Sony DMCA's themselves on Twitter

[DonFerrari]

SpokenTruth said:

DonFerrari said:

The link I put to you already cited that unpublished material can't have fair use claim, and it didn't limit to just the leaker.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In a 1987 decision, J.D. Salinger sued a biographer who used quoted numerous passages from his unpublished letters that had been donated to various libraries.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publication of a book about L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology, because it included published and unpublished writings of Mr.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its opinion, the Court still followed the Salinger decision, stating that the copying of more than minimal amounts of unpublished expressive material would require the enjoining of its unauthorized use.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The fair use of unpublished works is a new problem for copyright law.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copyright protection to unpublished works and exposed them, for the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 Interpreting the statute's fair use provision and applying it to unpublished works is a troublesome task for the
courts, and the Second Circuit now has come close to holding that quotations from unpublished works are per se illegal.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 Hence the arguments advanced here: 1) statute and case law do not preclude the fair use of unpublished sources; 2) the judiciary is prepared to affirm that privilege; 3) doing so will require that the Second Circuit relax its restrictive Salinger rule;225 and 4)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".

You.  You didn't even read your own Second Circuit Court result (I've bolded it for you).  Nor the document you quoted it from.   Goodness man.  I'll quote from your source.

"Although New Era's fair use analysis is only dictum, it alarms its critics because it suggests that "all copying from unpublished work is per se infringement." These critics include several Second Circuit judges, and also members of Congress who seek to amend the federal copyright law to ensure that the fair use privilege applies to unpublished as well as to published works."

To say nothing of the fact you are referencing cases whereby they were directly profiting from the publishing of the material prior to the actual copyright holder published it.   This is akin to a 3rd party publisher releasing TLOU2 as part of their own game before Sony publishes it.  We're talking apples, you bring oranges.

Yes I read, and sincerely your attacks and antagonization and sense of higher being didn't change from when you weren't a moderator. I'll drop the conversation since I won't keep on it and earn unnedeed antagonism from moderator.

Don't use only what you think do you a favor.

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.

Here the letters were already available (not leaks) to scholars research but since it wasn't officially PUBLISHED they couldn't be claimed for fair use. And most of these sites and "journalists" are using it for their own profit (which isn't the same as commenting or criticizing published work) without a single care if it would detract from other parties being spoiled of their pleasure or profit.

Also spreading the leak would be akin to piking several sorted pages of an unreleased book that you got (but haven't signed a NDA) and release it them claim you have fair use because you haven't signed a deal and is commenting on the pages you are releasing without consent.

It isn't apples and oranges, and again it can only be declared clean after judiciary decides (otherwise you wouldn't really have Tweeter and Youtube agreeing to a very generic removal of material) but that will be my last post replying to you on the subject.