Aaron on the Aimster argument

Nicely summarized here.

This entry was posted in good law. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Aaron on the Aimster argument

  1. Dan Steeves says:

    Aaron writes “The MPAA?s lawyer responded that the non-fringing use had to be of substantial commercial impact.”

    Is the MPAA’s lawyer correct? Why does the standard for non-infringing use only refer to commercial impact. Say I want to trade pictures of my toes with foot-fetish buddies. This is non-commercial, since I place no value on pictures of my toes, but it is however of substantial impact to my community. Isn’t it?

Comments are closed.