Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech_Master
And I linked a section from Wikipedia indicating that those exemptions tend to be honored more in the breach. Since I guess you didn't read it, I'll go ahead and quote it here (emphasis mine):
|
The DMCA explicitly says:
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
So I think the judge you cited was simply wrong. It happens. That's why we have appeals.
As for the "If congress wanted it there they'd have put it there" argument in general? Um, no. A totally comprehensive and unambiguously phrased law? If that was the typical expectation, we wouldn't need all these courts and cases, would we?
Quote:
|
If those exemptions were all that effective, we wouldn't have dozens of petitions every three years from people saying, "Allow us to break DRM for fair use purposes under the law, please."
|
Actually, we asked the Librarian to resolve an ambiguity, and one of the reasons those petitions were not effective* was because the Librarian only considers exemptions for things that, without them, were unambiguously prohibited. There is an argument to be made that we cannot get an exemption rule for something that's NOT already prohibited.
I, too, am not a lawyer.
ApK
*Another reason petitions like mine were not effective was that, while the process asks for "public comment" what it really called for was "formal legal analysis and argument." Oh well, live and learn.