Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 6:17pm, Robert F. Bodi wrote:
> For many issues, the law is actually quite clear. For example, if I
> take a
> copyrighted book and make copies and sell it, I can be pretty sure that
> I
> have violated copyright. If I shoot you dead because I don't like you,
> I am
> a murderer.
>
> The fuzzy issues arise when the facts are on the border of a violation
> and a
> defense. That is typically where the advice of an attorney is
> necessary.
> The fuzziness often is not even about the law, but about the actual
> facts
> themselves, which are often not totally known.

Let's remember what we are talking about here: the four element fair use analysis. In a typical fair use case, the facts are not in dispute and well known which is why it so often gets decided in a motion for summary judgement.

What is unknown is how the judge will apply the four factors. I argue that different judes will apply them differently because of their inherently subjective nature. It should be scandalous that such an obvious fair use is even questioned. As soon as people see a commercial purpose to a use, they are their with a hand out for their vig.

I see nothing wron with a lawyer suggesting which way he thinks the law leans. I see in another thread where you discuss how you would advise the seller in a dispute where it is unclear from the contract of sales for a business whether a trademark is included. What's different in that case from someone else opining how a fair use rulin should go except that the other lawyer is more honest about his beliefs on who is right.

Roy Murphy CSpice: A Mailing List for Clergy Spouses murphy@panix.com http://www.panix.com/~murphy/CSpice.html Received on Wed Feb 25 2004 - 21:30:21 GMT