[email protected] 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
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.
From [email protected] Fri Sep 6 11:32:27 PDT 1996
Article: 62977 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken)
Subject: Re: SHOW YOUR SUPPORT – sign on here
Date: 6 Sep 1996 04:15:31 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
X-Newsreader: SPRY News 3.03 (SPRY, Inc.)