flipper wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 23:12:20 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:


flipper wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:42:25 -0400, Stewart Schooley
wrote:



Your account doesn't take into consideration the "fair use" doctrine of
U.S. law.



The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works

Notice the words research and education.

Also this;



Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Teaching, scholarship, and research

Stewart



Not applicable

It is applicable because the OP didn't give a complete accounting of
copyright law.



That is a non-sequitur. Just being a 'part of the law' somewhere
doesn't make it applicable and there is a lot of copyright law that
hasn't been mentioned... reason being it isn't, as I said, applicable.

Read the OT again and you'll see that it is presented as a tutorial on
copyright law and near the end we read this comment;

CAN COPYRIGHT LAW REALLY BE THIS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHFORWARD?

The purpose of my post was to point out that there is another part of
copyright law that can be very ambiguous at times. This was for readers
that may not have researched copyright law. The fair use doctrine came
about because of lawsuits and court decisions. Today, spoof, parody, and
sarcasm are pretty well protected so the question becomes how much of a
copyrighted work can be excerpted for scholarship and research.

Consider this, if an electronics teacher uses RDH4 as a resource for his
classes over an entire semester, at what point does he violate copyright
laws?

I don't think that anyone would doubt that copying an entire book would
be breaking the law.

I will grant you that my response to you should have been; It is
applicable to this thread because the OT didn't give a complete
accounting of copyright law.

Stewart