Re:Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
by rocqua on Monday April 05, 2021 @01:46PM
(#26702102)
> Yes, it is overriding copyright protection for a creative work that would otherwise apply. However, it does so because a greater good is served
One could argue that this is for the judicial branch, not the legislative branch, to decide.
Re:Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
by CapitalistCartr on Monday April 05, 2021 @01:50PM
(#26702160)
The judicial branch did decide this.
Re:Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
by rocqua on Monday April 05, 2021 @04:21PM
(#26704158)
Sigh, I made a mistake mixing up the order of judicial and legislative in the sentence.
Re:Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]
by Silhouette on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @05:21AM
(#26709789)
The main legal basis for the majority opinion seems to be fair use, so isn't the system operating as intended? The legislators set out a principle of fair use in statute. The court applied that principle in the context of this specific case.
That would seem a reasonable outcome, for much the same reason that copyright not protecting the appearance of fonts under US law is reasonable. Yes, it is overriding copyright protection for a creative work that would otherwise apply. However, it does so because a greater good is served, in this case by ensuring that interoperability cannot be encumbered, something which (as the majority opinion alludes) goes against the very purpose of copyright under US law.