The proposal for a general clause provuiding for user's rights seems to be a good idea. Having studied the differences in fair use/ user's rights in a variety of countries, I am a little concerned that a general clause will not resolve the underlying conflicts. In addition, how should one deal with the fact that the American fair use doctrine is the most expansive (in theory)? Most scholars I have spoken with in Europe are quite wary of a clause that would expand "user's rights" to a degree that would make it similar to our fair use doctrine.
As for the U.S. proposal, I think that the current trend towards more rights and more protection for owners is what lies behind it. A narrow set of rights, or a more restrictive general clause may, if the balance continues to tip in favor owners, align better with contemporary sentiment in some influential circles.
Ruth L. Gana
University of Oklahoma Law Center
rgana[_at_]hamilton.law.uoknor.edu
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the University of Oklahoma or the Law Center. Received on Tue Apr 23 1996 - 21:19:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:20 GMT