Advertisement
by Embolalia » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:09 am
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Bears Armed » Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:13 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:30 am
Sanctaria wrote:I'm not criticising your resolution. You yourself have said that fair use and fair dealings are, while similar, different concepts. You defined "fair use" in a certain way in your resolution, but you can't say that because "fair use" is this in one country in the real words, it must be this in the NS world.
by Sanctaria » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:41 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Sanctaria wrote:I'm not criticising your resolution. You yourself have said that fair use and fair dealings are, while similar, different concepts. You defined "fair use" in a certain way in your resolution, but you can't say that because "fair use" is this in one country in the real words, it must be this in the NS world.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, because it indeed must be that in NationStates. Fair use has one meaning. Nations in NS can go ahead and call something 'fair use,' but unless it matches what is in the United States, it is not actually fair use. It is only some other concept that borrows the term. It would be like me saying, "Well, just because murder is taking somebody's life in the real world, that doesn't mean it must be that in the NS world."
by Embolalia » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:46 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Sanctaria wrote:I'm not criticising your resolution. You yourself have said that fair use and fair dealings are, while similar, different concepts. You defined "fair use" in a certain way in your resolution, but you can't say that because "fair use" is this in one country in the real words, it must be this in the NS world.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, because it indeed must be that in NationStates. Fair use has one meaning. Nations in NS can go ahead and call something 'fair use,' but unless it matches what is in the United States, it is not actually fair use. It is only some other concept that borrows the term. It would be like me saying, "Well, just because murder is taking somebody's life in the real world, that doesn't mean it must be that in the NS world."
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by The Solarian Isles » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:26 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:40 pm
Embolalia wrote:If fair use is precisely and only the one specific statute which is used in one specific real world country, and has absolutely no general meaning as a phrase, it would be a RL reference and illegal.
Sanctaria wrote:Fair use also exists in Poland. It's different to the US. So are you going to say the Polish fair use is wrong too?
by Connopolis » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:52 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Embolalia wrote:If fair use is precisely and only the one specific statute which is used in one specific real world country, and has absolutely no general meaning as a phrase, it would be a RL reference and illegal.
You clearly don't understand that rule, then. Citing the United States law that implemented fair use would be a real-world violation. The fact remains that fair use is a specific legal principle. Calling something else 'fair use' does not make it fair use.Sanctaria wrote:Fair use also exists in Poland. It's different to the US. So are you going to say the Polish fair use is wrong too?
Yes. Poland does not have true fair use. It has a bastardized version of fair use, which is why it's referred to as "Polish fair use." I don't understand what's so difficult about this. You can't call something fair use unless it's actually fair use. If it's not the actual doctrine, then you need to qualify the term, because it's a completely separate doctrine from actual fair use.
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by Embolalia » Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:02 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Embolalia wrote:If fair use is precisely and only the one specific statute which is used in one specific real world country, and has absolutely no general meaning as a phrase, it would be a RL reference and illegal.
You clearly don't understand that rule, then. Citing the United States law that implemented fair use would be a real-world violation. The fact remains that fair use is a specific legal principle. Calling something else 'fair use' does not make it fair use.Sanctaria wrote:Fair use also exists in Poland. It's different to the US. So are you going to say the Polish fair use is wrong too?
Yes. Poland does not have true fair use. It has a bastardized version of fair use, which is why it's referred to as "Polish fair use." I don't understand what's so difficult about this. You can't call something fair use unless it's actually fair use. If it's not the actual doctrine, then you need to qualify the term, because it's a completely separate doctrine from actual fair use.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Sanctaria » Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:38 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Yes. Poland does not have true fair use. It has a bastardized version of fair use, which is why it's referred to as "Polish fair use." I don't understand what's so difficult about this. You can't call something fair use unless it's actually fair use. If it's not the actual doctrine, then you need to qualify the term, because it's a completely separate doctrine from actual fair use.
by Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:31 pm
Sanctaria wrote:No, I referred to it as "Polish fair use"; it's actually just called "fair use".
Sanctaria wrote:Just because the US has "x" doctrine, it doesn't mean it is the definitive doctrine.
by AMERKA » Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:42 pm
by Embolalia » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:10 pm
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Linux and the X » Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:09 pm
by Embolalia » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:22 pm
Linux and the X wrote:I demand a clause providing free alcoholic beverages to me.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Linux and the X » Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:20 pm
by Embolalia » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:43 pm
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by James Bluntus » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:28 pm
by Saeran Sulsae » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:31 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:(snip)
by Embolalia » Thu Feb 02, 2012 11:50 am
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Frisbeeteria » Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:30 pm
by Embolalia » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:06 pm
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Glen-Rhodes » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:16 pm
by Embolalia » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:05 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:OOC: As soon as you submitted this, I got a TG from the World Assembly about it. This is a great and terrible feature.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Sanctaria » Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:14 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement