I didn't say that, nor did I mean to imply it. (Hell, fair use law is nothing but case precedent. Which is why it's so slippery.)

Fair enough, I thought you were saying that anything beyond the statute was equivalent to a handshake agreement. If it's case precedent, it's law, though admittedly the widely varying factual situations of each case make it hard (but not impossible) to say whether any particular precedent will control any particular subsequent case.

Oh, the joy of convincing editors that, yes, we will actually have to pay to use those just-right photos in components that we're selling, even if they are able to find similar in people's private online photo albums with a google search while writing manuscript. I push so hard for royalty-free images it's not even funny.

It's official. Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Don't frak it up. The next time it may not be fixable.

I'm not entirely convinced it's fixablethis time, but at least we seem to have put the brakes on before too many people started wearing jackboots. It may take a decade or more to repair our international reputation, a lifetime or more to sort out the long-term debt issues, and we still have the inmates running the asylum as far as foreign policy, the military, and civil services are concerend.

Daniel Baldwin booked for Grand Theft Auto.

They're using live-action footage instead of computer graphics now? t /smartass

meeting tomorrow about whether librarians are allowed to print out copies for students who can't get into their e-reserves

That's going to be every bit as fun as it sounds, isn't it?

only mine bought the urban myth about how any educational use is fair use.

Oh, we get this one too. I mean, showing a movie to your class, fine, go nuts (but that still doesn't mean we're obligated to get it for you -- if it's not available on home video, you'll pay the screener cost like any other client). Publishing a screencap in your textbook? That's a license.

anything beyond the statute was equivalent to a handshake agreement.

No, I didn't mean to put it in such extreme terms.

(Though, in some cases, I would be surprised if there was a lot of legal precedent. Like news-for-news -- the whole reason it exists is because it's inconvenient for media companies to waste time working out license agreements when there's a big story breaking. It's no less a copyright infringement just because it's a waste of time, but almost everyone allows it. Similarly, there's no good legal reason why video footage should be "fair use" for 24 hours after someone dies, except that everyone gets a better obituary story if they're allowed to steal stuff for it, and most media companies agree to look the other way.)

I swear to god, if another person makes a comment about what the hot peppers do to you on their way out or to not chop any before going to the bathroom, I'm going to just start screaming.

(there is a bagof peppers from someone's garden on the hall sink, next to the men's restroom. Which inspires potty humor, apparently.)

Some people it takes very little to "inspire" potty humor.

Happens everytime there are peppers here. Same people having the same discussion as if they'd never had it before.

library mini-meara:

It's quieter here than your average library.

Lots of libraries are actually pretty noisy now.

Which is why, legally, "fair use" boils down to "whatever you can get away with at the time." It's up to the copyright holder to decide whether they're being infringed upon -- there are no hard and fast rules about what you can and can't use, or how much, or for how long. None.

As others have said, there are rules. They're just rules that require interpretation. Still, it's up to the copyright owner whether or not to sue, but NOT whether or not they would win. I will grant, though, that the system, including courts, have been pretty biased in the copyright owners' favor in recent years.

*(FTR, I'm not a complete nerd, I have the statute sitting by my desk at work)

Trudy, please explain how having the statute on your desk makes you NOT a nerd? (from another avowed nerd!)

Everybody agrees that there are ground rules, however, so if George Lucas tried to sue my company over 1 line of reprinted dialogue, he'd probably get laughed out of court.

Alas, here I argue for the other side, that it depends. One line, if it's an important line or a small work, can be enough.

Speaking of copyright violations...

Ichiro Kameda, the president of a tiny, two-man company in Osaka, is currently embroiled in a bitter battle with computer maker Apple.

"Putting it simply, the fight is all over what I call our beat generator. There's a small device with three different, sound-activated motors. It's a revolutionary invention. You can plug it in to iPods or mobile phones. It can also be programmed to operate only for certain voices," Kameda says, referring to his company's product.

Kameda's commercial pride and joy is actually a women's sex aid worn inside her most intimate orifices and buzzing her with good vibrations when set off by sound.

Though the Japanese Patent Agency gave him the right to use the devise in August last year, and the trademark he chose for the product was approved two months later, he still hasn't been able to sell. The problem? He called the product the gPod.