pdf's of Raymond Franz's books

by Newly Enlightened 277 Replies latest members private

• 

  OrphanCrow

  JD: But the law isn't clear at all.
  te fair use clause may very well cover the whole book. It certainly sounds like it does. Reading that information it sounds very much like a person may freely reprint an entire work for scholarly purposes if that work is out of print - which it is.

  The law is clear.

  "Fair use" does NOT cover the whole book. Not by any stretch of the imagination or layman's interpretation of it.

  You may read it that way, but I can assure you that "scholarly" people do not read it at the same level you do. And neither do lawyers. I know because I have consulted intellectual property lawyers about this very issue. I also know because the university I used to work at was very strict about "fair use" copyright laws.

  Lawyers and scholars have no problem interpreting the fair use clause.

  further, there is no reason I see in that clause that it cannot be the entire book. It does not say it cannot be, it gives an example. It says the book can be used for scholarly reasons, and that is exactly what's happening.

  No, that is not what is happening. You do not understand the term "scholarly".
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Orphan crow,

  im sorry, but everything I'm reading suggests you are incorrect. This source appears to suggest the entire work can be copied for fair use.

  Unfortunately, there is no clear formula that you can use to determine the boundaries of fair use. Instead, a court will weigh these four factors holistically in order to determine whether the use in question is a fair use. In order for you to assess whether your use of another's copyrighted work will be permitted, you will need an understanding of why fair use applies, and how courts interpret each part of the test.

  http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use
  
  
• 

  Oubliette

  Copyright laws only seem "unclear" to people that don't like what they say.

  If it was your book or song or whatever that people were copying and distributing without your permission I'm sure you would have no trouble understanding the law.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Further:

  Accordingly, the presence of advertising on a website would not, in of itself, doom one’s claim to fair use.

  http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/fair-use
  
• 

  OrphanCrow

  JD:
  Orphan crow,
  im sorry, but everything I'm reading suggests you are incorrect.

  Lol!

  Well then, Jonathan, if I am incorrect, then so is the lawyer that I paid money to to get an interpretation of this clause and so are all the universities in Canada.

  I would suggest that your reading is not at the comprehension level required in order to make a legal judgement on this issue. I will go with the professionals that do know how to read and interpret this clause.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  EVEN FURTHER:

  according to THIS quote, the inclusion of the jwservey and jwfacts websites are expressly the reason this DOES fall under fair use. That's what I'm reading:

  If you merely reprint or repost a copyrighted work without anything more, however, it is less likely to qualify for protection under this prong. If you include additional text, audio, or video that comments or expands on the original material, this will enhance your claim of fair use.
  
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Orphan crow,

  all the universities in Canada.
  

  Here is a link to the differences between Canadian and U.S copyright law, I'm reading them now:

  http://m.gowlings.com/KnowledgeCentre/article.asp?pubID=2231
  
• 

  Simon

  Now you are clinging to "fair use" as the excuse. The most important fair use factor from the article you linked:

  ... and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

  The damage isn't the profit made by the violator, it's the market lost to the copyright holder.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Simon

  the book is out of print, he is making no profit, no market has been lost because no market exists.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  JD: But the law isn't clear at all.
  te fair use clause may very well cover the whole book. It certainly sounds like it does. Reading that information it sounds very much like a person may freely reprint an entire work for scholarly purposes if that work is out of print - which it is.

  The law is clear. Your reading of it is not.

  "Fair use" does NOT cover the whole book. Not by any stretch of the imagination or layman's interpretation of it.

  You may read it that way, but I can assure you that "scholarly" people do not read it at the same level you do. And neither do lawyers. I know because I have consulted intellectual property lawyers about this very issue. I also know because the university I used to work at was very strict about "fair use" copyright laws.

  Lawyers and scholars have no problem interpreting the fair use clause.