Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Is that fair use?

As always, the answer is.. "it depends". I guess it depends mostly on the jurisdiction that applies to you. "Fair use" can have rather different legal meaning (or not exist at all) in different countries.



Fair use is specific to the US, as far as I'm aware. Moreover, Congress had to codify fair use (turn fair use common into statutory law in the form of 17 U.S. Code § 107) in order to make copyright statutes compatible with the First Amendment. Most other countries don't have freedom of expression and freedom of the press, so copyright law in a different country usually lacks a unifying exception test like fair use to supplement the specific enumerated exceptions.


> Most other countries don't have freedom of expression and freedom of the press

This is demonstrably wrong. Many countries have both freedoms, albeit some have less strong protection than others.


Good point. I failed to qualify what I meant by freedom of expression, and made a meaningless claim regardless. Despite the US Constitution's relatively broad speech protections (e.g. don't criminalize hate speech, and allow truth as a defense to defamation claims), US governments don't always respect freedom of expression (e.g. KOSA would force social media companies to moderate more aggressively to "protect kids") or respect press freedom (e.g. police pepper spray journalists at protests). Even so, I think Congress wouldn't have bothered to codify fair use if the First Amendment weren't as broad as it is.

I replace the following sentence from my previous comment:

> Most other countries don't have freedom of expression and freedom of the press, so copyright law in a different country usually lacks a unifying exception test like fair use to supplement the specific enumerated exceptions.

with the following:

Copyright law in most countries usually lacks a unifying exception test like fair use to supplement the specific enumerated exceptions in each respective country.

The rest of my previous comment remains the same.


I have to point out that you did not refute the initial assertion.

They said "Most other countries" and you replied with "Many countries"

"Many" does not necessary include "most" but "most" does include "many".


> "Many" does not necessary include "most" but "most" does include "many".

No, it doesn't. If a set is of sufficiently low cardinality, “most” (in extreme cases, even “all”) of the set may not be “many”.

Most-all, in fact—Catholic Presidents of the United States have been Democrats. But it is not the case that many Catholic Presidents have been Democrats.

Most women to have served on the US Supreme Court did so only after its first 200 years. But, again, there were not many women who served on the Supreme Court only after its first 200 years.


Most female Vice Presidents of the USofA would not agree that that there are many female US Vice Presidents.


Also “fair use” does not use/define precedent - each case is assessed individually which really can be a flip of the coin.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: