I just wanted to point out something about what you people call "fair use". Granted that the discussion of "fair use" is minimal in this particular thread, it has cropped up frequently in the past, and it is evident that a lesson in "fair use" is necessary.
Fair use is NOT an invitation to copy. There was a post about distributing Backstreet Boys (*shudder*) CD's, that had been copied, in a subway, and how it supposedly constituted "fair use". Perhaps in your mystical magical happy-land "fair use" means what we, here in reality, call "illegal copyright infringement".
Fair use means use of an author's work, without expressed permission, for the purposes of critique. If Rush Limbaugh says something totally outrageous and I decide that I want to write something about it on my website, I can transcribe, verbatim, what he said, and then write my reaction. Oviously I do not own the copyright, the radio network does, but I am immune from legal action because that is considered fair use.
Have you ever seen a movie trailer that contains critic's reactions to the movie? Do you honestly believe the critic was paid royalties for the use of his 3 word quote? Of course not! It's fair use. Even the critic's use of the copyrighted movie title as well as clips from the film is fair use. The critic doesn't own the rights to the film, nor does the production company own the rights to the critic's opinion, but they each use each other's material.
So for those who were a bit... "confused", this really and truly is the extent of what is considered "fair use", as far as replication is concerned. There are, of course, other types of "fair use" (broadcasting music and such), but this is really the only one that seems to apply. I hope this clears up some of the "confusion" surrounding the subject.
Did anybody actually bother to read the patent? I don't know how the word "hyperlink" got associated with this whole deal, but it is an erroneous description of the problem. The fact is, quite simply, that the 1968 film does not cover all of the independent claims made in the BT patent. It seems as if everybody got the word "hyperlink" from the '68 film and immediately thought the patent had this magical word in it somewhere. It simply is not. I would be interested to see where, in the film, the word "modem" is mentioned, or perhaps "telephone network". Both of these concepts are required to validate the claims made in the patent. If these technologies are not utilized in the film, then it does not invalidate tha patent. Learn some patent law, and read the patent before going crazy about patenting prior art!
Slashdot Mirror
I just wanted to point out something about what you people call "fair use". Granted that the discussion of "fair use" is minimal in this particular thread, it has cropped up frequently in the past, and it is evident that a lesson in "fair use" is necessary.
Fair use is NOT an invitation to copy. There was a post about distributing Backstreet Boys (*shudder*) CD's, that had been copied, in a subway, and how it supposedly constituted "fair use". Perhaps in your mystical magical happy-land "fair use" means what we, here in reality, call "illegal copyright infringement".
Fair use means use of an author's work, without expressed permission, for the purposes of critique. If Rush Limbaugh says something totally outrageous and I decide that I want to write something about it on my website, I can transcribe, verbatim, what he said, and then write my reaction. Oviously I do not own the copyright, the radio network does, but I am immune from legal action because that is considered fair use.
Have you ever seen a movie trailer that contains critic's reactions to the movie? Do you honestly believe the critic was paid royalties for the use of his 3 word quote? Of course not! It's fair use. Even the critic's use of the copyrighted movie title as well as clips from the film is fair use. The critic doesn't own the rights to the film, nor does the production company own the rights to the critic's opinion, but they each use each other's material.
So for those who were a bit... "confused", this really and truly is the extent of what is considered "fair use", as far as replication is concerned. There are, of course, other types of "fair use" (broadcasting music and such), but this is really the only one that seems to apply. I hope this clears up some of the "confusion" surrounding the subject.
Did anybody actually bother to read the patent? I don't know how the word "hyperlink" got associated with this whole deal, but it is an erroneous description of the problem. The fact is, quite simply, that the 1968 film does not cover all of the independent claims made in the BT patent. It seems as if everybody got the word "hyperlink" from the '68 film and immediately thought the patent had this magical word in it somewhere. It simply is not. I would be interested to see where, in the film, the word "modem" is mentioned, or perhaps "telephone network". Both of these concepts are required to validate the claims made in the patent. If these technologies are not utilized in the film, then it does not invalidate tha patent. Learn some patent law, and read the patent before going crazy about patenting prior art!