107: Limitatons on exclusive rights: Fair Use
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phone records 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. (added pub. l 94-553,
Title I, 101, Oct 19, 1976, 90 Stat 2546)
Shall we jump through the legal ways in which fox is dumb, yes we shall. So let
us say I wish to place a picture of one Ms. Gillian Anderson on a web site and
that I wish to add a comment on the bottom stating that "This picture
rules!". I have just used the reproduction in the course of giving
criticism. It should
also be stated that the reproduction of the picture is of far lower quality
than the original work being something around probably 72 dpi as compared
to 2400 or above dpi for printing. Most of these people with the picture sites
are from educational institutions so you have another card on your side there.
Also, it should be stated that the ACLU loves to eat cases like this up. Let
us not even mention the amount of cash Fox would have to invest in actually
sueing any given individual. And if that individual is 18 or above yet in
college fox knows damn well that that person has no money of their own in the
first place and a chapter eleven while not happy for the person whom is sued
(like fox would win) leaves fox completely shit out of luck. Not to even begin
to mention the free marketing angle which is so obvious for anyone with two
brain cells. So now let's see. Fox could sue your ISP. That is another angle
they could take, sure. Depending on your ISP I'm sure you will get varying
responses so you may end up losing anyway. But at least you know that in the
realm of the real real world you can't lose. Let fox say your infringing all
they want. As long as they can't/more likely won't bother to prove it in
a court of law it doesn't mean a hill of beans.
I originally meant for this message to take a more biting and personal
tone but for some reason or the other I took the legal standpoint. But
now to move to the more social one it is just plain disturbing to me that
as the net grows commercialized and more popular the creative and
beautiful anarchy it once was is being destroyed bit by bit. We are no
longer allowed to think and move as we please in this virtual world. Big
brother is watching to make sure we're moving in the right ways. People
are so paranoid about the interconnection of the world yet at the same
time feel wonder at it. Well they definitely have a right to feel both in
my opinion. You know that if you sue the government for federal documents
under the Freedom of Information Act the FBI instantaneously opens up and
file on and starts investigating you. Your privacy and freedom is
infringed upon simply because you know what your rights are, what freedom
is, and how to use that to your advantage. Sorry, this whole scenario is
beginning to sound like an x-file in and of itself. We are far more
developed than many a country, but we have much much to learn and facism
is far from dead. That is all, take it as you will.
--
Past Sorrow, Beyond Regret. Above Time and Eternity.
All are equal before Death
Demon
--
The opinions and thoughts expressed here are not just solely mine
and do indeed have a representation in the amalgam that is
Brand X Filmworks, Inc.