In article ,
El *******o El *******o@El *******o.com wrote:

You seem to try to draw a bright line between quoting a whole story
and a part of it. Where in the law do you find such a bright line?
Yes, the quoted section lists "substantiality" as a factor among
other factors in its analysis of a use as being fair or not.

If the law were as you view it, there would be no need to discuss
"substantiality" in the case of a work being wholly reproduced. There
would be a fifth factor, or a sentence in the current four factors,
which would read something like "complete reproduction of a work is
strictly a violation of the law in all cases."

"Substantiality" keeps people from trying the "I quoted everything
except the last sentence" loophole.

(3) the amount and substantiality of the
portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

The law could easily have been written in such a manner. Why doesn't
it say this? Were the legislators trying to hide the true nature of
the law?

It wasn't written like this because it wasn't necessary. Once you've
covered substantiality, you've covered reprinting the whole thing.

Brannigan was kind enough to cite the law upon which he bases his
beliefs, lets see the law which supports your "bright line"
intrepretation of current intellectual property law.

It's the one he quoted. Substantiality covers it quite nicely.

The rest of your arguments are in the same vein. Trying to make the law
say what it clearly does *not* say isn't a good defense.

What it boils down to, for this case: quoting entire news stories to
Usenet is breaking copyright.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.