Courts are reluctant to allow fair use as a defense if a copyright holder demonstrates that the value of a copyrighted work will be diminished by allowing its use. true or false?

False the payment of the copyright goes according to what the creator thinks is the best according to his work

The author pays of his own percentage, in most cases, his "literary agent", while bookstores and distributors are usually consignment instruments, that is, they return what they do not sell. On the other hand, publishers manage to lower their costs qualitatively if they print in large print runs or reissues where part of the work is already done.

They usually hear, on the part of the businessmen of the sector, ignited defenses of the inalienable rights of the author for his work when discussing for example what will happen with the appearance of electronic books, warning in some cases apocalyptically about the disappearance of books . If the case of the books is going to be the same as that of the record industries in the face of the appearance of mp3, it is true that digital books still absorb a small portion of the market. But the truth is that of the whole chain, the author on behalf of whom they speak is not only not the most benefited but the one who usually keeps the least part. For such copyright defenders, who would need enemies.

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.

no questions on whether they are allowed that right