Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!seismo!nbires!isis!jay
From: jay@isis.UUCP (Jay Batson)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re:  Unix dead??? (long message)
Message-ID: <969@isis.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Aug-86 10:59:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: isis.969
Posted: Fri Aug  8 10:59:10 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Aug-86 01:43:33 EDT
References: <2829@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: jay@isis.UUCP (Jay Batson)
Organization: University of Denver Math and Computer Science
Lines: 62
Summary: Becoming discussion on copyright....

In article <2829@brl-smoke.ARPA> chuq@sun.arpa (Chuq Von Rospach- Lord of the OtherRealms) writes:
>> A reasonable argument can be made that passing on an editorial from a
>> trade publication to various academic and trade distributions for the
>> purposes of alerting the individuals in that distribution to the
>> opinions expressed in that editorial is protected under the Fair Use
>> Doctrine.
>
>Fair Use covers EXCERPTS.  That wasn't, by any sense of the word.  It was
>a clear copyright violation.
>

Ok.  Lets set the record straight on Fair Use.  This is a
doctrine that says, in effect, "there are certain uses of
copyrighted material that appear to have legitimate use, and
don't harm the copyright owner in any way, so we'll say that
reproduction of the material does not violate the copyright
laws."

In determining whether a given use falls within this area, the
courts "balance" four factors.  They are:
	1)  The purpose and character of the use, including
	whether the use is commercial or for non-profit,
	educational purposes;
	2)  the nature of the copyrighted work;
	3)  the amount and substantiality of the portion used
	relative to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
	4)  the effect of the use on the potential market for
	the value of the copyrighted work.
	See Financial Information, Inc. v. Moody's Investors
	Service, Inc. 751 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1984) and
	17 U.S.C. 107.

Note that these four factors are "balanced" against each
other.  Chuq, ask yourself:
	1) was the reproduction of the article on the net done
	to enhance the reputation/give commercial advantage/
	otherwise promote the person who reproduced it?  NO.
	2) was the article one which has intrinsic value, like
	a textbook or software program was?  No.  It was opinion.
	3) was the whole article reproduced?  Yes.
	4) did the reposting affect the copyright holders
	ability to re-sell the article again?  No.  IN FACT,
	if anything, it may have gone some folks to go out and
	_buy_ the magazine, just to see how bad the rag is.

	What is the net balance?  Probably on the side of
allowing the posting as fair use.  We aren't judges, but we
can use the same tests they do, and decide for ourselves how
to act on the net.  We don't need to be frightened off by
incorrect, blanket statements like Chuq's that say "all
re-postings are violations, and we should never do them."
Just be sure to do the balancing test for yourselves.

--------

"Stop it!! Stop it now.  This is getting silly again, and this silliness
has _got_ to stop.  Go on to the next sketch.  Go on.  Turn this camera o    "

Jay Batson
       ihnp4!onecom!\
                     isis!jay
seismo!{hao,nbires}!/