The claim that a company can "buy" a patent and keep it from the public is incredibly wrong. Anyone can take any patent and build said product for personal use.
This principle seems to also apply to firearms in the USA. Anyone can produce a firearm for personal use without zogbot knowledge, but things get shady when "transfer and sale" enters the picture.
To answer your question of how would they know - my answer would be the obvious "they don't".
But the law here is that the library bought the material, and therefore the users are in a very small section of IP law that allows for use in a library setting.
The major question given the current uncertainty in the IP realm - even for libraries - is what has been purchased? Is it the physical media itself, and therefore the contents of the media are not restricted (the library can back up the contents), or is it a license to the content and physical media is irrelevant?
The answer in each case is different, but the outcome is the same. If the library (or personal customer) buys the media itself, then any damage that makes the media unusable requires the user to rebuy the product. But, in order for the user to protect their purchase, copies of the content can be made for personal use without restriction. The (((media companies))) are fighting this interpretation with all their might.
On the other hand, if the purchase by the customer or library is a license for the content, then the media shouldn't matter either, as anyone should be able to request a replacement form of the licensed content. Unsurprisingly, the (((media companies))) are rejecting this interpretation of the law too.
The media companies want to both own the physical form and the actual content and restrict any customer from winning in either case. filthy kikes.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 6 monthsOct 10, 2024 17:47:49 ago (+1/-0)
It's not legal to make money on other people's copywrritten work.
[ + ] anon
[ - ] anon 2490203 1 point 6 monthsOct 10, 2024 19:33:50 ago (+1/-0)
The claim that a company can "buy" a patent and keep it from the public is incredibly wrong. Anyone can take any patent and build said product for personal use.
This principle seems to also apply to firearms in the USA. Anyone can produce a firearm for personal use without zogbot knowledge, but things get shady when "transfer and sale" enters the picture.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 6 monthsOct 10, 2024 19:48:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]anon
[ - ] anon 2490203 1 point 6 monthsOct 10, 2024 19:41:46 ago (+1/-0)
But the law here is that the library bought the material, and therefore the users are in a very small section of IP law that allows for use in a library setting.
The major question given the current uncertainty in the IP realm - even for libraries - is what has been purchased? Is it the physical media itself, and therefore the contents of the media are not restricted (the library can back up the contents), or is it a license to the content and physical media is irrelevant?
The answer in each case is different, but the outcome is the same. If the library (or personal customer) buys the media itself, then any damage that makes the media unusable requires the user to rebuy the product. But, in order for the user to protect their purchase, copies of the content can be made for personal use without restriction. The (((media companies))) are fighting this interpretation with all their might.
On the other hand, if the purchase by the customer or library is a license for the content, then the media shouldn't matter either, as anyone should be able to request a replacement form of the licensed content. Unsurprisingly, the (((media companies))) are rejecting this interpretation of the law too.
The media companies want to both own the physical form and the actual content and restrict any customer from winning in either case. filthy kikes.
[ + ] i_scream_trucks
[ - ] i_scream_trucks 1 point 6 monthsOct 11, 2024 08:09:15 ago (+1/-0)