----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds good... til that last two lines. That consideration is done through lawsuits on a case by case. I'll bet the copyright holder has more lawyers and money to spend. =========================== [begin signature]
"True justice needs Lawyers like
True love needs a pimp."
-Travus T. Hipp
Leigh Meyers leighcmeyers at yahoo.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Bartlett To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] length
At 6:59 PM -0400 9/9/04, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
>>I believe I have a duty to resist copyright law by openly breaching it.
>
>you're not necessarily the one who's liable, man
Collective punishment? I'm not too familiar with the intricacies of US copyright law, it may be that other people can be liable for my actions, how so? In this country I am aware that a lot of people imagine copyright law include offenses which aren't actually there. Then there is some uncertainty about which jurisdictions apply over the internet. (It may be possible for you to avoid US copyright jurisdiction by basing the list on a server in another jurisdiction in a free country?) Maybe we need to clarify the situation.
But its definitely a problem when a law attempts to not only assign ownership rights to human ideas, as if some individuals who happen to have conjured them up out of a vacuum. I refuse to recognise such a preposterous restriction. ===========================