reason,” fair use was developed by the courts beginning in the 1800s.[1] In 1976 Congress codified the doctrine in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, which provides that “the fair use of a copyrighted work … for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research is not copyright infringement.”[2] Those examples are “illustrative and not limitative” however.[3] To apply the doctrine, Congress identified four non-exclusive factors that courts and users should consider:
“(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”[4]
Those four statutory factors must not be “treated in isolation, one from another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.”[5] Ultimately, the fair use inquiry asks, “whether the copyright law’s goal of promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts would be better served by allowing the use than by preventing it.”[6] The next section examines how this flexible doctrine of fair use, together with first sale, supports CDL.
III.Controlled Digital Lending as Fair Use
The basic concept of applying first sale principles to digital transactions is not new, either as justified under the first sale doctrine alone, as fair use, or through some combination of the two together. The U.S. Copyright Office, in 2001, studied the issue of “digital first sale,” soliciting comments that exhibited a range of views about whether the first sale doctrine does or should be made to apply to digital transactions. In part because the use of digital technology was so new at
- ↑ See Folsom v. Marsh, 9. F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841); Matthew Sag, The Pre-History of Fair Use, 76 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1371 (2011).
- ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2018).
- ↑ Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577–78 (1994).
- ↑ 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2018)
- ↑ Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577–78 (1994).
- ↑ Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 608 (2d Cir. 2006).
