Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 9464723" data-attributes="member: 3400">Print vs PDF was never the issue. Courts have recognized that changes in overall format are OK since periodicals (like the NYT in the case) have the right to archive (and distribute) on microfilm and microfiche as well as publish in braille, all of which are significant changes in format from the printed paper. The issue the decision seemed to substantially hinge on was context. If you used a search engine to get to the article, you were kept from browsing the paper or seeing how it was initially presented in the paper including formatting (as in the size of the print relative to the headlines, breakup of lines and columns, art, etc).I think the dissent by Steven and joined by Breyer had the better argument, overall. A disappointing decision by RBG, sadly, in my opinion.But put in the context of the Dragon archive CD, I understand the uncertainty, but I suspect they'd have been clear of the issues in the NYT v Tasini case if they had omitted a search engine capable of presenting the article without forcing you to flip through the specific issue PDF like you would via scrolling through microfilm. Which is, technologically speaking, kind of silly when you consider copyright is supposed to be media neutral.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 9464723, member: 3400"] Print vs PDF was never the issue. Courts have recognized that changes in overall format are OK since periodicals (like the NYT in the case) have the right to archive (and distribute) on microfilm and microfiche as well as publish in braille, all of which are significant changes in format from the printed paper. The issue the decision seemed to substantially hinge on was [B]context[/B]. If you used a search engine to get to the article, you were kept from browsing the paper or seeing how it was initially presented in the paper including formatting (as in the size of the print relative to the headlines, breakup of lines and columns, art, etc). I think the dissent by Steven and joined by Breyer had the better argument, overall. A disappointing decision by RBG, sadly, in my opinion. But put in the context of the Dragon archive CD, I understand the uncertainty, but I suspect they'd have been clear of the issues in the NYT v Tasini case if they had omitted a search engine capable of presenting the article without forcing you to flip through the specific issue PDF like you would via scrolling through microfilm. Which is, technologically speaking, kind of silly when you consider copyright is supposed to be media neutral. [/QUOTE]

Verification