Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
Gideon.. you keep falling back on "fair use" as if it's the determining factor in all copyright law.. as if it pushes the coypright law... it does not. It is a byproduct of it. The intention of the laws are to protect the works but then to provide users the ability to protect their individual rights.. not collective rights. Re-distribution requires permission from the original copyright holder unless that permission cannot be obtained. Pretty cut and dry actually.
It is clear that fair use is intended as a means for private protection only and that distributing a work is a violation of the acts... even on the european side.
The Berne Convention recognizes that member states will accept and recognize violations occuring within other member states.. the EUCD accepts that as well but leaves the punishment up to the member state.... it does not say that the member states can opt of out whether or not infringements are valid and occuring.
|
"the services of intermediaries may increasingly be used by third parties for infringing activities."
You take that statement to mean any connection whatsoever, i don't and neither do the courts
if they did MPAA and RIA would have sued TPB into oblivion already and would not have need to hack their servers.
for them to act as intermediary they would have to participate in some way with an infringement (not just a suspected infringment). Which is why i keep saying you should eliminate the fair use arguement from the equation. Without some legitimate right to use the technology they would be guilty.
Going back to the Sony case, you have to remember that universal did not want the technology shut down, they were making millions from selling video tapes of their movies. The only thing they wanted was the record functionality to be prevented.
It was obvious to them that 99.99999999% of the people using that record function were pirating their movies.
the fair use rights of a very small MINORITY took precedents over the copyright protection for what was a MAJOR violation.
Why because nothing about the ruling stopped Universal from going after the individuals who were actually infringing on their copyright deliberately.
Sure it was a lot more expensive to go after all those people individually, sure they had to let a lot of small fish go but thems the breaks.
You can't just violate my rights because it more cost effective for you.