he's been closing in "concentrically" on a single mission and theme. That is, to seek out "what's most useful and innovative" as he navigates a career full of variation, quick turns, and deeper meaning.??
The point of this very quick and cur??so??ry sur??vey of inter??na??tion??al pro??pos??als for copy??right reform is simple.?? Through??out the world, even in those coun??tries that, unlike the U.S., embrace a natural-rights account of copy??right, reform is focused on sup??port??ing inno??va??tion and not allow??ing a sys??tem that worked in the past become an obsta??cle for the future.?? Yet in the U.S. all of our copy??right pro??pos??als, and??even state??ments from our Reg??is??trar of Copy??rights, seem focused on pro??tect??ing the old ways and staving off as long as pos??si??ble the inno??va??tion that pro??vides our best eco??nom??ic hope.?? If we can??not learn from our com??peti??tors and our trad??ing part??ners, we will cer??tain??ly be left behind.
http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/12/28/using-copyright-for-its-intended-purpose/ (Sent from Flipboard)
One of the places we will learn most from this case will be where the defense weaves togeth??er sec??tions 107, 108, 109, 110 and 121 into, I imag??ine, a thick??et of jus??ti??fi??ca??tion that empha??sizes how com??pre??hen??sive??ly Con??gress intend??ed to per??mit the social??ly ben??e??fi??cial uses that Hathi will facil??i??tate.
What fair use is for
(Sent from Flipboard)
The plain??tiff???s com??plaint focused near??ly exclu??sive??ly on sec??tion 108 of the Copy??right Act, the so-called ???library excep??tions??? which deal with preser??va??tion and copy??ing made for patrons (the foun??da??tion of inter-library loan).?? The plain??tiffs want the court to con??clude, it seems, that this one sec??tion of the law entire??ly encom??pass??es all that a library is enti??tled to do with copy??right??ed material.?? As they go through the points alleged in the com??plaint, the defen??dants repeat??ed??ly assert that ???Sec??tion 108 of the Copy??right Act is one of many lim??i??ta??tions on copy??right hold??ers??? rights??? and ???that plain??tiffs descrip??tion of sec??tion 108 is incom??plete and there??fore mis??char??ac??ter??izes the statute.????? What is left out, of course, is that sec??tion 108 states explic??it??ly that fair use ???sec??tion 107 ??? is still avail??able and that noth??ing in 108 ???affects the right of fair use??? (sec??tion 108 (f)(4).
http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/12/20/what-fair-use-is-for/ (Sent from Flipboard)