I don't mean to sound harsh, but issues of the law and copyright are
complicated and fairly important, and "fair use" in particular is a
thorny issue for us. People ought not to make dramatic pronouncements
without citing court cases or legislation to back up those
pronouncements.
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
I think Wikipedia should consider the fair use
doctrine null and
void.
I think it would be pretty impossible for us to go that far. Whenever
you quote even a sentence from a book, you're relying on "fair use" --
and as far as I know, the doctrine of fair use is not "null and void"
in the law, not even close.
At the outer limits of fair use there are many unresolved questions,
of course. And for our purpose (i.e. the intention that people may
repurpose our content in ways that we can't anticipate) we should be
cautious. But there is no serious sense in which the fair use
doctrine is null and void.
Under the DMCA, pretty much any distribution of
copywrighted
material is illegal.
This sentence is just outrageously false. The DMCA is a mixed bag,
with some good provisions and some bad provisions. But it doesn't
do what you say it does.
(I know I shouldn't be saying this on the list, but
the RIAA is suing
someone for distributing software in Yale that emulates Napster and
they're trying to get 97.8 trillion dollars.)
Whatever the merits, or lack thereof, of that case, it in no way
implies that the fair use doctrine is null and void.
--Jimbo