Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On March 19, 2007, the bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. The bill was not reintroduced. Boucher emphasized that the bill would not make circumvention an act of fair use, but would instead redefine which acts qualify as permissible circumvention, stating that
The bill was reintroduced into Congress once again on March 9, 2005 as H.R. 1201, the 'Digital Media Consumers Rights Act of 2005'. The 2005 bill's original co-sponsors were John Doolittle, and Joe Barton. Some provisions of the bill were incorporated into the FAIR USE Act of 2007.
We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. § 107 created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is "authorized by the law" and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)." In June 2011, Judge Philip Pro of the District of Nevada ruled in Righthaven v.
Fair use is the path to have our cake and to eat it. It is long-established and we need to reject calls to ignore it or override it. And it doesn’t mean that content generation models cannot exist.
He said that mandating video-sharing sites to proactively police every uploaded video "would contravene the structure and operation of the D.M.C.A." [8] Stanton also noted that YouTube had successfully enacted a mass take-down notice issued by Viacom in 2007, indicating that this was a viable process for addressing infringement claims.
May 16, 2007: Citation: 508 F.3d 1146: Case history; Prior history: Grant of partial injunctive relief: Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Holding; The use of thumbnail versions of copyright images for search engine purposes is transformative use, and falls within the fair use provisions of United States copyright ...
A fact from FAIR USE Act appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 April 2011 (check views).The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that in 2007, the 110th U.S. Congress introduced the FAIR USE Act, which would have prevented the Supreme Court from levying damages against companies for secondary infringement?
The year after the decision, Jeannine Marques at the Berkeley Technology Law Journal wrote that "Bill Graham and Blanch seem to mark a shift in focus in fair use jurisprudence towards promoting and encouraging transformative works, regardless of economic effects, in areas in which classical fair use was all but closed to secondary users" by ...