[Harmon]

[QUOTE=Sil_liS;1936659]

I don't think that the lawyer lied in his report to Congress. I think that he meant something else.

I agree - he was not talking about the law, but giving what amounts to a political view. I'm sure that a lot of creators think "fair use" is a privilege. But in law, it is a right. "Fair use" is statutory, and just as much a right as copyright is.

Copyright is the right of the author to make copies and allow others to make copies of their work. Fair use isn't the right to make copies, but the privilege of not being fined or sent to jail for it.

The first sentence is correct. The second one is incorrect, both in fact and in legal theory. As I observed above, "fair use" is part of the law, written into the copyright statute. The truth of the matter is that copyright is a limited right established by statute, and there are many exceptions to that right explicitly stated in the same statute, including "fair use."

Copyright is a limited right granted by the people to creators, and "fair use" is the reservation of rights by the people.

The problem is that people don't understand this concept and think of it in terms of "it's not copyright infringement, it's fair use", or in the example that you gave it would be like saying "you provoked my dog so he didn't bite you".

I suppose you could think of "fair use" as a kind of permitted infringement. But legally, you are dead wrong. Here's what the law says:

§107 · Limitations on exclusive rights:Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

(emphasis added)

"Fair use" is simply NOT an infringement of copyright, and anyone who refers to it as a privilege is speaking loosely and incorrectly.