Re: Fair Use litigatable?

On Thu, 25 May 2000, Bernard Rous <rous[_at_]hq.acm.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2000, Ewan Kirk <ewan.j.kirk[_at_]solent.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > In theory, yes, I suppose you could assert your fair use rights
> > in court, but as most people will probably not want to go through
> > the protracted legal process just for what may be a few lines of
> > text for a quote, the practical effect is that digital rights
> > management 'padlocks' have the potential to kill fair use stone
> > dead.
>
> Does Fair Use imply a right to browse?

Does copyright law imply a right to prevent access to a work?

> Don't all the uses of a work that are considered fair assume that
> the work has first been legally acquired?

I would argue that one of the reasons why we have copyright in the first place is for the purpose of public access to works; the protection is in return for making available to the public; this is what we are trying to encourage authors to do. Part of this system of public access is the library system. Legal acquisition is not merely restricted to buying a work.

> If so, how then do DRM padlocks kill Fair Use stone dead?

I didn't say they DID kill fair use stone dead, I said they have the POTENTIAL to kill fair use stone dead. We are in a situation that may develop into one where information may be delivered on a pay-per-view basis. Paying to access something in order to make fair use of it isn't fair use, that's licensing. And I remember reading work by Pamela Samuelson a while ago giving pretty valid reasons as to why licensing shouldn't be used to replace fair use.

Ewan Kirk
<Ewan.J.Kirk[_at_]solent.ac.uk> Received on Fri May 26 2000 - 15:14:25 GMT