User talk:Caius/17USC

Well, it certainly fails point 4! User:PalMD

Andy's argument fails:

1 because the purpose of use is fair use comment and criticism. As a point-by-point 'essay', a refutation can only exist point-by-point.

2 the nature of the copyright work is, uhm, rubbish. But I suppose that is opinion and would hardly stand up in court.

3 the entire article is not reproduced - is it?

4 his article was published on the blog of another, not sold to that blog. There is no indicatin that article was to be sold for profit. Were one to sell it for profit, one would hardly publish it first on an open wiki.

Seems to me to fail on all four counts, but IANAL. Doggedpersistance  13:19, 22 August 2007 (CDT)