Re: droit de suite

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Lance Purple <lpurple[_at_]netcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
> >
> > I tend to believe that the copying Lance suggests should be allowed
> > would satisfy the "purpose and character" factor (to make the public
> > aware of conduct/activities of the congregation or company that may
> > influence their perception) , the "nature of copyrighted work" factor
> > (as being true statements of the activities that occurred), and the
> > "effect on value" factor (because the piece is not sold within or
> > outside of the organization and doesn't have a *market* value). As
> > you know from the Texaco appeal, prevailing on all four factors is
> > not required, only prevailing on the majority of the factors.
> >
> > For those reasons, I made the statement that the qualifiers he is
> > proposing would be unnecessary.
>
> Yes, but being "fair use" may no longer be a defense, thanks to the
> Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Particularly in the CyberPatrol
> case, the fact that anti-copying technology is present might mean
> that no "fair use" is possible unless the holder permits it. THAT
> is one of the reasons I say copyright law has gone too far lately.

I don't see how that example differs from the Copyright Act as it stands. You suggest that fair use may be negated unless the owner of the rights permits it because of anti-copy technology. However, I don't see that as being materially different from the courts' reduced tolerance toward copying without permission since the establishment of licensing schemes, which make it easier and more cost-effective to get permissions.

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Wed Apr 12 2000 - 15:20:19 GMT