Major test of copyright law set to start (News.com) [LWN.net]

News.com looks at the Elcomsoft trial, which is ramping up again now that the defendants will actually be allowed into the US. "Burton, the ElcomSoft attorney, argued that in order to convict the company of wrongdoing, the jury should have to find that company representatives were acting with an 'evil-meaning mind' or for a 'bad purpose,' not just helping people crack copyright protections. He also argued that the jury should be instructed on what constitutes 'fair use,' a legal theory under copyright law that allows some copying of material for education, criticism and other purposes. But [Prosecutor Scott] Frewing disagreed. 'Fair use is irrelevant and improper,' to bring into the instructions, he said."

to post comments

Fair use is irrelevant? Since when?

Posted Nov 26, 2002 16:49 UTC (Tue) by jachim (guest, #2963) [Link] (2 responses)

The comment by the prosecutor "fair use is irrelevant and impromper" is very revealing. Perhaps he's ignorant of the decades of precedent on fair use?

Fair use is irrelevant? Since when?

Posted Nov 26, 2002 16:56 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

It reveals the approach that DMCA proponents (and the courts) have tended to take in general: the DMCA makes no exemptions for fair use. The language of the law forbids circumvention devices, regardless of whether those devices are being employed in a "fair use" mode or not. Congress has said that content protection trumps fair use in this case, and, unfortunately, the courts seem to think that Congress has the right to do that. The ruling in this case, too, may well be that fair use really is irrelevant to the question of whether Elcomsoft was selling an illegal circumvention device. Sad, but true.

Fair use is irrelevant? Since when?

Posted Nov 28, 2002 14:34 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

And seeing as the software in question was written IN RUSSIA in order to make Adobe comply with RUSSIAN law, it's not even a case of "fair use". It's a case of "without it, Adobe is breaking the law". Just not USian law.

Cheers,
Wol