Posted by J. Clarke on 12/05/06 17:30

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:53:22 +0000, jeremy wrote:

> "Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
> news:vIednbdySa1gPOjYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@golden.net...
>
>>
>> The most ridiculous idea to come out of the digital age is that copyright
>> is "absolute". It is not, never has been, and never was intended to be.
>
> That argument may express your sentiments, but it is legally unsound.
>
> Let me get this straight:
>
> You want to be allowed to lift someone else's images off of web sites and
> re-post them on other sites of your choice? Perhaps you want to alter them
> or try to improve them first? Ever hear of a "Derivative Copy?" The
> copyright law addresses that.
>
> Who has conferred upon you the right to take someone else's intellectual
> property and to recycle it as you see fit, without the creator's knowledge
> or permission? Where in the copyright law does it say that the right to
> reproduce the work of another is not absolute?

Two questions, what constitutes "fair use" and at what point does the
ubiquity of violation of a law render any attempt to enforce it "selective
enforcement"?

[Back to original message]