The RIAA's Worst Nigthmare -- USC Title 17, Section 107

Recently, I was contacted by one of my friends in the industry. The source confided in me startling new information about a stunning victory regarding a recent P2P copyright infringement case predicated on the auspices that educational "Fair Use" was under threat. Fearing a loss that would set a devastating legal precedent, the Plaintiff agreed to drop the lawsuit on the grounds that the defendant not disclose the nature of this puzzling case.

Apparently the defendant made a convincing argument that using the internet to download free music was protected under an obscure section of the Copyright Act known as Fair Use. According to USC Title 17, Section 107 of the United States Copyright Act, "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including copies, for purposes such as... scholarship, teaching, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

The defense argued that music, as an art form, is an important medium for learning and sharing important cultural values. As such, any and all use of music can be considered educational.

And, "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(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."


Arguing that the purpose of use was for non-profit educational intentions, the defense then established numerous instances where reproductions of artwork is entirely acceptable. For instance, if you take a picture of the Mona Lisa and upload it to the internet for the world to see, nobody is going to attempt to argue copyright infringement. People view art for free online for cultural reasons as well as for enjoyment. Why should music be any different?

The defense also established that due to the financial situation of the defendant, if they couldn't get the music for free they were not capable of buying it or acquiring it via other means and as such the record industry was not being deprived revenue. Why should the poor be deprived of arts and culture?

In this society, art and music are made to be seen and heard. Music is an all pervasive force that populates the public airwaves, and as such could be considered part of the public domain.