On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
> On 1/30/06, J. Noble <jfnbl[_at_]earthlink.com> wrote:
> >
> > While it's "possible" that the student has a fair use defense, we
> > don't "need to give the student the benefit of the doubt," and in
> > fact we can't -- he has the burden of proof.
>
> While you are entitled to your own thinking, that kind of
> thinking assumes that everyone is a copyright infringer
> until proven otherwise.
No, that kind of thinking accurately states the law: that once the copyright owner has made out a prima facie case of infringement; i.e. that one of the actions listed in Section 106 as exclusive rights of the copyright owner has been taken by the defendant, the burden of proof that those actions, as performed by the defendant are a fair use, shifts to the defendant.
> By quoting a portion of your post, I am assumed to be a copyright
> infringer until I prove I am not in a court.
By quoting a portion of his post, you are a prima facie infringer. If you were sued for this, you would indeed have the burden of showing that it was fair use.
(Actually, the implied license issue muddles it further; I'm fairly sure that the burden of showing that the use was authorized falls on the defendant, too.) Received on Tue Feb 07 2006 - 02:40:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT