And the Copyright Alliance does not like that idea:http://news.com.com/Fair+use+is+not+a+consumer+right/2010-1030_3-6205977.html
(Editorial by Copyright Alliance executive director.)
I like how he tries to spin the change in a poor light, as being something unneeded. However, if you read some more, I'd say that he does not like the idea of Fair Use at all. He seems to forget that copyright is a carrot offered by society to help promote the creation of new works. When you get down to it, society is saying, "We understand that there must be some reason for you to create something. If you create a work, then cannot benefit from it, you will not have a reason to create more works. SO, to encourage you, here is a limited period of protection so that you might benefit."
More and more, I see that idea, which I firmly believe is the intent of copyright, being twisted.
Fair Use is provided to further serve the interests of society. "Yes, this person's work is protected. However, if you use pieces of it for review, criticism, or educational purposes, that is in the best interest of society. This trumps the creator's copyright protection."
I have changed the site's Fair Use page, because I think the point brought up is a good one.