Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
In arguments of copyright infringement, it's not a matter of being "hurt," it's a matter of taking an action that could potentially deny a copyright owner a potential profit from their product. It's impossible to unilaterally decide who is "hurt" by downloading a copy of something that is not otherwise available. But it's easy to state that, if a product/service was someone's property by law, someone else should not profit from it.
I suspect the reason "fair use" is applied to law is that it allows for those who violate copyright to be exempt from automatic prosecution, as long as they don't try to make a profit on said product; but the moment you do try to make a profit, your status is automatically shifted to "criminal"... IOW, it's an interim step before becoming a criminal offense.
|
Even that can't be the full standard. Example - book reviews. Quoting a sentence or two as a descriptive example would be a clear example of fair use (in the US), and most reviews are done for profit. That doesn't meet your description.