Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

Posted Aug 26, 2005 20:50 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
In reply to: Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP" by jzbiciak
Parent article: Letter to Editor: Response to Florian Mueller's Release re: "Anti-IP"

I guess it's a fair position that fair use is an integral part of copyright, but I don't see it that way. Everything I see about fair use, including the way it is legislated in the Copyright Act, positions it as a separate limit on copyright. There's a balance of copyright vs fair use. Copyright laws that have the least fair use exception are called the strongest copyright laws.

Not that this intricate definitional issue is relevant -- the statement I disputed is that advocates of bnetd aren't against copyright because the Copyright Act has a fair use clause; not because copyright itself implies fair use. If the poster had left out the mention of the statute and simply said as you do that fair use is an integral part of the principle of copyright, I would not have responded.

Your argument is roughly equivalent to saying "speed limits are against powerful cars."

I don't see the analogy "bnetd advocates are against copyright" <-> "speed limits are against powerful cars." A speed limit analogy would be, "ambulance advocates are against speed limits." They are.

It's a non sequitur.

I think you must have some other logical fallacy in mind. Non sequitur is where you argue B is true because A is true, and A does not in fact imply B. E.g. "The dog is brown, so it is male."

---

to post comments