[DrScientist]

The intention of copyright is to protect useful work.

The detail of how to do that in fair way that doesn't block other people is complex[1] - you can never cover all possibilities in a written law - that's why you have people interpreting them and making judgements. All I'm saying is the guiding light in that interpretation is copyright is there to protect the justifiable work of people in a fair way.

Somebody taking those law notes and trivially copying them to directly compete is clearly not 'fair use'.

If those notes could have been created mechanically directly from the original source - why didn't the copier do that - rather than use the competitors work?

[1] given the endless creativity of humans to game systems.

[zozbot234]

> The intention of copyright is

..."to promote the progress of science and useful arts". I don't see anything in there about rewarding 'work' irrespective of whether that work involves any kind of creativity.

> If those notes could have been created mechanically directly from the original source - why didn't the copier do that

That's actually a very good question. In practice, I do absolutely agree that the notes involve plenty of originality and creativity.

[DrScientist]

The intention of copyright is ..."to promote the progress of science and useful arts". I don't see anything in there about rewarding 'work' irrespective of whether that work involves any kind of creativity.

Not sure where you got that quote from, but I'd say the work aspect is implicit in the "promote the progress" - ie progress requires that people are able to get paid in their work to progress science or the useful arts.

If the progress was trivial and required no work then it wouldn't need protection or promotion.

And sure it's phrased that way to get the balance between fair use and protection - but if there was no need of protection then copyright wouldn't need to exist - as free reuse is the default.