From: Kirk Steele (ksteele42@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Sep 25 2003 - 07:28:42 MDT
Hermit <virus@hermit.net> wrote:
Kirk,
For the material already discussed, i.e. EB and the OED, if I read it right, the relevant clause is: USC Tit. 17 Ch 1. 107. "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". (Reflected as [USC]).
[USC] Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [Hermit: reserving rights] , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
[USC] (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
[Hermit] Our use would be for a nonprofit (We are automatically eligable for non-profit status IFF we self assert as a religious body (i.e. a church) AND we behave like a non-profit (i.e. clear governance through a responsible body, regulations of membership, conduct, disposition of assets, no individual benefits, etc.) as previously documented by myself on the BBS) educational (not defined in this section, but "educational" has been held to include self-study in precious copyright cases brought against libraries providing copying facilities) purpose.
**************************************
[Kirk]Establishing religious institutional tax exempt status is a stretch. Tax code interpretation is not my forte' but I would hazard that such an assertion on our part would be met with strenuous challenge, not only by the "authors" of those materials we would attempt to 'copyleft' but by the esteemable Internal Revenue Service.
[Kirk] The ENTIRE proposal hinges on the ability of the group (CoV) to establish credibility as a NFP (Not For Profit) org. This would require David M. to literally divorce CoV from Lucifer.Com and set up other firewalls of propriety.
[USC] (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
[Hermit] The material is reference material required for criticism, comment, teaching, scholarship and research.
[USC] (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
[Hermit] A tiny percentage.
[USC] (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
[Hermit] As the research material would be disseminated to a closed group, the market and value of the material would be unchanged by this dissemination. When quoting from this to the CoV at large, only a small amount of the research material would be made available. This would reinforce both [USC 3] supra and [Hermit 1.1] infra.
**************************************
[Kirk] Once again, intent notwithstanding, the proof is in the pudding. Establishing the credibility of the organization as a NFP is the BURDEN we bear. Asserting said status and expecting the rewards is not a tactic I reccomend. "Ruling by fiat" is a tactic that the Bush regime has burned itself with on numerous occasions. We bear the burden of proof a priori to receiving the benifits vis-a-vis USC Title 17 Sec. 107 assertion of religious or educational status.
[USC]The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
[Hermit]Given that the unpublished work would be the "research finding", the permitted quotation of exerpts from the "research finding" to the public site, would be doubly blessed.
**************************************
[Kirk] Research is 'usually' done under grantor of an educational or research institution. John Q. P. does not an educational institution make. Once again the onus is the establishment of credible institutional regard. This would normally come from a peer review process by previously established institutions. Precedent setting is a dangerous game in the world of copyrights. Ask Napster.
For the above - and for other material, sourced e.g. under the aegis of academic licences, potential difficulties are far more likely to derive from Terms of Use than from public copyright law, as suppliers and academic libraries usually have more stringent controls than "fair use" requires.
Kind Regards
Hermit
[Kirk] ;}
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 25 2003 - 07:28:57 MDT