Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus
So what exactly am I expected (by law) to do in order to "honor" fair use rights of my users, and where it is defined that by not doing so I invalidate my rights as a copyright holder?
If I'm not providing VCRs or DVRs to all of my users to record my shows, and a "cloud" storage to store all shows they want recorded, my copy rights do not exist anymore? What law says so?
|
i didn't say provide i said honor only a complete moron would not see the difference
When you are talking about changing the laws so regulate fair use to secondary status preventing/restricting it existance completely that goes way beyond simple choosing not to provide the service.
that goes to the level of trying to stop other people from providing the fair use. SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
Quote:
Of course they don't, because fair use rights are defined by law and do not depend on what I'm doing/not doing.
Same for my copy rights, they exist no matter what I'm doing - even if I'm sueing users that have obvious fair use rights and was laughed out of the court, that doesn't strip me out of my rights as a copyright holder.
They way copyright laws are written, fair use exists only as long as it does not harm a copyright holder - which cannot be interpreted as a priority.
|
this is the biggest bullshit statement you have every made because we are talking about the situation where copyright exclusive rights are subject to (or dependent) on recognizing fair use.
if fair use conflicts with exclusive rights there is no way you can claim that exclusive rights take precedents.
conversely fair use is nothwithstanding (or irregardless) of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, which means in the case of a conflict fair use CAN say it takes precedent because the law itself says irregardless of the exclusive rights fair use is NOT AN INFRINGEMENT.
Quote:
Since they operate the site where the material was posted (either automatically or not, does not matter) - yes they're publishers and thus fully responsible for what's posted at their site.
No, not ads make them a publisher - even if their service is ads free they should still be considered publishers, because they operate their site (have editorial policy, have full access to the admin interface, can add/remove materials from their site etc).
Their host is not a publisher because it does/owns none of the above.
Maybe even better definition would be - you're a publisher of anything what appears at the domain name you own. If it's your domain name, you're fully responsible for what's posted at it.
What law says free speach should be free of charge?
And we're not telling about free speech there - it's fair use, a different story.
When it was established in the court that timeshifting is fair use, none of the courts ordered Paramount to send you $1K so you can buy one of those new Sony VCRs.
Never did I say that ALL "fair users" must pay - those that are within the well known/established boundaries of the fair use can use free services.
And only if ALL free public service sites refused to host their materials because they're not sure if that's fair use or not, now they can go ahead and try paid host, and battle in court if sued.
|
all this is again changing the direction of priority overriding fair use restricting it limiting it so that the exclusive right prevail
in the case of thing like parody which is both fair use and a free expression it is even worse because you are in fact violating a persons right to express themselves.