Re-using copyrighted code

[Benjamin Kaplan]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop?
>> Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is
>> utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the
>> monopoly privileges granted by copyright.
>
> That's not correct.  Keep in mind, that the law is for people:  there
> is no automatic right to profit.  There certainly is no "right to
> monopoly" (which you are absurdly arguing) on *anything* released to
> the public.  If you want that monopoly *you* have to provide the means
> to protect your IP.  You, sir, are being ridiculous and perhaps the
> court along with you -- I'm just telling you what is correct.  That's
> important.
>
> A movie producer, publishes his/her work as soon as he/she puts it on
> the market or otherwise releases it for public viewing.  That's just
> the risk of doing business.  Fortunately, for them, its not easy to
> make a verbatim copy of a film, in a theatre or otherwise.   But
> copyright ensures that they get the credit for making the movie -- not
> for profit of publishing it.
>
> Now copyright includes the clause of "fair-use", so that means one can
> make a copy of something if they aren't depriving the original creator
> of legitimate gains.  If they are truly depriving the creator(s) of
> legit gains, then they are in violation.  That's all the law should
> support.  Don't think there is any law that can determine, once and
> for all, what counts as "legitimate gains" and what violates "fair
> use".   *You* have simply *sold out*.   "Legitimate gains" is
> something the courts have to work out, on a case-by-case basis, but if
> the movie producers are that worried about losing their gains, then
> they can do the f-ing work and require movie goers to sign a simple
> clause promising that they won't try to copy the movie (on concealed
> cameras and such).
>



The fact that a work is non commercial is one of several factors that
is taken into account when determining fair use. It is not an
automatic fair use for non-commercial works. I have no idea where your
understanding of copyright law came from, but here is the relevant
section of the US legal code:

17 USC § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.


Can you provide any citations for your interpretation? Besides "that's
what the law should be", I mean.