![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 10th, 2010 03:45 pmI have decided, after much deliberation, that at the end of this month, when my paid subscription runs out, I'm going to start giving my money to dreamwidth rather than livejournal. All that means for you, kind folks, is that I'll start crossposting to both journals, but otherwise everything will remain the same. I'd just prefer that my money went to DW over LJ.
There's a whole post that I haven't written, yet, about fic disclaimers and how they may not mean what you think they mean, or something like that. Not that I'm an expert in copyright law (or even a lawyer, yet), but I was struck by something from a sampling case that we read last term in my Entertainment Law class. Basically, the implication was that if the band that had sampled the music hadn't admitted that it didn't have the right to use the sampled music without the original artist's permission then it may not have been liable for a copyright violation. If nothing else, there was an argument there to be made, an argument that has not been conclusively decided by the Courts-at-Large.
Also, I become more and more convinced that fanworks do not violate copyright, especially when the fan-creators aren't making any money off of their product. Call it fair use, call it a transformative work, call it what you will, the end result will still be that fan-creators have not abridged anyone's proprietary rights.
Though, who knows what the future will hold. After all, a corporation is not a full and equal person under the law, with all of the constitutional rights of any other citizen. *facepalms* 'Cause that's "strict constructionism," yeah, sure it is.
You know, instead of getting worked up, again, over that bastardization of free speech, I think I'll go outside and enjoy all of this snow we've received. Oh beautiful snow, you are so very wonderful.
There's a whole post that I haven't written, yet, about fic disclaimers and how they may not mean what you think they mean, or something like that. Not that I'm an expert in copyright law (or even a lawyer, yet), but I was struck by something from a sampling case that we read last term in my Entertainment Law class. Basically, the implication was that if the band that had sampled the music hadn't admitted that it didn't have the right to use the sampled music without the original artist's permission then it may not have been liable for a copyright violation. If nothing else, there was an argument there to be made, an argument that has not been conclusively decided by the Courts-at-Large.
Also, I become more and more convinced that fanworks do not violate copyright, especially when the fan-creators aren't making any money off of their product. Call it fair use, call it a transformative work, call it what you will, the end result will still be that fan-creators have not abridged anyone's proprietary rights.
Though, who knows what the future will hold. After all, a corporation is not a full and equal person under the law, with all of the constitutional rights of any other citizen. *facepalms* 'Cause that's "strict constructionism," yeah, sure it is.
You know, instead of getting worked up, again, over that bastardization of free speech, I think I'll go outside and enjoy all of this snow we've received. Oh beautiful snow, you are so very wonderful.
