way too broad. Suggest narrowing at least to a field (fair use in software may differ from fair use of poetry) and by jurisdiction (US different from EU, not sure if it is recognized in Australia per se, etc) – Chris Travers Mar 5 at 11:45

This is a good question. "Fair use" implies US jurisdiction. And this question is absolutely answerable by explaining the 4-factor balancing test that the court uses regardless of subject-matter. The test doesn't change based on subject-matter (software vs. poetry) only the application of the law to the facts of the case would change, but that is always the case. – Sancho Mar 6 at 20:17

Explanation for down-vote please? – Kevin F Feb 18 at 13:24

If you vote down one of our example questions, then it would seem that you're interested in our nascent community, and we're happy about that. But if you vote down one of our example questions, then please consider following this community and also (especially), PLEASE do us the kindness of explaining why you think it's a poor example question for our community so that we can improve the example question. To anonymously vote down the example question while not even following this community is, I think, not in the character of the SE network. I think it's a bit like a drive-by shooting. – Kevin F Feb 19 at 21:24

If you vote down one of our example questions, then it would seem that you're interested in our nascent community, and we're happy about that. But if you vote down one of our example questions, then please consider following this community and also (especially), PLEASE do us the kindness of explaining why you think it's a poor example question for our community so that we can improve the example question. To anonymously vote down the example question while not even following this community is, I think, not in the character of the SE network. I think it's a bit like a drive-by shooting. – Kevin F Feb 19 at 21:23

This, and several other of the example questions, are what as known as "list questions". List questions are almost always a bad fit for the SE platform. Also, this question doesn't seem to be asking for an answer, but rather for discussion and speculation, which is explicitly off-topic for all SE sites. – Beofett Feb 20 at 17:51

Thanks for your input @Beofett. You're absolutely right that this is very open-ended, and I do know about the explicitly off-topic aspect of discussion and speculation questions in SE, but I had the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong in this) that there was room for wiki-type sections of each SE community where such discussion and speculation might be more appropriate. I think I recall having seen mention of such areas in other SE communities where I participate although I can't cite any specific examples off the top of my head. I welcome your educating me further on this. – Kevin F Feb 20 at 18:21

@KevinF I'm very glad to help. There is indeed a "community wiki" option, but I'd suggest very strongly that you don't want to cite questions that would need to be wiki-ized as example questions. CW questions are something that were much more popular in the past, but there are a number of problems with them. Currently, most sites try to restrict their usage to a handful of fundamentally important, frequently asked questions that have a single, extremely comprehensive canonical answer. – Beofett Feb 20 at 18:26

Thanks again @Beofett for your time and effort to help us with this budding community proposal. I think I can immediately recognize the very wise advice contained in your suggestion, and I'm certain that your comment here will help guide other community members in their contribution of example questions too. Again, many thanks for your assistance. As newcomers to area51 and SE, I'm sure that many of us will have multiple instances where we will need such aid by SE veterans like you. :) – Kevin F Feb 20 at 18:38

What this question asks is how much "more than transitory" does the duration of fixation need to be? – Sancho Mar 6 at 20:37

@LIL I think this EQ may be a reference to the US Constitution Copyright Clause which reads in part, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts...". If so, then you might consider revising it slightly to better reflect that. And perhaps also see if you can incorporate the second question into the first for a single concise EQ. Maybe something like, "What facts and evidence support the proposition that US copyright law has actually 'promote[d] the Progress of Science and useful Arts'? as it was apparently intended to do?" – Kevin F Apr 14 at 14:12

Explanation for down-vote please? – Kevin F Feb 18 at 13:15

If you vote down one of our example questions, then it would seem that you're interested in our nascent community, and we're happy about that. But if you vote down one of our example questions, then please consider following this community and also (especially), PLEASE do us the kindness of explaining why you think it's a poor example question for our community so that we can improve the example question. To anonymously vote down the example question while not even following this community is, I think, not in the character of the SE network. I think it's a bit like a drive-by shooting. – Kevin F Feb 19 at 21:23

(Not the downvoter) Philosophical justifications? I don't think you'd find that in legal literature. Perhaps policy justifications, but not philosophical justifications. – Sancho Mar 6 at 20:19

Thanks for your comment, @Sancho. Perhaps, but the question comes almost verbatim from Justin Hughes, "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property," 77 Georgetown L.J. 287 (1988). See paragraph 3 on page 1. That article is now 25 years old, however, and there may be newer articles that do address it. Here may be one (from the same journal): Dotan Oliar, "Making Sense of the Intellectual Property Clause: Promotion of Progress as a Limitation on Congress's Intellectual Property Power" (2006). – Kevin F Mar 6 at 22:26

Note it is badly worded due to space. The point is to ask the reach of copyright law in functional software and whether mere re-use of a software license by linking creates a claim of copyright. – Chris Travers Mar 5 at 11:48

If you vote down one of our example questions, then it would seem that you're interested in our nascent community, and we're happy about that. But if you vote down one of our example questions, then please consider following this community and also (especially), PLEASE do us the kindness of explaining why you think it's a poor example question for our community so that we can improve the example question. To anonymously vote down the example question while not even following this community is, I think, not in the character of the SE network. I think it's a bit like a drive-by shooting. – Kevin F Feb 19 at 21:22

I didn't downvote (I'm not familiar enough with this topic), but this seems like a request for speculation, rather than an answer. – Beofett Feb 20 at 17:52

That's a great point @Beofett. Thanks for your input. :) In beta phase, there would be adequate character space to be more specific than this, and we'll try to be mindful here of the more concrete and less speculative SE model for good questions, but I hope this example question helps define the proposal and starts people thinking. Various countries do have different implementations of copyright laws though (and international treaties influence national copyright laws too), and so there are actually some concrete answers for this EQ already implemented in the laws of different nations. – Kevin F Feb 20 at 18:07

Thanks for getting involved, Charles, and I think your question is a good one to think about in general, but perhaps not the best for a SE community. The goal here is for questions to be concretely answerable, perhaps by referring to a specific court opinion or other document. Your question could be improved by making it less speculative and more concrete. For instance, "What economic industries show the folly of current copyright laws?" (answers might be "fashion in the US" or "free software"). We don't want answers to the EQs just yet, but we do need to think about how to answer each EQ. – Kevin F Mar 5 at 7:14

Charles, it's difficult to determine who downvoted your Example Question (EQ) here (or why), but from timing analysis (see your & my reputation pages), it looks like it was the same user who also downvoted 4 of my EQs and left no comments to go with those 5 downvotes (s)he cast. This community proposal got a rocky start after being closed unilaterally over what seems to have been a misunderstanding, and as a result seems to have also attracted the attention of a few users who apparently enjoy casting numerous downvotes without adding constructive criticism in comments. I'm sorry about that. :( – Kevin F Mar 5 at 20:00

If you vote down one of our example questions, then it would seem that you're interested in our nascent community, and we're happy about that. But if you vote down one of our example questions, then please consider following this community and also (especially), PLEASE do us the kindness of explaining why you think it's a poor example question for our community so that we can improve the example question. To anonymously vote down the example question while not even following this community is, I think, not in the character of the SE network. I think it's a bit like a drive-by shooting. – Kevin F Feb 19 at 21:21

This is also a request for an open-ended list. – Beofett Feb 20 at 17:53

Thanks @Beofett for your input. I agree that is one way to interpret the question, "What other examples challenge this maxim?" (emphasis added), but what I mean here is the following: "What other examples currently existing in various economic industries as defined by the existing laws of various nations and international treaties challenge this maxim?" I just didn't have room in the EQ field to elaborate in that much detail (it's actually a finite list). Thanks for making your point though, as it allowed me to be more specific here, and I hadn't thought to do that before your comment. :) – Kevin F Feb 20 at 18:12