tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post3017029903691220257..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: The past is never dead, but it is de minimisUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-76966636697785981602013-07-19T10:06:35.166-04:002013-07-19T10:06:35.166-04:00But Bridgeport is a special (wrong) rule for sound...But Bridgeport is a special (wrong) rule for sound recordings holding that there's no such thing as de minimis use for sound recordings at all. Fixing Bridgeport just requires having a de minimis rule for all works; it does not require that unrecognizability be the <em>only</em> way for a use to be de minimis. RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-50858703643154162292013-07-19T09:58:29.236-04:002013-07-19T09:58:29.236-04:00I agree in principle on the poor logic of a recogn...I agree in principle on the poor logic of a recognizability standard for the de minimis determination, but I wonder if a hard line on recognizability wouldn’t be better than the status quo, i.e. if we could also have the flip side, that unrecognizable uses are de minimis, we could set aside Bridgeport and alleviate a ton of chilling effects in music sampling. It seems to me the tradeoff against whatever existing chilling effects remain for attributed quotes would be well worth it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02585805691922269051noreply@blogger.com