At 4:02 PM -0400 8/19/02, JC Dill is rumored to have typed:
> One could argue that subscribing and mirroring a mailing list on the
> Internet is akin to the paper book parallel of buying a single copy of a
> book then putting it in a lending library.
I doubt any court would accept that argument if you took a _copy_ from the
rightsholder (note you would be serving a _seperate_ copy on a seperate
server; a better analogy would be photocopying the paperback and giving away
copies to anyone who asked) without express permission. That's like making
the argument that it's ok to copy a DVD (pick whichever one is your favorite
at the moment) and posting it onto a website without the permission of the
copyrightholder, since you're only "loaning" it.
But feel free to test the boundaries of the law, if you'd like. I'd
suggest that a reasonable case could be made that Google's caching of
copyrighted web pages without express permission is likely illegal since the
passage of the DMCA. (Would be fun sitting on the sidelines seeing a large
corporation file suit; I'm not saying the case would be _successful,_ mind
you, but would be a legitimate argument for the judiciary to decide. And a
hoot for the spectators.)
This is why it's _always_ better to assume a creation is protected under
copyright than it is to assume it isn't, or that a given purpose for the copy
qualifies as, "fair use." The issues are such that only lawyers with years of
experience in this area are even qualified to give an opinion, and without
specific case law to back them up, even they're only guessing.
Charlie
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
