On 1/25/00, Laurie Urquiaga <urquiagal[_at_]lawgate.byu.edu> wrote:
>
> One of my personal concerns is that the fear of litigation will lead
> to the wholesale abandonment of established practices, with the result
> that legitimate fair uses will be lost through inaction and/or the
> unwillingness to defend them. Under the circumstances, I am hesitant
> to construe Texaco so as to apply its reasoning to fact situations
> different from that of the case. Texaco IS widely cited, but I hate
> to think I'll have to follow it in circumstances even the 2nd Circuit
> excluded from the decision.
>
> Even more muddled than before,
I'm not sure why you should feel more muddled than you did before reading Texaco. From your post (most of which I've omitted), it sounds like you've gained a significant amount of understanding about fair use and its own muddled state. To understand that fair use is difficult to apply is an important realization. Not only is fair use dependent on the facts of each case, but courts do not apply the doctrine with any consistency. Is this a good thing? Probably not. Makes it particularly tough on people who copy, receive a cease-and-desist letter, and drop it, even if they think their use is fair. And I'm not even saying that their use *is* fair, only that a determination is difficult and expensive.
But I wouldn't feel muddled if I were you. Pissed maybe. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:38 GMT