I don’t think this is what the author is complaining about. It seems like he’s bothered by the example of fair use provided in the notice: “One of these specifi

I don’t think this is what the author is complaining about. It seems like he’s bothered by the example of fair use provided in the notice: “One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be ‘used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.’” What he’s complaining about is that fair use law allows copies for “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching”, but the notice doesn’t mention those. The article really does seem like breathless muck-raking. Yeah there are subtleties, and yes the notice isn’t totally clear (perhaps because that would make it really long and harder to understand by non-lawyers), but the author insists on interpreting the language “study, scholarship, or research” to be exhaustive and complete, where I read it from the beginning to be simply an example of fair use. The notice actually is pretty clear it’s just saying the copies must adhere to fair use, which kinda clears up the whole problem the author is trying to inflate. The notice says explicitly “in excess of ‘fair use’”, so why is the author jumping to some conclusion that the notice meant something other than fair use?