Posted by PTravel on 12/05/06 18:56

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165341536.002405.53860@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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.

Kelly says that a video search engine using low-resolution thumbnails
constitutes fair use. It does not say that low-resolution thumbnails are
fine in some cases.

> That Kelly has no application to this
> YooToob nonsense is beside this point.
>

[Back to original message]