Re: copyright under stress

On Tue, Jun 20, 2000, Edward Barrow <edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
> I am not qualified to comment on the specifics of US law -- most
> other countries in the world have no fair use doctrine, although
> there are other limitations to the author's exclusive right. For
> every person who is able to access the material without paying
> (whether under fair use or a similar doctrine), that's one fewer
> people to share the original cost of production. The more broadly
> limitations such as fair use are construed, the more those who
> cannot benefit from them will have to pay...

I'm curious as to whether or not you think this same argument might apply to the case of book publishers attaching a notice to their books that the book "not be issued in any other binding than that originally" furnished, or other attempts to bypass the first sale doctrine.

One might wonder if the "original cost of production" might not already have built into it the cost of fair use by customers, instead of thinking of fair use as increasing that cost to fewer customers.

After all, one might imagine "fair use" to be nothing other than the use that is implicit in distributing the book in the first place.

But the added cost of "access to the work without paying" (regardless of fair use or first sale) is generally thought of (by consumers, at least) as not part of the purchase bargain, but rather a rental that is tacked onto that price, in an attempt to control all further use of the work. Hence the DMCA.

I don't disagree with your point that the costs of production must be apportioned differently if anybody could access the work without paying. But that is an extreme case. Generally there is mixture of fair use and unfair use and it is wrong to confuse them and throw the baby out with the bath water.

-- 
"Eric"  Eric Eldred  Eldritch Press
mailto:Eldred[_at_]EldritchPress.org
http://www.eldritchpress.org/EricEldred.vcf