|
I'd be interested if you knew the origin of the term. Otherwise, common learned usage doesn't seem to require extension or caricature so I'm inclined to disagree with you.
As far as the case I cited from your messages, well, evidently you believe that message board examples are a valid illustration of your point while I don't.
My question referred to the situation once you know it's fair use. Once a court rules in a particular case, or you're operating under a precedent, are you infringing but immune from prosecution, or are you not infringing because the use is reasonable?
You can state pretty definitely that discussing LOTR in a classroom is probably ok, as is publishing a typical review in a periodical. There ARE areas that are quite firmly inside fair use.
Sorry, I was referring to my personal credibility thresholds, not the maximimum legal extents of what you can do.
There are actually many clear-cut cases: open up the New York Times review section sometime. Or attend a class on literature. Provided the professors don't go out of their way to test the limits of the law, no sane person would claim that academic study of Catcher in the Rye is not fair use. (just to pick an example of recent literature without complicated ownership transfers going on)
Writing a review of LOTR is fair use. Creating an extended derivative work is not, probably unless parody.
Yes, he used loaded language to illustrate his point (most likely, because that's the way DIKU offenders are characterized). And, the point is a reasonable one as far as his direct point, dissociating for a moment the emotional baggage associated with the terms used. He was apparently throwing your own terms back at you (wide you, not personal you).
After 10 years, the Diku/Merc authors have done NOTHING to stop Vryce. Seems like tolerating it to me. I'm not suggesting that the alleged practices should be accepted as reasonable or respectable, of course.
It seems to me (IANAL) that the Diku/Merc positon might be weaker than the Tolkien one as far as toleration: making noise for a decade without doing anything is a much clearer announcement that you know about the infringement but don't intend to do anything than silence is.
Yes, I'm referring to the copyright notice, which clearly lets you know that the IP owner isn't giving out any rights but those normally associated with buying a book.
And why do you expect the persons who continue to ask it to be any less persistent than yourself when you object to something you regard as in unethical or illegal practice?
Stilton
|