Following up on recent posts found HERE , HERE , HERE & HERE , is a new ruling in Taiwan. As I have stated, my issue is with the guys making the money with these crimanal activities. B has stated it won't do a damn thing but maybe he should go talk to these fellows who may be spending a few years in a Taiwanese prison. I think they may learn what "file" sharing really is. :-)
Don't drop the soap boys!
"J"
10 comments:
They were fined $3millionTW. Isn't that about$100.00?
Also, the same government that put them in jail is just as likely to appoint them Minister of Intellectual Property.
Hold onto the the soap and check this case in a few months.
Well...you might be right... :-)
"J"
They ought to be corn-holed by a mountain man. Shazzam!
You guys should check out this article. I'd be curoius what you think about it. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/18/D8CMUUU80.html
I've been following Google's project and I support Google's project. Works not in copyright will be fully available; copyrighted works will be partially available. I believe evaluation of all four Fair Use factors weigh heavily in Google's favor. Publishers fear the unknown, but that doesn't change the law. As far as publishers' arguments that Google's offer for them to exclude certain titles is "backwards" from copyright law (i.e., the burden should rest on Google to get permission). This argument is backwards. Fair Use was intended to permit use WITHOUT permission. Follow this one closely.
...and, ease of access has never been a factor in legality under copyright law.
This will be one to watch. As always legal arguments will be based on who is paying the attorney fees...if it comes to that.
Brock, can you describe "Fair Use" in 60 words or less? Does precedent play a factor in "Fair Use" arguments?
"J"
Fair Use evaluation of four factors (all must be evaluated and scaled): 1) purpose and character of use [commercial or not; education, comment, criticism, etc.]; 2) nature of original [more factual or more fanciful]; 3) amount and substantiality of original used [1% or 90%? the heart of the original?]; and 4) effect on the market [will people buy yours to avoid buying the original].
The more factors that weigh in favor = Fair Use. The less = infringement. Precedent plays a factor, only to the extent courts have ruled one way on a similar set of facts.
Okay. So Fair Use should have no bearing on the Google book thing.
"J"
2 options: public domain materials and copyrighted materials. Public Domain is fair game, so Fair Use doesn't matter. For copyrighted works, Google argues that Fair Use permits their project (1 - education purpose; 2 - 100% copied, but <20% available to users; 3 - nature of original depends on which book; and 4 - likely to increase purchase of books in print and no effect on market for books out of print.
Google's entire project rests on interpretation of Fair Use.
Post a Comment