From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c42dbf68f5320193 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-11 05:31:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: More on copyright Date: 11 May 2002 05:31:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0205110431.5383f80b@posting.google.com> References: <3CDAA2DA.4526E848@san.rr.com> <5ee5b646.0205100932.279fb402@posting.google.com> <3CDC0FB7.8A1793BD@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1021120314 17044 127.0.0.1 (11 May 2002 12:31:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 May 2002 12:31:54 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23893 Date: 2002-05-11T12:31:54+00:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter wrote in message news:<3CDC0FB7.8A1793BD@acm.org>... > If you sell the derived work, that is clearly a violation. But if I take > my legal copy of Titanic and create a version with Jar Jar Binks edited > out for my personal enjoyment, that's clearly fair use. Well your example is a bit peculiar, I don't think the owners of Titanic can complain if you bleep out Jar Jar Binks from Titanic :-) :-) But when anyone says "that's clearly fair use" I suggest you immediately raise your skepticism shields to full strength, since such statements almost always mean "I think that from a common sense point of view, this should be fair use", rather than "the statute or court case bla makes this fair use". Note that even a court case often creates a precedent only for the circuit involved, unless it is appealed. Even Altai vs Computer Associates is not the law of the land, but only of the particular circuit (though other circuits do tend to follow this particular ruling, which incidentally I strongly recommend all computer people read).