blinddrew wrote:The thing is 'fair use' isn't particularly well defined. In some cases, for educational reasons perhaps, the example you give could be classed as fair use. But you'd have to go to court to argue it if you were challenged by the rights holder.CS70 wrote:"fair use" is not the right of producing copies of a work because your purchased one physical instance.
In the UK we have 'fair dealing' which is even less clear.
Well insofar I understand, the letter of "fair use" is not defined intentionally, but the idea is relatively clear and a judgement can be most often made. Of course, that makes it a little more prone to litigation than other concepts, but people litigates also when the letter of the law is extremely clear. It's a tactic.
Fair use is "limited and transformative purpose". To cite someone's lyrics in reviewing their work for example, or to publish a music excerpt in an analysis paper is in; copying and entire work changing only the fonts is out.
Most fair use of something is actually analysis (from a review to a commentary to news about it) or parody. Some other limitations of copyright may include, for example, stuff like making a braille version of of literature work.
The example that wireman made was quite simple - and if it were litigated, there's no chance it would be judged a fair use, because there's no way it can be considered to be limited or transformative. If one wants a book, he buys a book. If one wants a sheet, he buys a sheet. If one wants both, he buys both.