Sony DMCA's themselves on Twitter

[DonFerrari]

SpokenTruth said:

DonFerrari said:

That would only apply if one could consider a leak as something published, can you demonstrate it can be used?

Also when your video, comment, post, etc... is 90% copy paste of the leak and then something you put yourself it is an infrigment. Funny enough even VGC request users to not copy and paste other places news, posts, threads, etc. You have to make your own view on it, at most summarize what was on the source and give the source.

I'm going to post this again because you don't seem to be understanding it from the legal perspective. "The leaker can not claim Fair Use.  Everybody else can."

"A fair use can occur under various circumstances, including copying for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research"

It doesn't say you can't copy 100%, 90% or 10%.  It says it may be copied.

VGC's rules are set for various reasons.  Most of which aren't even a legal matter. Citation, plagiarism, context, discussion, gives the original source their credit (forces you to read it there instead of here), etc...  More stuff I really shouldn't I shouldn't have to explain to you.  You keep pushing your ideas to fit situations that aren't relevant.

I'm still waiting on that Supreme Court case.

The link I put to you already cited that unpublished material can't have fair use claim, and it didn't limit to just the leaker.

and also the topics over there aren't sum they are excludent, it would need to obey all those instead of if it obey one you can dismiss the rest.

3. The amount of the original work copied; ... so this already dismiss your try of 100%

In a 1987 decision, J.D. Salinger sued a biographer who used quoted numerous passages from his unpublished letters that had been donated to various libraries. Although these letters were available for research by scholars, the Court decided that they still belonged to the author, who had the right to control his own material.

In a 1989 decision, the plaintiff, a publisher, sought to prevent the publication of a book about L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology, because it included published and unpublished writings of Mr. Hubbard without authorization. The Court decided to permit publication, but it appeared that the decision was based on the plaintiff's "unreasonable and inexcusable delay" in bringing the action. In its opinion, the Court still followed the Salinger decision, stating that the copying of more than minimal amounts of unpublished expressive material would require the enjoining of its unauthorized use.

There you have your two cases.

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1926&context=law_lawreview

The fair use of unpublished works is a new problem for copyright law.
It dates to 1976, when the federal copyright statute extended statutory
copyright protection to unpublished works and exposed them, for the
first time, to the fair use privilege. Interpreting the statute's fair use provision and applying it to unpublished works is a troublesome task for the
courts, and the Second Circuit now has come close to holding that quotations from unpublished works are per se illegal.
It is by no means certain that Congress will rescue the courts from the
impasse to which they are heading. But the Second Circuit's fair use
decisions and the controversies surrounding them reveal that the judiciary may be willing and able to withdraw from that impasse by its own
efforts. Hence the arguments advanced here: 1) statute and case law do
not preclude the fair use of unpublished sources; 2) the judiciary is prepared to affirm that privilege; 3) doing so will require that the Second
Circuit relax its restrictive Salinger rule;225 and 4) fair use analysis
should build on the policies that historically have informed copyright law
and the fair use privilege.
Since fair use requires the "balancing of equities" and resists the framing of rules, 226 the focus here has been on the questions a court should
ask and the factors a court should weigh, not the rules and holdings a
court may frame. Those must depend on cases yet to be argued.

And this is the basis for no generalization. A case of fair use would only be declared fair use or not after decision of court. You can't say "since they are talking about a leak someone else made then it is already fair use".

So instead of bossing others around to learn to use google you could bring and present your evidence yourself plus not acting dismissive and condescendent.

Last edited by DonFerrari - on 28 May 2020