This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here. Also there is no conditions on the source of the content ? If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ?
Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ?
This whole thing just reeks of "rules for thee but not for me".
Why do you think that? For-profit companies use fair use all the time. Its not unusual.
Yes, a usage being non-commercial can be a factor in favour of fair use, but its just one factor. Its definitely not a neccesary condition nor is it a sufficient condition.
> If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ?
Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods.
> Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ?
No. That's not the reason this is potentially fair use.
[Although as an aside it uses to be in Canada that only uploading was illegal].
Okay, but if there was no permission to "copy" the content by the owners. I wish I knew more about it all, but seems to me that quoting a snippet from a book while offering comment on it would be classic fair use. Consuming the entire collection for free to charge for transformative services really doesn't feel 'fair'.
And again I can't shake the feeling that if I did this, was brought to court. I would be laughed at for claiming fair use.
I still don't fully grok how Meta can legally download a pirated book as fair use when an individual doing the same would be deemed a criminal act.
It would seem that Meta still don't have the right to make copies of books that they haven't paid for no matter what they do with it.
Since we have a usage based assessment system on the major chip in the right to prevent copying, "fair use", which by the way is designed specifically for the common good -- enhancing the overall value to society of works that are limited by their creators -- its not about the copying. Its about the usage. Reading by an llm is fair usage in this case according to this judge's early speculations.
Copyright covers four rights:
The right to make copies
The right to distribute copies
The right to create derivative works
The right to publicly perform
Fair use can be for profit.
> if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use
No, seeding is automatically not fair use. Leeching does not automatically mean its not fair use, just that it might be.
What do you mean by might be? It either yes or no.
I think you're conflating "fair use" with "non-profit", or at least nudging that direction. That's too simplistic. Fair use is a four-factor test, and profitability is not among the four.
Fair use is just about how you use it, not how you get it. If you download HBO's collection and just watch it, that is fair use even if you are dinged about how you acquired the collection.
If you make a parody of a work in HBO's collection and publish/distribute it, the only question is whether or not the parody is a copy of their work. If it is, then you cannot distribute it; if not, then you can. You may "use" elements of their work in yours (as that is the point of a parody) but that can still be "fair".
Notice how none of that has anything to do with how you acquired the work. It is just not relevant to the question of fair use.
Fair Use is largely about reproduction (how much of a work you are allowed to copy and use, and for what purpose). It doesn’t deal with the legality of getting the work in the first place.
Hello MPAA, RIAA ? Where are you now ? Twenty years ago they were screaming bloody murder for such things. But i guess, being a "pirate", is one thing, being a business man, is another.