Re: OMG!

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

Unpersuasive:  "good degree of certainty" allows for a degree of
uncertainty, thus you lose (at least the legal argument ;-)).

"Sheldon Simms" <sheldon@interprice.com> wrote in message
20010508.100819.1987231011.14247@ip148.interprice.vi">news:20010508.100819.1987231011.14247@ip148.interprice.vi...
> Im Artikel <8oCJ6.29850$ua5.8292866@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net> schrieb "Frank
> Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>:
>
>
> > Not a bad idea, but fair use virtually never works when the taking is
> > substantial with respect to the whole unless the work is very brief (<
> > 2,500 words).
>
> How much of the fair use case law deals with a situation similar to the
> one we're discussing? I suspect the situation is somewhat novel, and
> a court would have wide discretion in making a decision.
>
> > Also, non-commercial use does not automatically guarantee fair use.
> > As to damages, actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement
> > would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable
> > damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will
> > result.
>
> I think it could be shown with a good degree of certainty that future
> harm is impossible.