>Don Berman writes:
>>
>>First, one should recognize that violations of certain laws carry no
>>moral implications - a teacher is not a "bad" person if she miscalculates
>>about the extent of the fair use exception. Second, many of these so
>>called violations would not be so deemed by a court when interpreting
>>the many exceptions to unlawful infringement. Finally, as Mark points
>>out, the law can't forsee all permutations and combinatins that may
>>arise. This is clearly reflected in the history of equity. In the
>>criminal law we have doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, jury
>>nullification, pardon, etc. And we shouldn't forget the general doctrine
>>that a court need not enforce a law that has fallen out of use. I'm
>>sure we can think of many more. Rather than seeing this as citizens
>>"breaking" laws I prefer to see the problem as the law adjusting to
>>excuse conduct that society does not believe warrants civil or criminal
>>liability.
>
>I agree. Do you however, see the adjustments of the law coming about by
>increasingly more complex codification, with all sorts of exclusions and
>ifs and buts and things tacked on to the legislation, or just through the
>general doctrines of interpretory(?) discretion you describe above. Does
>our copyright act get longer and longer, or will the same questions (and
>possibly litigation) occur over and over?
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Mike Lean
><m.lean[_at_]qut.edu.au>
But frequently that adjustment comes about only after more and more "good" people are convicted -- or acquited thruogh jury nullification -- of breaking "bad" laws. the real question is how long and how difficult is the period of civil disobedience before the legal system finally reacts to it. Other problems include the possibility of a counter-reaction of heightened enforccement instead of, or before, the change to accomodate the changed conditions.
As I've said before, I see the various e-media as creating the kind of cultural dissonance between current law and current reality to lead to the kind of widespread violations of the law that will cause a radical change in copyright law to accomodate it. The Internet could easily become a new public forum, presenting serious questions about the extent to which the free access and assembly and free speech provisions of the first amendment trump the copyright provisions of Article I. I can see some genuine conflicts arising between those provisions.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Buford C. Terrell Knowing ignorance Professor of Law is strength South Texas College of Law Ignoring knowledge 1303 San Jacinto, Houston, TX 77002 is sickness (713)646-1857 terrell[_at_]sam.neosoft.com --Dao De Jing+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Received on Sun Nov 20 1994 - 22:06:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:13 GMT