2 ms·

> Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. Having read various fair use decisions over many years, I think it's reasonable to concl

by kens 3y ago

> Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. Having read various fair use decisions over many years, I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent. Courts try to apply the four fair use factors and maintain consistency with previous decisions, but it's just a mess. If you look at this case, the district court decided it was fair use, the appeals court decided it wasn't, and the Supreme Court agreed it wasn't but with a 7-2 split. The point is that even expert judges can't agree. It's kind of hopeless to try to make sense of fair use law.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
> I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent Logically speaking fair use would have to have some degree of indeterminance and incoherence given that there is not mathematical formula detailing specifically how much change is needed for transformation in relation to commercializing that change. Without such a formula there will always be edge cases that will look wacky in relation to everything else.