On 01/24/2012 03:11 PM, John Mitchell wrote:
If license agreements could trump fair use, there would be little reason not
to allow employers to have prospective employees waive all of their rights as
a condition of employment.
John,
While I acknowledge a certain isomorphism in your analogy, I think there
are important qualitative differences between the two, copyright and
employment law, as to make the overall effect a shade off.
Employment law protects real, live, physical human beings from a variety
of nasty physical risks as well as generally protecting employees from
unscrupulous employers. Copyright serves, constitutionally, to foster
innovation (i.e., "...promote science and the useful arts...")
Juxtaposing the two is simply inapt, on the order of using a six letter
word for sea-faring brigands infamous for murder, rape, and arson, to
describe the act of copying books or music or whatever.
I agree fully with the point you are making. Fair use isn't something
tacked on as an afterthought to copyright law. Instead the public weal,
in the form of ever increasing promotion of science and useful arts, is
the aimed for end. Time to recognize the governmentally subsidized,
limited in both scope and duration, "copy right" for what it is: the
tail, which must not be allowed to wag the dog, no matter how many votes
Disney buys.
Cheers,
--
Robert Thomas Hayes Link
Law Offices of Robert Thomas Hayes Link | (626) 765-5465
710 Myrtle Avenue #113 | Monrovia, CA 91016
http://netlaw.robertlink.org | rl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx