Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Fair Use

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.

Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.

current posts | more recent posts



I am not so sure this is good news. I think what is shows is that fair use does have a posse, but not the one we like. When it suits a conservative agenda such as Intelligent Design, fair use is allowed to happen. But when someone is trying to make a more liberal or radical statement such as Michale Moore Fahrenheit 9/11, a lot of suits of people claiming that rights were not cleared, and Moore claimed fair use. I know the scope of these to cases are differnt, but on the surface, there appears to be a double standard.

The judge has the same last name as Ben Stein, Sidney H. Stein. However, according to Wikipedia, this judge was appointed by Bill Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_New_York

Nick -

I am not aware of any successful copyright suit against Moore. His fair use claims are just as strong as those for 'Expelled', and he has successfully defended his rights as such - so I think your attempt to transform a copyright abuse issue into a partisan political issue falls flat.

I agree that copyright lawsuits are often brought for ideological reasons to suppress speech that people disagree with (rather than an attempt to 'protect rights' or spur creativity) - but that happens on all sides of the ideological spectrum. Since fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis, it also allows for ideological abuse by the individual judge involved (subject to his or her personal political whims). But that is a case for reforming copyright law, not proof that it is somehow biased against the Left. The Right has endured just as much copyright abuse.

Well said Justin, but I think it's safe to come out of the closet and agree with me that copyright's constraint of what would otherwise be natural cultural exchange is a case for its abolition - not merely its reform.

If unconstrained cultural exchange is right in fourteen years' time, why not today?

It's not like all these nearer lines people would draw in the sand aren't already submerged into irrelevancy by the instantaneous diffusion of the Internet anyway.

current posts | more recent posts

Submit Comment

Blog Post


Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code



Most Recent Comments

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Eu acho que os direitos autorais da invenção ou projeto devem ser

fdsfs asdgxc

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy https://essaywritingsolutions.co.uk/

Your Compulsory Assignment for Tonight rerrerrr

IIPA thinks open source equals piracy rwerwewre

An analysis of patent trolls by a trademark lawyer

Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime It is one of the finest websites I have stumbled upon. It is not only well developed, but has good

Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples