Quote:
Originally Posted by John F
Could you give a little more detail (a link, case, ...)?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSFReader
Would you, by chance, have a reference/link to that decision ?
|
Well there is this:
In any event, the evidence now available does not, in
my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for
change. To say *961 this is not to doubt the basic
need to protect copyrighted material from
infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital
role that copyright plays in advancing the “useful
Arts.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. No one disputes that “reward
to the author or artist serves to induce release to the
public of the products of his creative genius.” United
States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131,
158, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948). And
deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful
taking of property than garden-variety theft.
here:
http://contiguglia.files.wordpress.c...okster-ltd.pdf
(google really is your friend -- even if Amazon isn't
)