Letter to the Editor of the New York Times Songs That Won't Be Written Subject: Fair Use in Copyright. Relates to Napster case. To the Editor: Copyright law in the United States is based upon principles that balance the legitimate interests of creators with the need of society to make use of created works without asking permission or paying royalties. This occurs in two ways: Copyrights expire, and users have a statutory but limited right of "fair use." Society is granted this right of "fair use" in order to foster additional creative activities. For understandable but shortsighted reasons, Mike Stoler ("Songs That Won't Be Written," Op-Ed, 10/7/2000) does not tell readers that the public has a limited right to copy and transfer copyrighted materials (in this case, music) without paying royalties to copyright holders. Stoler makes it seem as if the only right worth considering is the right of the copyright holder to control the use of his works. Because one of the tests for a finding of "fair use" is consideration of the economic harm copyright holders would suffer from copying, Napster's attempt to exploit that right might eventually not be be held to be a "fair use." But no matter how the Napster case is decided, it is crucial that the courts acknowledge and support the principle of balanced rights of users and creators. Recent legislation has lengthened the duration of copyright and has limited the potential to exploit "fair use" (which depends upon unimpeded access) in the electronic environment. Unfortunately, unenlightened proponents of air-tight copyright protection are blind to the value that "fair use" distribution can add to the worth of copyright ownership. The Napster case should turn on a consideration of what is best for a society made up of both creators and users. Previous
Letter |
Letter Index | Next Letter
|