Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TChris

Because by doing it en masse, as a business venture, they are way beyond the "fair use" coverage in copyright law. If they had partnered with the studios to do this, they would have been fine, but they went ahead even after permission was denied.


108 posted on 07/10/2006 9:00:34 AM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: linda_22003
Because by doing it en masse, as a business venture, they are way beyond the "fair use" coverage in copyright law. If they had partnered with the studios to do this, they would have been fine, but they went ahead even after permission was denied.

So, I return to my original question: Why is the combination of two ostensibly legal activities under one roof illegal? Selling legal copies of movies is legal. Editing a legal copy of a movie for the owner of that legal copy is, presumably, a legal service. Why do they get twisted up in knots when both are done together by the same company?

127 posted on 07/10/2006 9:08:27 AM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn’t about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson