felt that what
they copied was protected under copyright, that the copying should be allowed
under the "fair use" guidelines. The graphic artists feel that siding with
Google's fair use argument would undermine the protection of their work.
I
haven't read enough of their brief to comment on their points. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
Photographers in general and this group in in particular are particularly
opposed to any kind of fair use. They generally believe that any image no matter
how mundane or functional where someone pushes a button (even in some cases
where no one pushes the button such as accidental exposures) on a camera (which
is a recording device) is a "creative expression" and any resulting
use of that image requires their permission.
That are adamantly opposed to any kind of fair use.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 04:43 AM EDT |
| Ah, you should read their brief to find out. We
have all the Intel amicus briefs
here.
T
he short answer, though, is that they totally
misunderstood the facts of the
case. They thought
that the court said that because of fair use,
Google was OK.
But the judge didn't say it was
fair use. Oracle is, in fact, asking the
court
to decide that the APIs should be copyrightable
and offer only a fair
use defense to those who
might be accused of infringement. So the
brief
confuses those two. If something can't be
copyrighted, you don't need
fair use, and in
fact it isn't available as a defense, because
there has to be
copyright and then infringement
for fair use to come in as a defense.
Here's
an excerpt:
By finding elements of Oracle’s Java packages
uncopyrightable, the district court’s opinion evidences little respect for the
creativity involved in Oracle’s works. Of more immediate concern to Amici,
however, is that the district court, in denying Oracle’s motion for judgment as
a matter of law on fair use, failed to appreciate that if Google’s actions
vis-à-vis Oracle are considered to be fair use, it would undermine
copyright protection not only for computer programs but for all creative works.
It cannot be a fair use to take the most valuable part of a work – here, the key
source code used to create, among other things, applications for mobile devices
– and to use it to undermine the market for the original work. Copyright law is
intended to respect and incentivize investment in creative works for the benefit
of creators and the public. If this Court affirms the holding of the court
below, it will open the door to massive infringements of Amici’s protected
expression, threaten the ability of
Amici’s members to earn a living from their
work and limit their ability to bring the benefits of their work to the public.
Ultimately, the Amici, all creators, and the public will be
harmed.
I didn't highlight it because it's franky embarrassing
for them to realize they put in an amicus that makes no sense.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
