4 ms·

> "[The video is] copyrighted so what we are doing technically is illegal" > "We think we have an excellent argument for Fair Use since it is clearly part of p

• sp332 14y ago
  Fair use is determined by courts. Unfortunately there is in fact no way to know whether a use is fair without having a judge decide.
  • pyre 14y ago
    Well, there is case-law... which could possibly be overturned if someone decides to push far enough through the court system.
• danso 14y ago
  This is most definitely not "fair use", as is determined by case law, even as profit motive plays a part in that judgment. Fair use protects such scenarios as me replaying a part of a broadcast in order to critique it (as the Daily Show does -- and definitely for a profit purpose) or to educate. The most relaxed guidelines are probably in the educational domain. But even then, you, as a teacher, can't just tape the "I Have a Dream" broadcast and show it in its entirety from year to year: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter7/7-b.html http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/... > Nonprofit educational institutions can record television programs transmitted by network television and cable stations. The institution can keep the tape for 45 days, but can only use it for instructional purposes during the first ten of the 45 days. After the first ten days, the video recording can only be used for teacher evaluation purposes, to determine whether or not to include the broadcast program in the teaching curriculum. If the teacher wants to keep it within the curriculum, he or she must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The recording may be played once by each individual teacher in the course of related teaching activities in classrooms and similar places devoted to instruction (including formalized home instruction). The recorded program can be repeated once if necessary, although there are no standards for determining what is and is not necessary. After 45 days, the recording must be erased or destroyed. I'm not saying I "like" how "I Have a Dream" is under lock-and-key...I'm just annoyed at how people interpret the "fair" in "fair use" as, "It's ok as long as I'm being altruistic and a good person about it"
• rmc 14y ago
  Even if it was fair use, YouTube et al. can and do block things like that. Deference to copyright has gone too far.
• brownbat 14y ago
  In Cohen v. California, the "Fuck the Draft" case,* it's suggested that there's really no equivalent alternative for the political message other than the phrase "fuck the draft." This lack of alternatives drives, in part, the court's scrutiny on the obscenity laws at play. I wish that line of analysis was extended more liberally into other areas of 1st amendment law, the "is there another equivalent way to deliver this political message?" test. It could be used as the foundation for a new plank of fair use, and in this case, a claim that there's no other way to fully illustrate what is lost by expansive copyright restrictions on politically relevant media without showing the most powerful clips burdened by these protections. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California