Conclusion

So, while the issue surrounding fair use presents a theological issue, this can be solved by individuals through their faith and works. Also, the elusive definition of fair use given in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 by the four factors creates incohesive opinions amongst judges as to what is and is not fair use, however, in Leval’s essay “transformativeness” was simply an explication of his interpretation of the meaning of the first factor of the fair use doctrine (Leval). Thus, by adding a definition of it, the revision to the law may add more weight to the first factor. As a result the addition may mistakenly express the idea that the first factor is more important than the other three factors, and would thus tip the balance between copyright and fair use. The definition of “transformativeness” presented is only an extension of the first factor, and through its widely applicable definition, may cause further dissention between judges. However, it is even more likely to do nothing at all, according to Saunders, so there would be no point to amending the law when no positive change would come about.

While specific exemptions appeared to lessen the cost of intellectual property litigation, the statistics did not present a full picture of comparison between the United States and the European countries of Belgium and Spain. The United States is also different from these two countries in its priorities. While Spain and Belgium as well as other European countries spend several years thinking through the making of a product before actually creating it, the United States prioritizes fast production and fast solutions, getting products on the market while the same types of products are still in the developmental stage in the European countries (Ainsworth). If the United States were to use more specific limitations in regards to fair use, the limitations might strangle creativity. Also, there is no way to standardize the interpretation. If it were to attempt such an endeavor, the country’s legislatures would be forced to create hundreds of specific exemptions in order to maintain the same amount of output.

In the courts, while judges may have differing opinions as to the true meaning of fair use, there will always be dissenting opinions between judges. Even on the most seemingly straightforward cases in court have differing opinions as to what is right, what is wrong, and the amount of punishment that is due to violators of the law. The proper course of action in the issue of fair use is to leave the Fair Use Doctrine as it is and allow the courts to decide in each case whether or not the use is fair.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s