View Single Post
Old 06-02-2012, 03:02 AM   #22
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,726
Karma: 19728152
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Note 4, Kobo One
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer View Post
We can argue about whether what Google is doing is fair use, but neither of us can easily say whether or not it's copyright infringement because it's not clear one way or the other.
If what they were doing was permitted fair use, why would they need to reach a settlement agreement?

Quote:
I would also point out that the Department of Justice has itself acknowledged that a settlement agreement with a properly defined and adequately represented class of copyrightholders might be appropriate. So they also didn't see it as screamingly obvious as you that Google may be perpetrating the greatest copyright fraud in the history of the U.S.
Again, seems like they are saying that without a settlement agreement, it wasn't legal.

Last edited by murraypaul; 06-02-2012 at 03:11 AM.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote