Posted by eawckyegcy on 12/05/06 17:58

PTravel wrote:

> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve King wrote:
> >
> >> This is the "little bit pregnant" argument. One has either infringed on
> >> a
> >> copyright or not. As far as benefits to the copyright holder, that is
> >> for
> >> the copyright holder to decide, not the full range of individuals from
> >> children to psychopaths that post to You Tube. The quality of the copy
> >> has
> >> nothing to do with it. Nothing.
> >
> > Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (280 F.3d 934 (CA9 2002)) says
> > otherwise.
>
> No, it doesn't say anything of the sort.

The assertion is whether "the quality of the copy has nothing to do
with it". Well, Kelly says reduced resolution (aka "low quality")
copies are fine in some cases. That Kelly has no application to this
YooToob nonsense is beside this point.

• Next in forum: Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?
• Prev in forum: Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?
• Thread view: Re: Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders?

[Reply to this message]