3 ms·

This is why I don't watch movies anymore or read anything but the classics. Why fill your brain with images and thoughts you're not allowed to make reference t

This is why I don't watch movies anymore or read anything but the classics. Why fill your brain with images and thoughts you're not allowed to make reference to without paying someone. Why not just watch all your movies on YouTube, even if they are crappy homemade ones, at least you'll be able to make reference to them later. Basically, I never let my thoughts get owned and polluted by restrictive copyright owners, especially when it comes to entertainment.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
Let's not be silly. You're allowed to reference whatever you want. You're allowed to quote whatever you want. The open question is: how long of a quote is permissible before you exceed "fair use"?
- acqq 16y ago
  See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702783 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702783 It was already ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court that 300 words taken from 300 words from 200,000 word material IS an infringement. That's only 0.15 %. Here if the movie was 2 hours and he took 1.5 minutes, that's 1.25 %.
  - michael_dorfman 16y ago
    You're over-reading the Supreme Court case. They said that in that particular case, 300 words from a 200,000 word book was an infringement. That doesn't mean that all 300 word quotes are necessarily infringing. There are criteria for judging "fair use"; Jeff refers to them in the article. All require judgment, and in the end, if both parties want to push it far enough, it is a judge who will decide how a particular case meets the criteria.
    - acqq 16y ago
      I fully agree that based on that case we can't establish the unique amount of percentage of the material. But also note how little of material can be considered infringement: The article I linked contains much more criteria than Jeff presented and has even more dramatic quote: in music "samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."" I can imagine that for usage of the video material the court can be as much restrictive as for music.

michael_dorfman 16y ago

Let's not be silly. You're allowed to reference whatever you want. You're allowed to quote whatever you want. The open question is: how long of a quote is permissible before you exceed "fair use"?

acqq 16y ago
See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702783 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702783 It was already ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court that 300 words taken from 300 words from 200,000 word material IS an infringement. That's only 0.15 %. Here if the movie was 2 hours and he took 1.5 minutes, that's 1.25 %.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  You're over-reading the Supreme Court case. They said that in that particular case, 300 words from a 200,000 word book was an infringement. That doesn't mean that all 300 word quotes are necessarily infringing. There are criteria for judging "fair use"; Jeff refers to them in the article. All require judgment, and in the end, if both parties want to push it far enough, it is a judge who will decide how a particular case meets the criteria.
  - acqq 16y ago
    I fully agree that based on that case we can't establish the unique amount of percentage of the material. But also note how little of material can be considered infringement: The article I linked contains much more criteria than Jeff presented and has even more dramatic quote: in music "samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."" I can imagine that for usage of the video material the court can be as much restrictive as for music.