Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
copyright is a conditional monopoly there is no way shape or form you can says right holders have sole discretion to share anything.
|
You always get this wrong in the details. Copyright is a set of laws that provide for civil and criminal recourse against piracy, for which in exchange the holder allows the government to permit non-significant copying and reuse, in very narrow and well documented cases.
While the term "monopoly" is sometimes used to describe the rights holder's ability to restrict republication, the term is biased because the rights holder is the natural and bona fide legal owner of any creative output. There isn't a "monopoly" for any government to give, because governments can't give rights that are inalienable in the first place, only observe them. This includes rights of ownership to creative endeavor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
fair use supercedes your exclusive rights
|
Fair use does NOT supercede an exclusive right. Time and again you get this wrong. For one thing, the onus of establishing fair use is up to the defendant in a case, and most copyright cases are settled, leaving only minimal case law to go from. And even case law is narrowly constructed by the courts.
You'll often hear or read about a "three note" fair use exemption for sampling, or a 30 second fair use exemption for mechanical reproduction. None of it is accurate or true. Relying on bogus legal advise regarding fair use is an idiot's game.
Fair use is a doctrine that establishes a give-and-take between the government providing civil and criminal recourse against infringement, and the interests of the people. A rights holder still has the ability to license works instead of, or in addition to, filing for copyright protection (something can be both licensed AND copyrighted). A rights holder can apply restrictions to copying that in themselves (given DMCA and similar EU laws) subject an infringer to liability if the restrictions are circumvented.