Abstract: The fair use doctrine, codified at 17 U. S. C. § 107, permits a court to excuse a putatively infringing use of copyrighted material when the circumstances surrounding the use make it "fair." In this Article, Professor Fisher criticizes the doctrine - and in particular the changes wrought by two recent Supreme Court decisions - and considers how it might be improved. The most serious of the many problems with current fair use jurisprudence, he maintains, is that it rests on considerations derived from four disparate philosophic traditions; this incoherent foundation makes the application of the doctrine unpredictable and aggravates the cacophony of contemporary legal argumentation. To alleviate these problems, Professor Fisher considers two alternative strategies for reconstructing the field. First, he examines fair use from an economic standpoint, arguing that, by comparing the various entitlements that might be accorded copyright owners in terms of the incentives they provide for creativity and the costs they impose on consumers, courts could employ the doctrine to increase efficiency in the use of scarce resources. Second, building on a discussion of the limitations of the economic approach, Professor Fisher deploys a "utopian" analysis of fair use, suggesting how the doctrine might be recast to incorporate particular conceptions of the "good life" and the "good society." So formulated, the fair use doctrine would contribute to the realization of a more just social order and a more integrated legal discourse.