Fair use was created as astatutory guideline for effectuating the balance required to enable constitutionalgoals in the intellectual property clause, including support of education, a publicdomain, and free speech
Again "Fair use" doesn't sound so fair because it's under government regulation.
This distinctive feature of the U.S. approach to copyright pro-tection correlates directly with the need for access to information as a basis for sup-porting democratic dialogue
Anything dealing with the US government will always have an ulterior motive.
In the workplace, they often develop documents that lead or guidethrough instruction and documentation; they produce structures such as reportforms for medical, insurance, and governmental treatment of the public that im-pact the way we interpret information that could affect our quality of life; and, asresearchers, they develop work that analyzes and critiques the impact of any num-ber of forms of communication,
The workplace terms and conditions are so damn long, I don't think anyone ever reads all of it before starting.
We analyzesocietally affected communications and critique their sources, effects, and potentialmeanings for our students, for workplace technical communicators, or for society atlarge.
Sounds like technical writers just became top critics
So, as an enabler of speech, the First Amendment supports access to informa-tion; a general, content-neutral restriction on access could be less stringently inhib-ited. But where content-based speech is concerned, the First Amendment is strictlyenforced; attempts to restrict content-based speech are strictly scrutinized
So basically what I got from this is you can say whatever you want when it comes to producing content. Donald Trumpt does a good job of doing this.
Thus, on the one hand, the copyright’s structurefunctions as a general restriction on publishing and disseminating another’sworks⎯a content-neutral restriction. On the other hand, quoting another’s work asa basis for criticism, or outright copying of another’s work as a means for parody(by its nature, a content-based commentary), is allowable as a means to supportspeech as a basis of democratic interaction
According to this if I quote another's work I can bypass copyright regulations.
Constitution’s intellectual property provision clearly statesthat a copyright term must be limited
I learned about limited copyright terms in my business administrartion class. These limits can last as long as the life of the author if i'm correct.
Users and producers has a resemblance to consumers and suppliers. As a technical writer you are in charged of balancing both sides which makes copyright infringement that much risky.
The Framers of theConstitution created a structure in the intellectual property provision that prioritizesthe advancement of learning and knowledge creation over its secondary, supportivepurpose: to benefit the author. To provide a benefit to the author merely creates anincentive for authors to expend energy to create new work. Note that U.S. copyrightdiffers greatly from that of moral rights, which is the adopted structure in Europeanlaw, based on the concept that creators have an absolute right to benefit from theirwork and that their right comes from a special moral requirement.
I didn't know that the main reason for copyright laws was to promote advance learning and knowledge creation. In agreement with the statement above, there would be no reason to create something if everyone else could just take credit for it unless it's copyright protected.
Technical communicators will also have an interest in understandingthe capacity for legal use of others’ materials in their processes of developingworkplace communications
I really like this statement because it gives insight on limitations of technical writer.