4 ms·

It might not be an "affirmative" defense, but to my understanding that doesn't imply it's a right. A "right" as I understand it is something that is illegal for

It might not be an "affirmative" defense, but to my understanding that doesn't imply it's a right. A "right" as I understand it is something that is illegal for others to violate, and that government generally has a duty to protect. But there's nothing unlawful about creating something that's uncopyable, or about guarding what you have so closely that others are unable to copy it; in fact, I would've assumed being able to do so is itself your right. And should you create something that's uncopyable, nobody will be able to copy it, even if it would be fair use for them to do so. They might be upset about this, but their rights definitely aren't being violated by your creation or protection of that thing—and the government can't force you to make your stuff copyable. (Or maybe it can with additional legislation, but I'm pretty sure we don't have such legislation.) That means "fair use" isn't anyone's right... it's just a valid defense (whether "affirmative" or otherwise).

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
By this logic free speech isn't a right because the government is under no obligation to provide you with a platform to exercise it.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  Offering you a platform is not the same thing as ensuring that it's even physically possible. The argument wasn't about the government hosting copyrightable content for you or delivering it to you; it was about ensuring it is even possible for you to copy content.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Preventing something from being copyable is only possible by not distributing it. If you can see it you can copy it. The copyright holder could prevent you from copying it by never distributing it, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to fair use, it only means you don't have the ability to exercise that right. Much the same as you can't exercise freedom of the press if you can't afford a printing press (or any modern equivalent). It might be physically impossible for you to have an abortion, e.g. because you're infertile, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to one under existing precedent.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

By this logic free speech isn't a right because the government is under no obligation to provide you with a platform to exercise it.

mehrdadn 6y ago
Offering you a platform is not the same thing as ensuring that it's even physically possible. The argument wasn't about the government hosting copyrightable content for you or delivering it to you; it was about ensuring it is even possible for you to copy content.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Preventing something from being copyable is only possible by not distributing it. If you can see it you can copy it. The copyright holder could prevent you from copying it by never distributing it, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to fair use, it only means you don't have the ability to exercise that right. Much the same as you can't exercise freedom of the press if you can't afford a printing press (or any modern equivalent). It might be physically impossible for you to have an abortion, e.g. because you're infertile, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to one under existing precedent.