SUPREME COURT ON COPYRIGHT
The Supreme Court has described fair use as an “equitable rule of reason which permits courts to avoid rigid
application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity
which that law is designed to foster.” Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 237 (1990).
"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work . . . This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art."
—Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 351 (1991).
STREAMING VIDEO
"Although what constitutes a “reasonable and limited portion” of a work is not defined in the statute, the legislative history of the Act suggests that determining what amount is permissible should take into account the nature of the market for that type of work and the instructional purposes of the performance. For example, the exhibition of an entire film may possibly constitute a “reasonable and limited” demonstration if the film’s entire viewing is exceedingly relevant toward achieving a educational goal; however, the likelihood of an entire film portrayal being “reasonable and limited” may be rare. [emphasis added]
- Copyright Exemptions for Distance Education: 17 U.S.C. ? 110(2), the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002, July 6, 2006 - RL33516
Why not follow the iTunes Music Store pricing model? = $.99 the price is right - lessen the incentive to get it for free
US Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994) :".. being denied permission to use a work does not weigh against a finding of fair use".