I guess the difference is that you (ideally) paid for a ticket to the museum to study the artwork.
> "Alsup also said, however, that Anthropic’s storage of the authors’ books in a “central library” violated their copyrights and was not fair use."
I have to imagine that terabytes (petabytes?) of copyrighted content is not going to be cheap even if you only have to pay once per work. This might not be the win Anthropic wants.
----
There is some really interesting text in the order.
"Instead, it was a fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies."
Did Alsup just declare emulators as legal? Assuming you ripped the rom yourself, all you're doing is playing the game in a more convenient manor.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/231/bartz-v-an...
> Did Alsup just declare emulators as legal? Assuming you ripped the rom yourself, all you're doing is playing the game in a more convenient manor.
Wasn't this always allowed? That is, making copies of something you own for your own use so long as you aren't distributing methods of circumventing digital controls.
Yes. Aside from the terrible DMCA anti-circumvention rules, copyright is about redistribution, not literal copying. I can legally make copies of anything I legally own a copy of all day long. I just can't put those copies in the hands of anyone else (mostly -- I actually can, but I have to treat the original and all of the copies as an indivisible unit, so if I give, sell, or lend a copy to someone else, I have to include the original and all other copies with it).
hiatus•5h ago
JohnFen•23m ago
What it means to me, personally, is that it isn't yet safe to publish anything publicly. Anything I do will just get used to train genAI, a use that I highly object to. So my writings, artworks, code, etc., have to remain private.