Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

To Eric Eldred:

You appear to be asking for further clarification about my position. As noted, I believe that the cited clause in the U.S. Constitution provides a valid basis for U.S. copyright law.

Let's get rid of the "natural rights" distraction. No one is born owning anything beyond the boundaries of his or her own person. Societies have seen fit, however, to establish certain rules as to rights of both ownership and behavior, in order to prevent chaos.

I gather that in some societies, all real property -- for all I know, all property, period -- is held in common. In our own society, that is not so. In the U.S. in particular, we have agreed that we have a Constitution from which all other law is to derive, and a basic tenet in our judicial system is that all other laws, if questioned, are ultimately measured against that document. I believe that Title 17 USC does indeed reflect the intent of the enabling clause in the Constitution.

I also agree with historical interpretation of copyright law, which permits "fair use." Indeed, if such use were not permitted, the expression of opinion and the publishing of criticism would not be possible, nor would legitimate reference and citation helpful and even on occasion essential to the development of other original works.

You apparently think that there is a growing notion among copyright holders that copyright precludes fair use. I don't agree. Copyright holders fully recognize the legitimacy of fair use.

The law does not spell out exhaustively what may constitute fair use in every individual case; it can't possibly do that. Rather, that interpretation has been left -- in my view, properly -- to the courts, based on general criteria which *are* enunciated in the law. This system seems to me to have worked pretty well. I don't think it needs to be changed.

--Dodi Schultz
  <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Thu May 25 2000 - 14:58:29 GMT