Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
That's exactly how the people who wrote the law wanted it.
|
I don't think that's true. At least, I don't think they intended it to be "pointless." I think that, when it was written, copyright infringement was a rarely-used aspect of commercial law, and defining it for things other than "Publisher B made copies of Publisher A's bestseller" was deliberately left fuzzy to allow for individual case circumstances.
I think that, had they realized that at some point, more than 50% of all business communications would directly connect to copyright law ('cos hey! Just by reading this, you're making more than a dozen copies of it on various servers!), they'd've defined "fair use" a bit more precisely.
In the proposed changes, "non-consumptive copies" should include "makes copies on various servers in order to get it to readers."