Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
you seem to be so stupid you think claiming something is fair use means it is legal , even though the courts have clearly not followed your Gidiot logic..
The courts have time and time again REJECTED fair use defenses. You seem to think calling something "fair use" makes it legal. It doesn't.. Perhaps you need to go look up legal precedent..
|
name one of my legal predictions that have been wrong
you can't because it has never happened yet.
Quote:
|
only under the exact same scenario.. fair use in the courts is on a case by case basis.. if you could establish your fair use is EXACTLY like another legal case THEN and ONLY then can legal precedent be used as a deciding factor.. thus your betamax excuse for theft is just a fart in the wind that only you can smell the shit..
|
bullshit when a court case establishes a right it defines the scope, it does not say only when it EXACTLY the same it defines the scope in the ruling.
the limits on those established fair use must be argued in the court case.
for example in the 20th century vs cable vision case 20th century argued that fair use of time-shifting for personal use should be excluded because cable vision time-shifted over the PUBLIC cloud. They argued that this limitation of fair use was legitimate because public broadcasts were explicitly defined as infringing within the act.
the appeal court over ruled this (and the supreme court upheld) that it was a public TRANSITION not a public BROADCAST so the fair use still applied.
by doing so they completely eliminated the BS it not fair use because it public argument you guys keep trying to make because it not weather it a public or not it weather it a PUBLIC BROADCAST or not that defines it legality
your actually arguing the reverse which is not the case