Quality Degradation (Score 1)

The judges were wondering if the ability to video the screen of your TV, or to use a degraded analogue signal, meant that fair-use rights were being preserved.

I would argue that for fair-use purposes, the quality must remain the same. What if the film relies on its visuals? 2001 anyone?

So let's try an analogy, because that's what everyone else seems to be using... I'd argue that we need a whole new paradigm in order to deal with the net, but that's a discussion for another day.

This is an extract from my favourite poem, Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Kubla Khan"

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan A stately pleasure-dome decree; Where Alph, the sacred river, ran Through caverns measureless to man Down to a sunless sea.

Now, let's "degrade" that...

In Xanadu, Kubla Khan decreed a stately pleasure-dome. This was the same place as Alph, the sacred river, which ran through caves that man could not measure down to a sea, where there was no sun./

Would that be a fair alternative for fair-use purposes? No.
Would a degraded version of a film, therefore, be a fair alternative for fair-use purposes? No.

I'm pretty sure the analogy holds; if it doesn't, I'm sure some AC will flame me and explain why.