How was that a nice reply? The only thing it demonstrates is the author’s utter ignorance regarding the difference between intellectual property and real property. You can’t steal anything that is nonrivalrous – it is contrary to the definitions of those terms.

1. Fair use is a fundamental part of copyright law – you can’t separate the two, even if you wanted to. Many producers of copyrighted material have tried to in the legal system over the years, with little success; “fair use” has been judged to be in the public interest.

2. I’ve done a follow-up post today that goes into the issue of what constitutes “fair use”, and what doesn’t. People have this idea that a copyright forbids use of that material for any purpose under any situation, and that isn’t supported by the law or centuries of legal precedents. Read the literature on the topic if you don’t believe me.

3. You have misread Frank’s comment. He points out that use of Google Earth imagery in business applications, where it would be used for profit, would require licensing of it. And for the most part I agree with that, because most such uses would fall outside the bounds of fair use. But even there, there are exceptions for works that add transformative value. He makes no mention of personal or non-commercial use, much of which would fall under “fair use”.