David Gerard wrote:
On 10/09/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Mmm. I was interested in the court saying "no really, it's a First
Amendment right, you idiots." I suppose the absolutists can say the
Supreme Court hasn't considered it yet, if they want to appeal
further.
Well, as long as fair use is permitted by statute, there's really no
occasion to consider whether it's also required by the U.S. constitution
or not, since you can't really appeal a point that already went your
way. It'd only be if it *weren't* permitted by statute (or if the statue
were exceptionally narrow) that someone would have an occasion to raise
a constitutional argument.
-Mark