Matthew Hunter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 09:21:46AM -0600, Gametech > <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> wrote: >> Matthew Hunter wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:10:44AM -0600, Gametech >>> <voltronalpha at hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Technically your memory is infringing thousands of copyrights.... >>>> It's such a joke. >>> No, because you're not sharing it with anyone else. You share your >>> memory with others constantly. It's such a joke. > > You share your INTERPERTATIONS of your memory with others. > >> You don't have to share anything to be infringing, why you think >> they go hand in hand I don't see. > > Because that's how the law is written. Only rarely do copies > made for personal use and not shared trigger any kind of > enforceable violation. It's called copyright law, but it mostly > regulates distribution. > >>>> Copyright, IP, Patents restrict the rights of the 'whole' for the >>>> increase of rights for the entity (often a corporation). >>>> So I better not take a picture of my room cause there is almost >>>> certainly 100's of copyright infringements bound to happen... >>>> That's what fair use is supposed to be about, telling my computer >>>> to record my memories would in no way violate fair use. >>>> As reverse engineering a drug to save lives is also fair use, some >>>> things are more fundamental than others even if they aren't legal. >>> Reverse engineering does not come under fair use -- they are both >>> legal terms with specific definitions. I disagree. The term 'fair >>> use' is too vague, who determines what is fair? > > It's in the law. Read it sometime. Heres what I can find on it. § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include- (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. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. That is still awfully vague. > >> (The courts do not know, and more the fool thoose that believe they >> do.) > > The courts have the task of determining how the definitions in > the law will be applied, so they do know. > >> I'd >> place the reverse enginnering of a drug to save lives in 'fair use' >> not 'ilegal' even if it is. > > Fair use is a *specific legal term* in copyright discussions. > You don't get to define it.