RE: Re: Example of why fan material policies are a legal necessity

From: donald_at_...
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:06:01 GMT

In message <20050323224122.VYBA1280.aamta05-winn.mailhost.ntl.com_at_master> "Jane Williams" writes:
>
>> However, many of the fans are
>> outside the US, and thus only limited portions of the fan
>> policy really apply to them.
>
>And, remember, the Policy does cover this right at the start.
>
>"this policy applies to Publications and Other Usage in all languages
>and places in the world to the maximum extent that its provisions are
>allowed by law.
>This policy is not intended to limit or infringe on "fair use" rights
>granted by applicable laws in the United States or elsewhere in the
>world. The intent of ISSARIES is that all portions of the policy be
>severable, so that if any part or parts of it are found to be
>inapplicable, unlawful, or otherwise unenforceable in a specific
>situation, all applicable sections will remain in force to the maximum
>extent allowed by law."
>
>Naturally it doesn't say "most of it is illegal in Britain", because
>even if that were true, they'd have to list the copyright/IP law of
>every country in the world and its effects on this Policy. And keep it
>up to date. Daft. Far better to have the get-out clause at the start,
>like they've done. We can (or at least, should) sort out our own clashes
>with local law.

The licence is not illegal in Britain, there is just a clash of copyright law between England and the US. By signing the licence you are agreeing to the terms and are bound by them. Yet what USians see as generous terms are nothing more than what appears to be legal under English law and may even be more restrictive.

There also appears to be a thumping great hole in the licence document, there's no reference to jurisdiction - i.e. which courts and law should be applied in interpreting it. For something intended to avoid and reduce legal costs that's a bad omission.

>No, I'm not a lawyer, or anything like one. But I do read and write
>specs for computer programs, and that means precise use of language.
>That paragraph at the front, like all the rest, means exactly what it
>says, and is there for a reason.

That's a standard lawyers get out clause to avoid judges saying "This bit's illegal, so we're tearing up the whole thing". You'll find something similar in just about every contract. While it does mean what it says, it uses words in a legal way which may not match common usage and indeed may mean different things to a US lawyer and an English one.

>(Or so I assume. Assuming the entire
>thing was written by hostile idiots doesn't seem to be constructive or
>likely.)

Just assume it's written by lawyers.

-- 
Donald Oddy - who's legal knowledge is limited to basic concepts
              and reading and understanding contracts.
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/