 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Wednesday, August 21, 2002
More than establishing a rhetoric, Hollywood is establishing the law in the form of precedents for other courts to follow. The reason that the 2600 case was not appealed to the Supreme Court was that the attorneys for 2600 did not want the ruling from the Appeals court to be upheld and thus become the law of the land. To uphold the ruling in that case would be a terrible blow to the online world. Precedents are very difficult to overcome in the court system. The only way to get a common law changed is to legislate a new solution. For example, fair use is defined as an exception to the exclusive rights given to copyright holders. Fair use is not defined as a right in and of itself in the US Code and the courts are upholding this. We need to legislate fair use as a right in and of itself. As an IP worker bee, I see it every day. One of our clients will say, "we think that person is infringing on our copyright" and they will direct us to send a nasty gram to the alleged infringer. The alleged infringer will either a) not know about fair use or b) will challenge based on fair use. Then it comes down to money. The alleged infringer cannot possibly challenge the 800-pound mouse without a lot of money. So, the alleged infringer stops what they are doing and pays money to the client for damages even if the alleged infringer has done nothing wrong. Without a clear, legislated right to fair use, this practice will continue to stifle creativity and fatten the pockets of copyright holders. On a positive note, great news about the AOTC blog! Let's get organized! Free the Mouse!
|
