This study explores the problem of "fair use" in copyright as it applies to the use of POD's, print-on-demand systems, by education and business entities. This qualitative research instrument offers an explanation for the discrepancy between current copyright statutes and the application of these statutes by the US Courts toward regulating the "fair use" doctrine as it applies to POD technology. This synthesis examines the "gray areas" of the US Copyright Act of 1976 and the Copyright Amendments Act of 1992 in conjunction with the ever-changing legal opinions that continuously shape and mold court opinions into copyright ideals. In order to achieve this goal, the following criteria is discussed: 1) the nights of copyright owners; 2) limitations of exclusivity in copyright; 3) judicial and statutory factors in "fair use"; 4) court rulings that affect the common educational and business use of copyright protected materials; and 5) the affect of copyright rulings upon the use of high technology equipment that is presently in use or will be introduced into the market place soon. In effect, this study responds to the copyright dilemma as it pertains to "fair use" upon POD's, digital high speed copy systems, computers/laser printers, video taping systems, audio taping systems, live presentations, transmitted presentations, and other information systems. The following questions will be considered and discussed: 1) What is the history and intent of the fair use doctrine as it applies to the Copyright Act of 1976 and Copyright Amendment Act of 1992; 2) What is the affect of present copyright laws upon POD's; 3) Has court litigation in the last decade restricted the "fair use” doctrine by limiting the uses of copyrighted materials by educational and business entities? Finally and most importantly, in the interest of preserving, improving, and perfecting the relationship between POD users, in both education and business, and the international copyright proprietors, including members of AAP and SPA, this dissertation has explored and developed a copyright user's and owner's "Model of Rights". / Ph. D.

Digitisation had a profound impact on the creation, reproduction, and dissemination of works protected by copyright. Works in digital format are vulnerable to infringement, and technological protection measures are accordingly applied as protection. Technological protection measures can, however, easily be circumvented, and additional legal protection against circumvention was needed. Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the WCT) obliges Member States to provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of technological measures applied to works protected by copyright. Contracting parties must refine the provisions of Article 11 and provide for exceptions on the prohibition. Article 11 does not specify whether it pertains to only certain types of technological measures, nor does it prohibit the trafficking in circumvention devices. The United States implemented the provisions of Article 11 of the WCT through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the DMCA). Section 1201 of the DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technological measures. It is detailed and relates to two categories of technological measures - access control and copy control. It prohibits not only the act of circumvention, but also the trafficking in circumvention devices. Article 6 of the EC Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society of 2001 implements Article 11 of the WCT. Article 6 seeks to protect Aeffective technological measures@. It prohibits both the act of circumvention and circumvention devices. Although Article 11 of the WCT is silent on the issue of access control, it seems as if the international trend is to provide legal protection to access controls, thus indirectly creating a right to control access. South Africa has not yet implemented Article 11 of the WCT. The South African Copyright Act of 1979 does not protect technological protection measures. The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 (the ECT Act) provides protection against the circumvention of technological protection measures applied to digital data. The definition of Adata@ is such that it could include protected works. If applied to protected works, the anti-circumvention provisions of the ECT Act would be detrimental to user privileges. As developing country, it seems to be in South Africa's best interest to the implement the provisions of Article 11 in such a manner that it still allows users access to and legitimate use of works protected by copyright. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.

Digitisation had a profound impact on the creation, reproduction, and dissemination of works protected by copyright. Works in digital format are vulnerable to infringement, and technological protection measures are accordingly applied as protection. Technological protection measures can, however, easily be circumvented, and additional legal protection against circumvention was needed. Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (the WCT) obliges Member States to provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of technological measures applied to works protected by copyright. Contracting parties must refine the provisions of Article 11 and provide for exceptions on the prohibition. Article 11 does not specify whether it pertains to only certain types of technological measures, nor does it prohibit the trafficking in circumvention devices. The United States implemented the provisions of Article 11 of the WCT through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the DMCA). Section 1201 of the DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technological measures. It is detailed and relates to two categories of technological measures - access control and copy control. It prohibits not only the act of circumvention, but also the trafficking in circumvention devices. Article 6 of the EC Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society of 2001 implements Article 11 of the WCT. Article 6 seeks to protect Aeffective technological measures@. It prohibits both the act of circumvention and circumvention devices. Although Article 11 of the WCT is silent on the issue of access control, it seems as if the international trend is to provide legal protection to access controls, thus indirectly creating a right to control access. South Africa has not yet implemented Article 11 of the WCT. The South African Copyright Act of 1979 does not protect technological protection measures. The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act of 2002 (the ECT Act) provides protection against the circumvention of technological protection measures applied to digital data. The definition of Adata@ is such that it could include protected works. If applied to protected works, the anti-circumvention provisions of the ECT Act would be detrimental to user privileges. As developing country, it seems to be in South Africa's best interest to the implement the provisions of Article 11 in such a manner that it still allows users access to and legitimate use of works protected by copyright. / Jurisprudence / LL.D.