Comments on: Fair Use: Rickety? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/ Information, Law, and the Law of Information Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:24:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Info/Law » Back to the Future of Copyright Treatises? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/comment-page-1/#comment-2026 Info/Law » Back to the Future of Copyright Treatises? Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:07:53 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/#comment-2026 [...] I was already an admirer of Patry, whose copyright blog is top-notch. I have linked to it many times, generating some of my own favorite posts (such as here and here). His diversity of experience in copyright law is also quite remarkable: it includes private practice, significant tenures in Washington working for the House subcommittee that handles IP and for the Copyright Office, and a stint as a law professor. Now, in addition to his treatise work, he is copyright counsel to Google. [...] [...] I was already an admirer of Patry, whose copyright blog is top-notch. I have linked to it many times, generating some of my own favorite posts (such as here and here). His diversity of experience in copyright law is also quite remarkable: it includes private practice, significant tenures in Washington working for the House subcommittee that handles IP and for the Copyright Office, and a stint as a law professor. Now, in addition to his treatise work, he is copyright counsel to Google. [...]

]]> By: Info/Law » Scanning Books for Lexicography as Fair Use http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/comment-page-1/#comment-905 Info/Law » Scanning Books for Lexicography as Fair Use Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:21:00 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/#comment-905 [...] That allows a clearer view of what seems to me the more fundamental question. It may be time to revisit whether scanning, even though it is literally a form of reproduction, should be considered more like machine-assisted reading, at least when the purpose is the kind of data-crunching of either indexing (as in Google) or analyzing linguistic patterns. These are projects formerly completed by laborious analog effort. When done in that fashion, neither a library card catalogue nor a dictionary represents even a close call on copyright infringement — both are perfectly legal. Is it sensible that automating that process, which is the only way to deal with the modern explosion of information, should convert such innocent acts into infringements? If the fair use doctrine as currently constructed is not the place to work all this out (as I discussed here), then should we change copyright law, either through Congress or the courts, to permit such scanning explicitly? [...] [...] That allows a clearer view of what seems to me the more fundamental question. It may be time to revisit whether scanning, even though it is literally a form of reproduction, should be considered more like machine-assisted reading, at least when the purpose is the kind of data-crunching of either indexing (as in Google) or analyzing linguistic patterns. These are projects formerly completed by laborious analog effort. When done in that fashion, neither a library card catalogue nor a dictionary represents even a close call on copyright infringement — both are perfectly legal. Is it sensible that automating that process, which is the only way to deal with the modern explosion of information, should convert such innocent acts into infringements? If the fair use doctrine as currently constructed is not the place to work all this out (as I discussed here), then should we change copyright law, either through Congress or the courts, to permit such scanning explicitly? [...]

]]> By: Laura Quilter http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/comment-page-1/#comment-565 Laura Quilter Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:43:48 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/#comment-565 It's only a problem because the default has shifted: When Congress said "everything is copyrighted", I don't think they truly understood what it meant for <I>everything to be copyrighted</I>. But the more that default is employed, the more copyright is stretched, the more pressure it puts on fair use. We now have to look to fair use, or beg for specific statutory exemptions, to protect behaviors that might well have previously been excluded as "not infringing a copyright". And yes, if fair use is to be the catch-all defender, then it has to move beyond the mechanical and faux-objective adding up of factors to figure out the result. It’s only a problem because the default has shifted: When Congress said “everything is copyrighted”, I don’t think they truly understood what it meant for everything to be copyrighted. But the more that default is employed, the more copyright is stretched, the more pressure it puts on fair use. We now have to look to fair use, or beg for specific statutory exemptions, to protect behaviors that might well have previously been excluded as “not infringing a copyright”.

And yes, if fair use is to be the catch-all defender, then it has to move beyond the mechanical and faux-objective adding up of factors to figure out the result.

]]> By: SIVACRACY.NET http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/comment-page-1/#comment-564 SIVACRACY.NET Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:28:14 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/07/12/fair-use-rickety/#comment-564 <strong>Is Fair Use too Rickety?...</strong> William McGeveran considers the question: ... Some people at the conference disliked thinking of fair use as “rickety.” They consider it robust, flexible, content-neutral, and so forth. But I think Patry and Vaidhyanathan are probably right. We may... Is Fair Use too Rickety?…

William McGeveran considers the question: … Some people at the conference disliked thinking of fair use as “rickety.” They consider it robust, flexible, content-neutral, and so forth. But I think Patry and Vaidhyanathan are probably right. We may…

]]>