Editing Criticism of copyright (section)

==Information technology related concerns==

One of the founders of [[Piratbyrån]], [[Rasmus Fleischer]], argues that copyright law simply seems unable to cope with the Internet, and hence is obsolete. He argues that the Internet, and particularly [[Web 2.0]], have brought about the uncertain status of the very idea of "stealing" itself, and that instead business models need to adapt to the reality of the [[Darknet]].<ref name=autogenerated8>{{cite web | url = https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/06/09/rasmus-fleischer/future-copyright | last = Fleischer | first = Rasmus | title = The Future of Copyright | publisher = CATO Unbound | date = June 2008 | quote = “We conclude that the snippet function does not give searchers access to effectively competing substitutes. Snippet view, at best and after a large commitment of manpower, produces discontinuous, tiny fragments, amounting in the aggregate to no more than 16% of a book. This does not threaten the rights holders with any significant harm to the value of their copyrights or diminish their harvest of copyright revenue,” wrote the court. | access-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-date = August 13, 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170813184504/https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/06/09/rasmus-fleischer/future-copyright | url-status = live }}</ref> He argues that in an attempt to rein in Web 2.0, copyright law in the 21st century is increasingly concerned with criminalising entire technologies, leading to recent attacks on different kinds of [[Web search engine|search engines]], solely because they provide links to files which may be copyrighted. Fleischer points out that Google, while still largely uncontested, operates in a gray zone of copyright (e.g. the business model of [[Google Books]] is to display millions of pages of copyrighted and uncopyrighted books as part of a business plan drawing its revenue from advertising).<ref name=autogenerated8/> In contrast, others have pointed out that Google Books blocks out large sections of those same books, and they say that does not harm the legitimate interests of rightsholders.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/google-books-appeals-court/ |title=Google Books is 'highly transformative,' appeals court confirms in fair use ruling |website=Fortune |language=en |access-date=2018-09-03 |archive-date=September 4, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180904011309/http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/google-books-appeals-court/ |url-status=live }}</ref>