Re: Re: Re: fourth fair use factor

Well, (1) is a tautology, unless I'm misreading you. (2) and (3) are correct, but don't take you very far analytically, since they're true of any cause of action, no?

As Steve Jamar said, the practical outfall of the difference between "defense" and "exception to exclusive rights" is negligible. It is, however, good fodder for us nitpickers.

On 11/1/06, Michael Graham <mgraham[_at_]marshallip.com> wrote:

> Perhaps a better terminology would be (1) violation of the Sections 106
> and/or 106A rights constitues violation of these rights, (2) in the
> absence of "fair use" (or other defense) this violation concsitutes
> infringement, but (3) upon proof of "fair use" (or other defense) the
> violation does not constitute actionable infringement.
>

-- 
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrkoven[_at_]world.std.com