02-25-2010, 12:15 PM
|
|
|
there's no $$$ in porn
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: icq: 195./568.-230 (btw: not getting offline msgs)
Posts: 33,063
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
The guy didn't respond with proof that he owned or had permission to publish, copyrighted content, this isn't public information being exposed. He responded with some bullshit about fair use - that's not a reponse,
|
" Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test."
" Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 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; (The social usefulness of freely available information can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations. The Zapruder film of the assassination of President Kennedy, for example, was purchased and copyrighted by Time magazine. Yet their copyright was not upheld, in the name of the public interest.)
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."
Quote:
|
it's an excuse to steal.. like a tube responding to you that they can rip your content because of fair use, that isn't going to fly in court and it doesn't fly with DMCA notices.
|
This is nothing like a tube responding to you that they can rip your content because of fair use. Nothing at all. In case of content theft (illegal tubes) we are talking about commercial use (1), the intent to profit from other people's work (1), work that was produced with the intend to make a profit (2), work with no social usefulness (2) and use that reduces copyright the owner's potential to profit from his work (4).
In this case we are talking about the publication of a noncommercial document for noncommercial reasons. A publication that will help the public understand how their personal information will be used.
wired: " As Microsoft tells potential subpoenaees, “when you are looking for information on a specific incident like a photo posting or message posting, please request all group content and logs. We cannot retrieve single incident data.” The same holds for Spaces — if you are interested in a single picture, just request the entire thing."
|
|
|