|
On 29 Jul 2005 07:22:01 -0700, wilt wrote:
BMW holds copyright. That means YOU MUST get BMW permission to use
their illustration in your manual, if you intend to distribute it. You
have the right to photocopy something for your OWN use, such as a copy
in your shop and a copy for your home office. But to copy something
for distribution to others is technically illegal and the copyright
owner can come after you! It is not merely about 'morals', it is about
your own risk to LEGAL EXPOSURE and lawsuit.
This is very interesting so it would be nice to get a real legal opinion as
I am NOT a lawyer and I do NOT know or understand copyright law as it
pertains to individual use and I am not a moral person by any means (I live
in a glass house and so do you and BMW).
Does the BMW copyright really say what you imply?
a) For example, does the BMW copyright really prevent you from PRINTING
(for your own personal use) the beemer manual you purchased for $100 or the
bimmer owners manual you downloaded for free from them? (Note the password
protection can disable printing unless you manually remove that printing
restriction as described in this thread.)
b) Does the BMW copyright say you can't convert the manual to Microsoft
Word, Microsoft RTF, Adobe FrameMaker, JPEG, GIF, AutoDesk DXF, Adobe
PostScript, etc.? (Note the methods described allow you to do all of these
conversions, and more.)
c) Does the BMW copyright say you can't add or delete pages from the
documents you bought or downloaded from them? (The methods described allow
you to add and delete pages as desired.)
d) Does the BMW copyright say you can't cut and paste text from and to
those documents you bought or downloaded from them for use in an email or
other personal use? (The methods described enable copy and paste of lines
of text as needed.)
e) And, lastly, (and perhaps most important for this thread), does the BMW
copyright say you can not take a JPEG of a page of the beemer or bimmer
shop manual and then annotate that page with your problem for the purpose
of posting that newly annotated PDF to a bimmer or beemer forum for the
purpose of obtaining help in repairing your motorcycle or automobile?
In summary, my question to the legal folks is, if all these five desires
(printing pages, converting pages, adding or deleting pages, cutting and
pasting text from pages, and annotating pages with photos for repair
purposes) are actually expressly forbidden in the BMW copyright, then we
should not be running or suggesting this conversion of password-protected
PDF to password-free PDF files!
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:46:02 -0400, Hans Barnhofter
<hansb@barnhofter.com> wrote:
On 29 Jul 2005 07:22:01 -0700, wilt wrote:
Does the BMW copyright really say what you imply?
a) For example, does the BMW copyright really prevent you from PRINTING
(for your own personal use) the beemer manual you purchased...? ...
Hans, read the passage you quoted more carefully. Your first question
demands that Wilt defend a proposition which is the exact opposite of
what he said.
The answer to this question is, "No, copyright protection does not do
that, as Wilt already said."
I can't speak to the rest of your questions. Since you started a new
thread instead of replying to the one you quoted, I have no way of
finding out what their context is. If you would be so good as to
identify the thread your message belongs in, perhaps I or another
attorney can clarify the points you do not understand. Taken alone,
I'm afraid your message gives the impression that you are more
interested in starting an argument than in understanding copyright
law.
My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
Jonathan Sachs sez:
Hans, read the passage you quoted more carefully. Your first question
demands that Wilt defend a proposition which is the exact opposite of
what he said.
The answer to this question is, "No, copyright protection does not do
that, as Wilt already said."
Hans' post is part of a lively series of threads over on misc.legal.
The basic problem seems to be that Hans bought a BMW shop manual in
CDROM form. The content consists of password-protected PDF files. He
wants to print the files and/or cut & paste text and graphics to other
programs. And he can't do so because of how the permissions are set.
My answer (for what it's worth, which may not be much) is that BMW's
copyright does NOT make it illegal for Hans to print out a hard copy of
the PDF file, or even to copy content from the file for fair use (e.g.,
strictly personal use.) However, copyright law also does NOT prohibit
BMW from distributing the content in a form which (ostensibly) cannot
be converted into hard copy and/or cannot be cut & pasted into computer
files. Not only that, in the US (at least) copyright law does (try to)
make it illegal for unauthorized users to circumvent copy protection
schemes. And publishers ARE allowed to create copy protection schemes
which prevent actions (e.g., making printouts for personal use) which
might not necessarily be a copyright violation per se.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:12 -0400, "Timothy" wrote:
Hans' post is part of a lively series of threads over on misc.legal.
The basic problem seems to be that Hans bought a BMW shop manual in
CDROM form. The content consists of password-protected PDF files. He
wants to print the files and/or cut & paste text and graphics to other
programs. And he can't do so because of how the permissions are set.
OK, I can give a somewhat more useful answer, then.
The core provisions of the Copyright Act permit copying copyrighted
works without authorization in certain limited circumstances under the
doctrine of "fair use." Without going into the details, which are
notably complex and ill-defined, fair use would probably allow making
a printed copy of a automotive manual on one's own CD-ROM for one's
own use.
However, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) complicates
matters by imposing further legal restrictions on digital media that
is subject to technical restrictions on copying or use. In essence, it
forbids (1) circumventing restrictions on unauthorized ACCESS TO
copyrighted material, and (2) making, selling, offering for free,
etc., any device, program, service, etc., whose only significant
purpose is circumventing a restriction on unauthorized ACCESS TO or
USE OF copyrighted material.
The distinction between "access" and "use" is fairly simple, although
not self-evident. "Access" means getting at the material to make any
use of it at all. For example, if you copy an encrypted database and
break the encryption, so that you can retrieve data without buying a
license or whatever, that is unauthorized access. "Use" refers to
specific types of use. For example, if you purchase a license that
allows you to retrieve data from the database, but not print it, then
you figure out how to print it anyway, that is unauthorized use.
As this applies to the BMW manual: provided you own a legal copy of
the CD-ROM, and (duh) are legally authorized to use it, you are free
to circumvent the protection that prevents you from printing it, as
long as you can do so on your own. If you pay someone to do it for
you, or buy a program that breaks the protection, or even pick up such
a program as freeware, the person who provided the service or program
would be breaking the law. It does not appear to me that YOU would be
breaking the law, but if the provider were caught, the feds would
certainly look closely at you as well.
The relevant provisions of the DMCA are notably complex and obscure.
If you want to look at them, though, look up 17 USC 1201(a) and (b).
My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
<snip>
My answer (for what it's worth, which may not be much) is that BMW's
copyright does NOT make it illegal for Hans to print out a hard copy of
the PDF file, or even to copy content from the file for fair use (e.g.,
strictly personal use.)
I'm not going to get involved in the BMW manual discussion because I can not
give advice to non-clients. However, "strictly personal use" does NOT mean
that a specific use comes within fair use doctrine. This is a very common
"urban myth" which I see repeated on the internet all of the time -- and
it's wrong.
|
| |
| |
Hans Barnhofter wrote:
On 29 Jul 2005 07:22:01 -0700, wilt wrote:
...
e) And, lastly, (and perhaps most important for this thread), does the BMW
copyright say you can not take a JPEG of a page of the beemer or bimmer
shop manual and then annotate that page with your problem for the purpose
of posting that newly annotated PDF to a bimmer or beemer forum for the
purpose of obtaining help in repairing your motorcycle or automobile?
...
IMHO, of the five hypotheticasl you state, 'e)' above is the only
one hypthesizes the priciple that wilt stated.
I think the answer is yes, though BMW may well choose to not enforce
its copyright under those circumstances.
However, a former cow-orker once related to me that a company
for which he worked, which made 'skids' of equipment, had been
successfully sued by one of their vendors (a vendor selling them
components used on their equipment) for copyright infringement.
The infringement consisted of copying information from the vendor's
catalog for use in his companies manuals sold with his companies
equipment.
That would sem to be precisely what wilt was talking about.
--
FF
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:53:44 -0400, "PTravel" wrote:
I'm not going to get involved in the BMW manual discussion because I can not
give advice to non-clients. However, "strictly personal use" does NOT mean
that a specific use comes within fair use doctrine. This is a very common
"urban myth" which I see repeated on the internet all of the time -- and
it's wrong.
This is correct, but I did tell the OP that printing the manual would
probably be considered fair use, so I feel obliged to give some
additional explanation.
Whether a given type of use is protected by the fair use doctrine is
decided, in a rather subjective way, by considering four factors (17
USC 107).
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is
commercial or nonprofit/educational. (In this case the use could
reasonably be characterized as "nonprofit." This favors fair use.
(The copier is making a copy for precisely the type of use for which
the work was produced and sold. Furthermore, one could argue
persuasively that the copier could not use the work effectively for
its intended purpose WITHOUT copying it. He can't reasonably be
expected to drag his computer under the car with him and use the
keyboard and mouse while immersed in grease and automotive fluids up
to his elbows. This also favors fair use.)
2. Nature of the copyrighted work. (I don't think this factor
compellingly points one way or the other, but I think the comments
about intended use, above, are also relevant here.)
3. Amount and substantiality of material copied. (I understand that
the OP proposes to print the entire manual. This counts against fair
use. However, the OP might be able to argue persuasively that printing
a complete copy is necessary for effective use; for example, if the
text contains many cross-references.)
4. Effect on market or value of the copyrighted work. (None, since the
OP has already purchased a copy of the CD-ROM; not copying it would
give him no motivation to buy a second one; and copying it would not
deter anyone else from buying his or her own copy. This favors fair
use.)
Two of the four factors favor fair use. One is neutral or in favor.
One is against fair use, but the OP might well argue plausibly that it
should be disregarded. In the situation I believe that copying would
more likely be fair use than not.
My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
PTravel wrote:
<snip>
I'm not going to get involved in the BMW manual discussion because I can not
give advice to non-clients. However, "strictly personal use" does NOT mean
that a specific use comes within fair use doctrine. This is a very common
"urban myth" which I see repeated on the internet all of the time -- and
it's wrong.
So what DOES "strictly personal use" mean???
Lou
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:53:44 -0400, "PTravel" wrote:
This is correct, but I did tell the OP that printing the manual would
probably be considered fair use, so I feel obliged to give some
additional explanation.
I've snipped your "additional information" because it is exceptionally
misleading in the context of this thread.
In your post, you've listed the four fair use factors recited in the
statute. However, fair use is an _equitable_ doctrine, albeit one that is
codified, that is fact-specific, meaning that a judge will determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether a given use comes within fair use doctrine.
That determination will be made using traditional equitable concepts and in
the context of the body of fair use decisional law. The four factors given
in the statute are non-dispositive and merely a guideline, meaning that all,
some or none may be present and a given use will still not be considered a
fair use by the court. No layperson (and, for that matter, no lawyer
unfamiliar with the corpus of fair use decisional law) can reliably predict
whether a specific use will be fair use.
As I said in my post, I can't give legal advice to the OP, though I'd agree,
as a general principle, that printing pages from a lawfully-acquired PDF
file is fair use, absent any license restriction to the contrary.
However, the original statement, i.e. "personal use = fair use" is
absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
|
| |
| |
In article <st2af11u1vff7it2kfvpnssdgnjb81p0f1@4ax.com>,
<Lou@GoForIt.net> wrote:
PTravel wrote:
So what DOES "strictly personal use" mean???
who knows??? That phrase, -- nor anything even close to it -- does _not_
in the U.S. copyright statutes. In other legal jurisdictions, personal use
copying _is_ sometimes expressly mentioned in statute.
In the U.S., there is case-law, to wit: the Sony Betamax case (Sony Corp, et
al. v Universal Studios), that has held that some forms of 'personal use'
copying -- to wit, recording of broadcast television for later viewing
("time shifting") -- _is_ a non-infringing activity, under the "fair use"
exemption.
HOWEVER, claiming that any/all other forms of personal use copying are thusly
exempt 'fair use' activity does *NOT* follow.
Absent a court case, and ruling, on a particular type of 'personal use'
copying, one simply _does_not_know_ whether that copying will be found to
be non-infringing, or *not*.
|
| |
| |
In article <qt2af1hpo2g7qh36aab2vp4ol4su7uo91l@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Sachs <xxxxxxx@earthlink.not> wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:53:44 -0400, "PTravel" wrote:
This is correct, but I did tell the OP that printing the manual would
probably be considered fair use, so I feel obliged to give some
additional explanation.
Whether a given type of use is protected by the fair use doctrine is
decided, in a rather subjective way, by considering four factors (17
USC 107).
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is
commercial or nonprofit/educational. (In this case the use could
reasonably be characterized as "nonprofit." This favors fair use.
(The copier is making a copy for precisely the type of use for which
the work was produced and sold. Furthermore, one could argue
persuasively that the copier could not use the work effectively for
its intended purpose WITHOUT copying it. He can't reasonably be
expected to drag his computer under the car with him and use the
keyboard and mouse while immersed in grease and automotive fluids up
to his elbows. This also favors fair use.)
2. Nature of the copyrighted work. (I don't think this factor
compellingly points one way or the other, but I think the comments
about intended use, above, are also relevant here.)
3. Amount and substantiality of material copied. (I understand that
the OP proposes to print the entire manual. This counts against fair
use. However, the OP might be able to argue persuasively that printing
a complete copy is necessary for effective use; for example, if the
text contains many cross-references.)
4. Effect on market or value of the copyrighted work. (None, since the
OP has already purchased a copy of the CD-ROM; not copying it would
give him no motivation to buy a second one; and copying it would not
deter anyone else from buying his or her own copy. This favors fair
use.)
Bzzzt! If the work is sold by the copyright owner both as CD, _AND_ as a
printed volume, then the copying of the CD to "printed matter" *DOES*
adversely affect the potential sale of a "legal" printed volume to the
'infringer'.
Two of the four factors favor fair use. One is neutral or in favor.
One is against fair use, but the OP might well argue plausibly that it
should be disregarded. In the situation I believe that copying would
more likely be fair use than not.
revised score: One in favor, one neutral or in favor, two against.
Note: I, personally, believe that such copying _should_ be considered as
non-infringing. However, I am not at all sanguine that it *WOULD* be so
considered.
|
| |
| |
I'm not going to get involved in the BMW manual discussion because I can not
give advice to non-clients. However, "strictly personal use" does NOT mean
that a specific use comes within fair use doctrine. This is a very common
"urban myth" which I see repeated on the internet all of the time -- and
it's wrong.
This is correct, but I did tell the OP that printing the manual would
probably be considered fair use, so I feel obliged to give some
additional explanation.
What is needed here is "consumer's fair use". If you *BUY* something
you should entitled to enough rights to make it useful for something
(especially useful for the purpose it was advertised). This would
go beyond "fair use". If the seller isn't willing to give you those
rights, he shouldn't be allowed to sell it in normal retail channels.
Gordon L. Burditt
|
| |
| |
Lou@GoForIt.net writes:
PTravel wrote:
So what DOES "strictly personal use" mean???
All the things which will never be in the enumerated
set of "not 'strictly personal use".
(No, I am not being a smartass.)
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:27:46 -0400, "PTravel" wrote:
In your post, you've listed the four fair use factors recited in the
statute. However, fair use is an _equitable_ doctrine, albeit one that is
codified, that is fact-specific, meaning that a judge will determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether a given use comes within fair use doctrine.
That determination will be made using traditional equitable concepts and in
the context of the body of fair use decisional law. The four factors given
in the statute are non-dispositive and merely a guideline, meaning that all,
some or none may be present and a given use will still not be considered a
fair use by the court. No layperson (and, for that matter, no lawyer
unfamiliar with the corpus of fair use decisional law) can reliably predict
whether a specific use will be fair use.
As I said in my post, I can't give legal advice to the OP, though I'd agree,
as a general principle, that printing pages from a lawfully-acquired PDF
file is fair use, absent any license restriction to the contrary.
However, the original statement, i.e. "personal use = fair use" is
absolutely and unequivocally wrong.
I'm not sure what to make of that, except that we seem to be talking
past each other. If you are trying to say that because the factors
listed in the statute are not exhaustive, the outcome of a judicial
decision on fair use is completely unpredictable, you are wrong. If
you are trying to say something else, you will have to try to say it
more clearly.
For the sake of predictability, if nothing else, courts follow the
four recited factors in all but the most exceptional circumstances.
They must do so, because a court that applies laws in an unpredictable
manner is incapable of doing justice, and subverts its own reason for
existence.
Your original statement that personal use is not necessarily fair use
is absolutely correct. If you think I said otherwise, you
misunderstood me.
My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
Robert Bonomi said:
In the U.S., there is case-law, to wit: the Sony Betamax case (Sony Corp, et
al. v Universal Studios), that has held that some forms of 'personal use'
copying -- to wit, recording of broadcast television for later viewing
("time shifting") -- _is_ a non-infringing activity, under the "fair use" exemption.
On the other hand, the content provider is not required to provide the
content in a form which can be easily copied. Although it turned out
to be impossible to "copy-protect" analog TV, there are systems for
copy-protecting digital signals, and those are (presumably) not
illegal. (I say "presumably" because content providers are not shy
about acknowledging that such systems exist.)
Although, it is worth noting that most of the new digital audiovisual
formats do make some provision for limited personal copying and/or for
repeating viewing/listening without additional fees.
|
| |
| |
"Gordon Burditt"
<SNIP>|
| What is needed here is "consumer's fair use". If you *BUY* something
| you should entitled to enough rights to make it useful for something
| (especially useful for the purpose it was advertised). This would
| go beyond "fair use". If the seller isn't willing to give you those
| rights, he shouldn't be allowed to sell it in normal retail channels.
Like $5 hot dogs at the ball park no one is twisting the end user's arm to
buy. If the buyer does not like the price of the hot dog or the terms of
the authorized use .. the quick remedy is DON'T BUY IT in the first place.
|
| |
| |
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:27:46 -0400, "PTravel" wrote:
I'm not sure what to make of that, except that we seem to be talking
past each other. If you are trying to say that because the factors
listed in the statute are not exhaustive, the outcome of a judicial
decision on fair use is completely unpredictable, you are wrong. If
you are trying to say something else, you will have to try to say it
more clearly.
I thought I was clear, but I'll try again:
Fair use determinations can not be made by looking at the language of the
statute and applying the four enumerated factors. The outcome of a judicial
decision on fair use CAN be predicted, but only by someone familiar with the
body of decisional law. It can NOT be predicted by a layperson, or by a
lawyer unfamiliar with the body of decisional law.
For the sake of predictability, if nothing else, courts follow the
four recited factors in all but the most exceptional circumstances.
Courts must _consider_ the four factors (it's error if they don't), but they
do not have to and, in fact, frequently do not, follow the enumerated
factors.
They must do so, because a court that applies laws in an unpredictable
manner is incapable of doing justice, and subverts its own reason for
existence.
As I said, fair use determinations frequently can be predicted -- provided
one is familiar with the body of fair use decisional law. Fair use is an
_equitable_ doctrine, meaning the courts determine fair use. To do so, they
follow precedent and apply traditional concepts of equity. The statute
provides only a guideline and is _not_ dispositive of the determination.
Your original statement that personal use is not necessarily fair use
is absolutely correct. If you think I said otherwise, you
misunderstood me.
My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
In article <87ihf15a8u4li7tnc62tevruu6uu2ert3f@4ax.com>,
Timothy <horrigan@aol.com> wrote:
Robert Bonomi said:
use" exemption.
On the other hand, the content provider is not required to provide the
content in a form which can be easily copied. Although it turned out
to be impossible to "copy-protect" analog TV, there are systems for
copy-protecting digital signals, and those are (presumably) not
illegal. (I say "presumably" because content providers are not shy
about acknowledging that such systems exist.)
'technical means' employed to make copying ('fair use' or "otherwise")
difficult or impossible are _not_ prohibited. Copyright law says
"IF you DO copy/reproduce for 'fair use' reasons, it is -not- an infringement
of the copyright holder's rights." This is _not_ carte blanche authorization
to do so, nor is there anything that requires the copyright holder to make
it 'easy' for you to do so.
In addition, the latest round of "modifications" -- the DCMA, makes it a
criminal act to 'bypass' any "rights-management" controls that the
copyright holder may have employed. "Fair use" _not_ withstanding.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:57:42 -0400, "PTravel"
<ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote:
Fair use determinations can not be made by looking at the language of the
statute and applying the four enumerated factors. The outcome of a judicial
decision on fair use CAN be predicted, but only by someone familiar with the
body of decisional law. It can NOT be predicted by a layperson...
Legal debates are conducted by arguing that stated laws and precedents
lead to stated results when applied to stated facts. If you want to
move this discussion forward, you are going to have to follow that
practice.
When I respond to a USENET message, I try to respond to the content,
not to who the author is -- certainly not to my own assumptions about
who the author is. I think this is a necessary component of mutual
respect in any debate. If my background is really important to you,
though, my e-mail address suggests what it is. The LLM is in
Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law.
If there are indeed precedents that suggest my analysis is wrong, I
certainly would like to know what they are. I probably will not have
time to study them until I finish preparing for the patent bar,
though.
My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:57:42 -0400, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
In addition, the latest round of "modifications" -- the DCMA, makes it a
criminal act to 'bypass' any "rights-management" controls that the
copyright holder may have employed. "Fair use" _not_ withstanding.
That is an oversimplification... in other words, not true. See my
earlier posting (8/3/05) concerning the DCMA in the topic of access
protection and use protection.
The DMCA makes this precisely to address the fair use issue. Allowing
the user to circumvent use protection, the argument goes, preserves
the right to fair use.
Whether the right remains real or becomes theoretical is another
issue, and a contentious one.
My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
In article <ft1qf1tb48ik4jqtfhmmo3ije2s8tnokpi@4ax.com>,
Jonathan Sachs <xxxxxxx@earthlink.not> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:57:42 -0400, bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
That is an oversimplification... in other words, not true. See my
earlier posting (8/3/05) concerning the DCMA in the topic of access
protection and use protection.
The DMCA makes this precisely to address the fair use issue. Allowing
the user to circumvent use protection, the argument goes, preserves
the right to fair use.
17 USC 1201 (a) (1) expressly forbids circumvention. of rights management,
without exceptions.
(c) (1) says 'nothing in this section affects any other
rights, remedies, defenses to copyright infringement,'
etc. including 'fair use'.
If you circumvent a rights management system for "fair use" purposes, it is
not an "infringing" use of the copyrighted material, and is not actionable
on the basis of copyright infringement. It is *still* circumvention of the
rights management system and _is_ actionable on that basis. "fair use" is
not an allowable defense, in statute, against a claim of rights-management
circumvention.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:57:42 -0400, "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote: Legal debates are conducted by arguing that stated laws and precedents lead to stated results when applied to stated facts. If you want to move this discussion forward, you are going to have to follow that practice.
specifically, intellectual property law. You've engaged in a fair use
analysis predicated solely upon the plain meaning of the statute. That is
simply wrong, as a matter of law, is not how fair use cases are analyzed and
decided, and will not provide an accurate prediction of an infringement
action in which fair use is raised as a defense. I don't see any purpose in
pretending that the 4 fair use factors are either dispositive or
exclusive -- they are not.
When I respond to a USENET message, I try to respond to the content,
not to who the author is -- certainly not to my own assumptions about
who the author is.
I don't give legal opinions to non-clients on the internet -- neither my
firm nor my malpractice carrier permit it. Accordingly, I will not offer an
opinion regarding the OP's legal question. I will, however, comment when I
see someone applying the law incorrectly, as I have done here.
I think this is a necessary component of mutual
respect in any debate. If my background is really important to you,
though, my e-mail address suggests what it is. The LLM is in
Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law.
Then you certainly understand that literal application of the four fair use
factors will not provide an accurate determination of whether a given use is
fair use and, further, you understand the significance of a doctrine being
identified as "equitable." If you think I'm wrong, I would welcome a cite
to any judicial opinion which supports the contrary view.
If there are indeed precedents that suggest my analysis is wrong, I
certainly would like to know what they are. I probably will not have
time to study them until I finish preparing for the patent bar,
though.
You can start with this this U.S. Supreme Court case:
"Congress meant 107 [the Fair Use statute] 'to restate the present
judicial doctrine of fair use,
not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way' and intended that courts
continue the common-law tradition of fair use adjudication. H. R. Rep. No.
94-1476, p. 66 (1976) (hereinafter House Report); S. Rep. No. 94-473, p. 62
(1975) (hereinafter Senate Report)."
Luther R. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1993)
My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.
|
| |
| |
I don't engage in "legal debates," whatever they are. I practice law and,
specifically, intellectual property law. You've engaged in a fair use
analysis predicated solely upon the plain meaning of the statute.
BMW issued the manual in the form of a PDF file. They are a major
corporation who presumably have many lawyers working for them. If it
was illegal to distribute the manual as a PDF file with the permission
set to disallow printing, there is a good chance (though not 100%) that
the lawyers would have advised against this. Likewise, the PDF format
was developed by Abode, another large corporation with many lawyers. I
am sure that those lawyers signed off on the decision to incorporate a
no-printing option into the PDF format.
This is not to say that Hans might not be able to come up with a
counterargument--- but he will have a very hard time getting it to fly!
|
| |
| |
"Timothy" <horrigan@aol.com> wrote:
BMW issued the manual in the form of a PDF file. They are a
major corporation who presumably have many lawyers working for
them. If it was illegal to distribute the manual as a PDF file
with the permission set to disallow printing, there is a good
chance (though not 100%) that the lawyers would have advised
against this.
Do you mean to imply that lawyers are always right?
Stu
|
| |
| |
|
