Enjoyed reading your response.
My simple solution to the world of copyright controversy would be to throw the entire burden on the plaintiff to show proof of damages. Fair use essentially says it is not illegal to copy some material for some purposes. Maybe lawyers would argue that it is always illegal to copy someone elses work and that "fair use" merely sets up an exception. My point is that not only should fair use be broadened but it should be made clear that the act of copying in and of itself is not illegal. The test in my world is "if there is damage, then there is a cause of action" and whether that is criminal or just unfair is based on all the other factors of criminal intent, etc.
The issues of plagerism and downloading illegally copied games present interesting side issues of morality and ethics but if the test is still one of proving damage to another, that would seem to cover those two situations. Is plagerism illegal or just immoral and unethical? I guess we could ask Senator Biden. Of course accepting stolen goods is another story. If one knows that the goods have been stolen.
This comes from a statistician, engineer, artist, writer, type person who feels we also should have some say in the direction of the law.
David Stover
<ds[_at_]ald.lib.co.us>
Received on Fri Sep 19 1997 - 15:32:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:27 GMT