Date: 13 Dec 2001 16:46:31 -0800 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Boston Globe Article (fwd) Message-ID: <2e3d2ebpco.d2e@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3C193C60.53E5E99D@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10112131403540.6058-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> <6eg06ebtbe.06e@localhost.localdomain> <3C193C60.53E5E99D@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Not to take you to task, but you don't know who you are criticising > about the finer points of copyright law, do you? I welcome your taking me to task on this subject close to my heart, if not my mind. (Software copyright law in particular, but one often stumbles across the fair use topic.) As for your question, I'm not sure. I know AA as a FreeBSD book author and frequent answerer of questions. Is she a copyright lawyer too? On to fair use: ... > 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. Take out the inner clauses and you get a profound statement. :-) The other clauses depend on "such use", meaning "fair use". They don't describe fair use; just the contexts of some fair use. > 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 unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use 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. > > I count 4 of the 6 statutorily permitted uses in her original posting. The four listed above, I presume. 1) OK by me. I supose a lawyer might be able to claim some commercial advantage of the ML and it's archives to Wind River and others. And it's debatable how much -chat is about education or about entertainment. 2) Nope. The nature of the original article is something to draw readers to the publisher's advertisers. What is more deserving of copyright protection? 3) Nope. Looked like a 100% clip to me. I don't think you can weigh it against the whole content of the publisher's web site, etc. 4) Nope. Appearance of the copy (especially as opposed to a link) cost the original publisher advertising revenue almost certainly (and potential is probably enough to consider here). So I count one, at most. I've forgotten the rest of the law, but doesn't a court have to find three? And they consider everything "judiciously", of course, putting their thumbs on the scale for educational institutions with one thumb and commercial copyright owners with the other. Finally, I don't think it was fair use no matter what the law considers to be fair use and I'm sure many authors and publishers would agree. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2e3d2ebpco.d2e>