There needs to be no contemplation on the justification of our right to what is deemed “fair use”, for in a court of law (usa or anywhere else) any glibbed tongue mealymouth could stand up and give a picture of his clients original concept of their idea of fair use, which would differ greatly from that of the enduser/consumer . In the greater picture, what will be on trial here is the implication of fair use not only in media but across a broad range of products or services both industrial and humanitarian. fer instance…if the media corporations are allowed to abrogate their fair use policy (wether stated or implied) where would it stop. Here I will assume that most people will realise that a contract is not written in blood…Whats to stop an insurance company deem your recently purchased stolen car had, by their standards, been fairly used and you would only get a fraction of the value regardless of the agreed contract. the idea of “fair use” is a principle and neither side set the standard but in fact agree to some middle ground…jack valenti’s statement is typical of those, driven by ambition and greed, see it slipping from their grasp. Their reaction is to then bath us in their verbal diarrhoea… Frankly jack my option is a hell of a lot simpler than reading the waffle I just posted…If I buy it , it’s mine…not yours…not ours…MINE…and I’ll do with it what I like…the artist and actors get a good share up front…if the lack of money ruins their greedy creative genius…F**K 'em…they’re innit for all the wrong reasons…kiss mine… :X
[edited by Sherrif on 03.03.2004 08:51]