[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction

On 17 Jun 2003, Phil Gengler wrote:

> Although, fair use isn't really a concrete thing either, the way it's
> laid out in the law is a series of tests for a judge to consider.  I'd
> much rather see fair use actually be codified, so that there's no (or
> less) ambiguity as to what is a fair use.

I think that would be disasterous. I don't mind Congress making all the
statutory exceptions they like -- see sec. 117 for a good one. Though
those apply regardless of fairness. But they should not be construed to
mean that Fair Use never applied to those. And codification, aside from
perhaps leading some judges to believe that Fair Use is not a
Constitutional doctrine, would likely prevent Fair Use from ever

No one predicted time shifting or space shifting -- but once they arrived, 
it was the openness of the Fair Use test that allowed them to generally be 
considered Fair. (though of course it depends on the precise 

We REALLY need to oppose Fair Use codification. Entirely seperate, 
properly construed statutory exemptions are fine, but let's not trade in 
the big gun for something less.