On 9/18/08, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:

Cliffs Notes has never been sued for copyright infringement (AFAIK) and they give a far more in-depth view than we do.

Word.

But I would like to know whether anything similar to CliffsNotes is published in countries with stricter copyright law and "fair use" doctrine per se. When dealing with contemporary (non-PD) novels I'd be inclined to doubt it, but more information would be helpful (even if we are comparing apples and oranges).

Don't get me wrong, as a private individual I privately laugh at copyright in the privacy of my semi-private home. Most of the tapes and CDs and DVDs in my living room have a hand-written label. My MP3 count is higher than my edit count. I have cover-less paperback books which have likely been reported as "unsold and destroyed". I've watched more feature-length films on YouTube than in the theater. I've even got one of those macrovision-pwning double-deck VCRs.[1]

But that's all beside the point. Regardless of what I (and surely you and everyone else here, this something everyone prefers not to talk about) get away with in real-life I more importantly support the project's goal of publishing free content.

Ideally neither the Foundation nor anybody else using said content should have to worry about whether they can be prosecuted for copyright infringement or whether the "fair use" applies or whether such a defense even exists in their area. Many jurisdictions have stricter laws and many actually enforce them. It's not about covering your ass or Jimbo's, it's the children, somebody please think of...

If this makes us hypocrites, so be it, but I like to think of it as backward compatibility for this and every other backward legal climate (which will I suspect will continue warming long before it cools).

"Fair use" is a lot like foreign oil such I will favor any changes which reduce our reliance on it. Drill at home, buy a camera, take pictures of every person, place, and thing you see, as a large portion of them will be considered "notable" eventually—only to be murdered, burnt to the ground, or taken off the market soon after[1], so get it while it lasts.

—C.W.

[1] I'm pretty sure they don't make 'em anymore, or at least they don't sell them in the U.S., so if my apartment ever catches on fire, fuck the lappy, forget the colt-1911 and the bong-disguised-as-a-space-telescope. To hell with my fat little balinese, she can find her own way out... I'm going back in for that VCR. Which reminds me, I should probably get a photo of it now.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Flameviper Velifang theflameysnake@yahoo.com wrote:

Yes, but the point is that the "plotline stealers" are retelling the story as their own work and profiting off it. None of which we are doing (I hope).. Obviously to summarize a story you need to present the plot thoroughly (you can't just say "the book Moby Dick was about a whale"). This is not at all the same as copying the entire script, with annotations added in. Cliffs Notes has never been sued for copyright infringement (AFAIK) and they give a far more in-depth view than we do.

Something like Cliffs Notes would almost certainly have a defence available to it: both fair use and fair dealing protect use for the purpose of criticism or review. Of course, that someone has a defence available does not mean that they haven't exercised any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, indeed by definition it means they have.

The key point is to distinguish between exercising the exclusive rights of the owner on the one hand, and infringement on the other. You can do the former without doing the latter, if an exception applies to what you are doing (whether that be fair use or a similar doctrine, or perhaps a [[statutory license]]).