tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1390129540443577195..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: IPKat readers want fair use: can you believe that?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35758161162569866762014-07-11T19:15:09.956+01:002014-07-11T19:15:09.956+01:00To contrast Jeremy's post with Luciano M's...To contrast Jeremy's post with Luciano M's post:<br /><br />The court cost and driver is not so much "vagueness" in the concept (Jeremy is closer to the mark as to not needing legal guidance), but rather, the - I would posit rather clear - guidance already there is necessarily a case by case multi-factor balancing test. It is the nature of such a test - much more so than any notion of vagueness - that generates the time and expense in the courts. The conflicts - which drive the court appearances in the first instance have nothing to do with either the attributed vagueness, nor the balancing test, and everything to do with $. Court battles are (typically) not waged unless there is money at stake. We live in an information-age copyright-is-dollar society, and that is the driver of court action. That is simply human nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23183785884820556222014-07-11T16:31:37.896+01:002014-07-11T16:31:37.896+01:00Pedro, I think the most attractive thing about fai...Pedro, I think the most attractive thing about fair use, if properly handled, is that it shouldn't keep needing legal guidance. By the time the CJEU does what it has now started doing for another elastic concept-- likelihood of confusion -- and throws it back to national courts to decide, we'll have a concept that works because it's so closely aligned with common sense that there's nothing to be gained from litigating it.<br /><br />Luciano: the only disputes that take years to resolve are the ones that go to court -- but fair use is relied upon, on a day by day basis, by literally millions of people and this never goes to court!Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23771810606928012672014-07-11T16:16:10.124+01:002014-07-11T16:16:10.124+01:00Fair use, US style, is terrible policy. It is a v...Fair use, US style, is terrible policy. It is a vague concept, which generates conflicts that take years to be solved (if they are solved) at the courts.Luciano Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42318730676142105502014-07-08T12:47:44.868+01:002014-07-08T12:47:44.868+01:00The CJEU is not the SCOTUS and it would not be abl...The CJEU is not the SCOTUS and it would not be able to provide proper guidance on how should such an an open-ended l&e be interpreted. In my view, such a soluton would result in a (further) lack of harmonisation.<br /><br />Instead, we would be better off with updating the current list of l&e and end with the pick and choose system.Pedro Malaquiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07534086208709473863noreply@blogger.com