It would seem to me after reading sections 106, 106A, and 107 that if any commercial harm can come to the copyright holder as a result of the use, that use would not be considered fair. Redistribution whether for commercial gain or not of a copyrighted work for which you do not own the copyright, then, would seem to me to violate copyright law (unless, the copyright holder had permitted you to do so). This would be the legal grounds used to shut down Napster. Since a person receiving a copy of a copyrighted work wouldn't need to buy it, that causes commercial harm to the copyright holder, thus the use is not fair and is in violation of the law.
This says quite a bit about DRM. What many here take to be their rights are really actions that are currently difficult to prevent. It is not legal for me to make a copy of a CD for a friend of mine, but it is very difficult to prevent me from doing that. This does not make it my right. If DRM would aid copyright holders in enforcing their copyrights, then all hail DRM and Palladium!
Thanks, stubear for bringing to my attention where ths "fair use" concept came from. You might, though, have published a link (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf) to the copyright law. For anyone interested, page 28 of the PDF has the section the deals with "fair use".
|