> It's not illegal for me to read an NYT article and write my own summary of the article's contents on my blog. This has been true forever and has forever been

> It's not illegal for me to read an NYT article and write my own summary of the article's contents on my blog. This has been true forever and has forever been a staple in new content creation. It’s not that clear-cut. It falls into the “Fair use doctrine”The cose 107 of the US copyright law states that the resolutiodepends on> > (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Another thing we need to consider is that the law was redacted with the human mind limitations as a unconcious factor, (i.e not many people would be able to recite War and peace verbatim from memory). This just brings up the fact that copyright law needs a complete re-think.