From email@example.com Fri Sep 6 11:32:27 PDT 1996 Article: 62977 of alt.revisionism Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!news.mem.bellsouth.net!news.atl.bellsouth.net!news.mindlink.net!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!nntp-ucb.barrnet.net!cpk-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!news3.cac.psu.edu!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!news.enter.net!usenet From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Yale F. Edeiken) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT - sign on here Date: 6 Sep 1996 04:15:31 GMT Organization: ENTER.NET Lines: 75 Message-ID: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp56.enter.net X-Newsreader: SPRY News 3.03 (SPRY, Inc.) > email@example.com (Matt Giwer) writes: > It is great to read so many people support criminal copyright > violation and conspiract to same. Violations of the copyright law are not criminal violations. > Even Edeiken knows that the legislative history of "educational > purposes" does not support Nizkor but he publically posts a legal > opinion that such copyright violation is within the law. This is an outright lie. I have never posted a legal opinion on copyright law. I have never given one privately. There is a simple reason for this. The Copyright Law was radically amended in 1988 to conform with the Berne Convention and I had not even read it until this morning. What I found is that you were lying. First, the "legistlative history" is not quite relevant. The Historical Notes (taken From Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House report 94-1476 --- the relevant legislative history) printed with the statute to explain it state: "Section 107 is intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way." Thus the judicial interpretation of "fair use" which was *never* restricted to classroom use is very relevant as legislative history. It should be noted that the Report also states " . . . the endless variety of situations and combinations of circumstances that can rise in particular cases precludes the formulation of exact rules in the statute. The bill endorses the purpose and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory explanation of what is fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to it, the courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular situations on a case-by-case basis." The report later states: "Although the works and uses to which the doctrine of fair use is applicable are as broad as the copyright law itself, most of the discussion of section 107 has centered around questions of classroom reproduction, particularly photocopying" It defines the scope of the section as being: "the comittee has not only adopted further amendments to section 107 but has also amended section 504 (c) to provide innocent teachers and other non-profit users of copyrighted material with broad insulation against unwarranted liability for infringement." Perhaps it is me, but the normal English interpretation of the phrase "innocent teachers and other non-profit users" would indicate that the legislative history is *not* limited to classroom situations. I notice that you announce what the "legislative history" is but do not quote it so that others may see what you are talking about. In this case, of course, the "legislative history" would include the judicial precedents which it specifically embodies. A quick check of the annotations revealed no holding that fair use is limited, as you state, to classrooms. Several of the cases applied in to non-classroom situations. I would ask for some citations of the cases that support your interpretation, but that is a fruitless exercise. It is apparent that you do not know what you are talking about. > It is just one more thing to report the the Penn SC. Please do. Please tell them that I am an evil person because I quoted the legislative history that directly contradicts you ipse dixit statement. Your deposition on that point should be very humorous. I can't wait. --YFE
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012