lizzybennet (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lizzybennet) wrote2010-02-08 01:22 pm
lizzybennet) wrote2010-02-08 01:22 pm
(no subject)
From an article I'm reading for class this week:
The Authors Guild and AAP claimed that this plan violated copyright law. Their argument was simple and obvious--at least in the autistic sort of way that copyright law thinks about digital technology: when Google scanned the eighteen million books to build its index, it made a “copy” of them. For works still under copyright, the plaintiffs argued, this meant that Google needed permission from the copyright owner before that scan could occur. Never mind that Google scanned the works simply to index them; and never mind that it would never--without permission--distribute whole or even usable copies of the copyrighted works (except to the original libraries as replacements for lost physical copies). According to the plaintiffs, permission was vital, legally. Without it, Google was a pirate.
Did the authors of this article really just use autistic as an insulting adverb, or am I completely missing their meaning? I've never seen autistic used in this way and frankly, I find it offensive.
Edit: from dictionary.com:
autistic: a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires.
I find it interesting that a legitimate dictionary, Merriam Webster, does not include this in the definition. Clearly it is poor use of the word and should not be utilized in a "scholarly" piece of literature.
The Authors Guild and AAP claimed that this plan violated copyright law. Their argument was simple and obvious--at least in the autistic sort of way that copyright law thinks about digital technology: when Google scanned the eighteen million books to build its index, it made a “copy” of them. For works still under copyright, the plaintiffs argued, this meant that Google needed permission from the copyright owner before that scan could occur. Never mind that Google scanned the works simply to index them; and never mind that it would never--without permission--distribute whole or even usable copies of the copyrighted works (except to the original libraries as replacements for lost physical copies). According to the plaintiffs, permission was vital, legally. Without it, Google was a pirate.
Did the authors of this article really just use autistic as an insulting adverb, or am I completely missing their meaning? I've never seen autistic used in this way and frankly, I find it offensive.
Edit: from dictionary.com:
autistic: a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires.
I find it interesting that a legitimate dictionary, Merriam Webster, does not include this in the definition. Clearly it is poor use of the word and should not be utilized in a "scholarly" piece of literature.
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)