On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, David Turner wrote: > Actually, there was copying, but not distribution, as I recall. The articles in question were circulated throughout the company so they could be copied by employees. [Hence the interal distribution...] > Sure, but it would have had to be substancial enough for fair use to > kick in. And there's *still* the other three factors to consider. Could be, but I think we're agreeing that AGU v Texaco doesn't apply to personal in home modification. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpBWeeL24tnD.pgp
Description: PGP signature