|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/20/06 05:30
"Larry in AZ" <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989ED5713E1B7thefrogprince@69.28.173.184...
> Waiving the right to remain silent, Bob Quintal <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca>
> said:
>
>> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in
>> news:458825a5$1@clear.net.nz:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6s0go29f2kik25ras5ieji29to2modqjav@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:23:24 GMT, "blahblah_nospam@sbcglobal.net"
>>>> <EDM_spamblock_@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Anyone who's spent more than a few minutes on YouTube,
>>>>>MySpace, Google Videos etc knows that nearly everything
>>>>>posted is home brewed and doesn't violate any commercial copyright.
>>>>
>>>> I just now went to youtube, and of the four videos listed on
>>>> the top of the page (under "Director Videos"), three were
>>>> very obviously of copyrighted material.
>>>> --
>>>> Bill Funk
>>>> replace "g" with "a"
>>>
>>> On this site:
>>> http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/09/21/youtubes-magic-number-15- b
>>> illion/
>>>
>>> it says that:
>>>
>>> "These 100 million daily video views aren't people watching
>>> kittens fall asleep. Most of the popular videos on YouTube
>>> contain copyrighted material that YouTube shouldn't be
>>> presenting in the first place. This isn't just music videos
>>> and Saturday Night Live skits - if music is playing in the
>>> background while someone is dancing around, that's still copyright
>>> infringement. "
>>
>> Bu!!$#!t, that's fair use.
>
> You can stamp your feet and call it so, but that doesn't make it so...
>
> United States Code
>
> TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS
>
> CHAPTER 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
>
> 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.
>
> Additional copyright information may be found at:
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html
>
>
I'm glad you posted this. You are, of course, correct and Quintal is, yet
again, wrong.
I'll add one more point:
Fair Use is an equitable doctrine that is a defense to copyright
infringement, meaning that a judge will decide if a specific use is a fair
use depending on the specific facts of the matter and only in the context of
litigation. Experienced copyright lawyers have to have full familiarity
with all of the relevant facts, as well as a good command of the corpus of
case law, in order to render a reasonably reliable opinion as to whether a
specific use if fair use or not. That Quintal pronouncement is proof of his
complete lack of understanding of copyright law (just in case there was any
lingering doubt).
> --
> Larry Jandro
> Video Engineering & Equipment Rentals
> Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
> [Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to reply]
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|