RE: Fwd: FNV-RIAA IS CRACKING DOWN

[buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)]

kim:
>At 11:27 PM -0700 8/26/98, Stephen P. Goodman wrote:
>>Sounds like a bunch of folks wrapping themselves in the term Fair Use, as
>>if, once someone else creates an original work, anyone has the right to 
>use
>>it as they see fit, as if all defaults to the public domain, as a result 
>of
>>publishing.
>
>well Stephen, you still don't seem to understand what Fair Use is. But you
>are absolutely right, I am completely wrapping myself in the principle of
>Fair Use, which is a well established legal concept in use all over the
>world. So, I challenge you to unwrap me!
>
>Except this time, try using things like evidence, references, actual legal
>theories, credible, substantiated arguments, the actual law as written,
>consistent logic, etc. You know - actually research what you are saying
>before you say it. So far, all I've gotten from you boils down to "I don't
>like it, so it's bad."  But there's not been any substance underlying your
>opinion. I'd love to hear a well-reasoned, non-emotional argument based in
>actual law and legal theory for why Negativland's (and my) interpretation
>of the copyright laws is incorrect, and proving your point that sampling 
>is
>theft. Up to it?

Ok, kim.  It's very simple.  NOBODY disputes that
Negativland (and these other artists) have directly
sampled (copied) other people's works.

Thus, the burden of proof is on THEM (and you) to
show why it *IS* fair use, and not a violation of
copyright.  Please produce references, citations,
etc. etc.

Sean