[free-sklyarov] Fair use "rights"

[David Haworth]

On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 05:15:35PM -0700, Jay Allen wrote:
> The second thing you may notice about this is that it does not confer upon 
> the consumer any right, but instead a protection from any action 
> (prosecution) under this statute.  Producers of copyrighted works are never 
> under any obligation to allow you to sample, backup, copy, etc their work 
> (as they are, by the way, in Russia), however, the law allows you to do so 
> without fear of prosecution.  It's a fine point, I know, but it seems that 
> there are no such things as fair use _rights_ or personal use 
> _rights_.  Uses such as these are simply protected under a safe harbor 
> provision.

It seems to me that there's a bigger concept of "fair use" than the rather
limited "defence to copyright infringement" that the AAP-extremists put
about in their marketing BS.

For example, when I buy a book there are many things that I expect to
be able to do with that book, without restraint from the publisher or
author. For example:

 - I can read the book wherever and whenever I like, and as many times
   as I like.
 - I can lend the book to my friends
 - I can give the book away when I've finished with it
 - I can _sell_ the book when I've finished with it

None of these activities infringes copyright, but they might all be classified
under a broad umbrella of "fair use".

The problem with the current law is that in the name of "copyright
protection", the publishers are preventing some or all of these fair
uses. They have no right to do so, but the public has no right to
claim back their fair use because the tools to do so have been
made illegal.

Is there any equivalent of the UK's "Trade Descriptions Act" in the
US? That law makes it illegal for advertisers to make unfounded claims
about their products. Perhaps the description of this crippleware as
"book" would be illegal under that law. Another line of attack would
be the advertising to the general public of these eBook readers having
"security". Not how good the security is (although those claims might
even be illegal), but the implication that the security somehow
protects the consumer, when in fact it acts against him as "owner"
(and I use the term somewhat sarcastically) of the eBook.


-- 
David Haworth
Baiersdorf, Germany
david.haworth at altavista.net