[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Mon Mar 25 07:35:37 UTC 2002


On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Dylan Reinhardt wrote:
> This conversation shows little sign of resolving anything.  As a service
> for those who might wonder what was accomplished, I offer the following
> precis:

I'd like to say that I disagree with your choice of summary quotations.

> Beginning
> ---------------------
> You > "It's also fair use to spread the tape around and even make copies
> for people free of charge"
> Me > "Fair Use is not so broadly defined as all that"

This is fine enough.

> End
> ---------------------
> Me > "I await proof that [your interpretation] reflect[s] the laws of the
> land we live in"
> You > "How about, instead, adopting them as your ideas and working to change
> the law of the land we live in should that law oppose these ideas?"

Here's where you're WAY off.

You challenged me to find caselaw that supported my position.  However, my
position represents FREEDOM, not restriction and so caselaw is far less
likely to exist.

It's a bit like saying to me, "Yes, well, free speech isn't as broad as
all that.  I await proof that you can shout "Geeflarb carbunckle!" from
your window at noon on a Sunday."

Our legal system is based on restrictions, not allowances.  We do not
define all those things which are legal, only those which are illegal.

I can't prove a negative.

Instead, we reverse the challenge and try to prove the positive.  Show me
that it is ILLEGAL.  Show me a case of non-commercial, private copying and
distribution resulting in a successful infringement decision.  Since such
copying and distribution is so very common, it shouldn't be difficult if
your theory has been upheld.

> Conclusions (mine)
> ---------------------
> 1. We both like to argue.

True enough.

> 2. Neither of us are lawyers.

Not yet.

> 3. You still haven't shown a single example of a court acting as
> though your interpretation of the law has any legal standing or
> objective merit.

Nor have you.

You showed that the codified fair use doctrine is applied in a cumbersome
and considered way, but you haven't shown that the act I endorse is
illegal.  It's illegal IN YOUR OPINION, but, as you said, you're not a
lawyer.

> I'll be the first to admit I don't know it all and I would happily
> read any substantive example of a court finding that outlines the
> legal relevance of your opinions.

And while I'm at it, I'll find substantive court findings that hold that I
have the right to look over someone's shoulder as they read on the bus or
check out the magazines in the house where I'm sitting whilst the owners
are away.  There isn't such caselaw.  Legal theories can exist that these
acts are protected or restricted, but nobody's brought a suit, so how do
you KNOW?

You assume liberty until it is specifically restricted.  And a law means
nothing until it is interpreted by the courts.

> Until then, please forgive me if I take the reactionary position of
> suggesting that the unauthorized mass appropriation of other people's
> work is *highly questionable* both in terms of moral integrity and
> statutory legality.

I ask for no forgiveness and make no apologies for finding reference to
interpersonal communication as "appropriation" and "theft" not just
morally questionable, but contrary to the obvious nature information and
ideas.  It is unnatural and obscene.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list