Sort:  

Yes, I cover intellectual property law, so I understand it pretty well. While I understand your desire to be "better safe than sorry," isn't it better to educate people on proper fair use rather than calling for a blanket ban?

Your interpretation is that I called for a "blanket ban".

  • That is a misquote, I never used the words "blanket ban"
  • I did say "It is just easier not to use it", which is indeed true

isn't it better to educate people on proper fair use?

If you'd like to educate people on proper fair use, that's your option. Feel free to write an article, and link to it in this reply thread if you like.

I, on the other hand, am not qualified to teach others on proper fair use, and if someone takes my advice and gets sued, I could be liable for giving incorrect advice since I am not a lawyer.

In this case, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I'm less likely to be sued for telling people "it's easier to avoid fair use", than it is, to pretend I am qualified to give advice on fair use.

Dude, relax. I didn't quote nor "misquote" you. Enjoy your evening.

I could be liable for giving incorrect advice since I am not a lawyer.

Wait wait wait, it should be the opposite logically. You cannot be sued because you are in fact not a lawyer. This would be logical. If the legal system is saying otherwise then that's very interesting! Because I always wondered how we are tied into a contract with the State?

There's a thing called CAPITIS DIMINUTIO or name in all caps. That's why you are INTELLIGUY0 on your creditcard. It's a fake strawman without any rights. But if they call you and say "are you INTELLIGUY0" and you say "yes" the courts have tricked you into representing this legal fiction! I'm not sure if this is strawman is your incorporated birth certificate, where they made essentially a security out of you, but it's a non-binding contract since you or your parents are not aware, or is your natural person. Details details!