[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Fair use (Re: Xerox ContentGuard)
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: RE: Fair use (Re: Xerox ContentGuard)
- From: Rick Anderson <rick_anderson@uncg.edu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 18:07:26 EDT
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> And tracking what you do with an article?? I'm not sure I'm following your thread here (that "and" doesn't refer back to anything I can identify in my previous posting), but I don't think I said anything about the appropriateness of tracking. <snip> > So, no they don't have to but yes it would make very very good sense if > they did include fair use considerations even in software design. <snip> > It would make very good sense for content owners to become very pro- users > rights and pivacy-for users rights with regards to "their" material. <snip> If you mean that they should design software that does not prevent the fair use of copyrighted materials, I agree with you to an extent. And if you're saying that the content owners who impose licenses should become more pro-user, then I agree with you, too (though some are doing much better than others already). But if you mean that copyright owners should define what constitutes fair use for the material they're selling, then I disagree strongly, even if their definition seems generous. I think that doing so sets a dangerous precedent and furthers the incorrect notion, held by many, that just because you own a copyright you can tell other people how to use the information you own. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: I've got a friend who publishes a newsletter. On each copy is a notice saying that any reader can feel free to copy and distribute the newsletter as he or she sees fit, but that each copy must include the entire issue -- readers are not allowed to copy single articles and distribute them. Sounds reasonable, right? The problem is that my friend does not have the legal authority to impose that restriction (unless he wants to go through the process of imposing a license agreement). He's certainly within his legal rights to say "Copy and distribute this newsletter as you see fit," because he's the copyright holder. But it seems to me that once he has published the information and distributed it without requiring readers to agree to licence terms, he DOESN'T have the legal authority to tell them "You may not copy individual articles," because the law (or, I guess, legal precedent) makes it pretty clear that they can, within the bounds of fair use. Do sharper legal minds than mine agree with this, or am I missing something? Rick ---------------------- Rick Anderson Head Acquisitions Librarian Jackson Library UNC Greensboro 1000 Spring Garden St. Greensboro, NC 27402-6175 PH (336) 334-5281 FX (336) 334-5399 rick_anderson@uncg.edu http://www.uncg.edu/~r_anders "Eisenhower tried to explain in a patient voice and with small words that an interstate road system has nothing to do with getting somewhere and everything to do with time and space and the hieroglyphics of the mind." -- David Thomas
- Prev by Date: Re: Fair use (Re: Xerox ContentGuard)
- Next by Date: Microsoft Reader...
- Prev by thread: Re: Fair use (Re: Xerox ContentGuard)
- Next by thread: Re: Fair use (Re: Xerox ContentGuard)
- Index(es):