Coding Fair Use

An Anonymous Coward writes: "A report from CFP2002 on the tension between making fair use clear and retaining ambiguity to facilitate the application of fair use to future technologies." Lots of good papers available from the Fair Use By Design workshop and the conference in general.

Comments

RIAA in a nut shell..

[Em Emalb]

this quote from the article sums up for me everything wrong with the **IA.

"The floor for the entertainment and other "content" industries is increasingly clear. They don't fundamentally believe in fair use, and they see technology as a way to turn everything into pay-per-view -- a system that would eliminate fair use almost completely."

This is what is wrong with the US today.

Heh

[The Cat]

Looks like we might be on the right track too.

This is only going to become more common. Companies have to realize that people are not "consumers" and that they want to particpate rather than just observe. All of the best things happening in the game industry are happening because of the participation of people in the market. Hopefully this will expand, and be encouraged by more astute businesses.

My vote for Fair Use.

[volsung]

I think digitalconsumer.org has the ideal set of "fair use" requirements:

The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights

1. Users have the right to "time-shift" content that they have legally acquired.

   This gives you the right to record video or audio for later viewing or listening. For example, you can use a VCR to record a TV show and play it back later.

2. Users have the right to "space-shift" content that they have legally acquired.

   This gives you the right to use your content in different places (as long as each use is personal and non-commercial). For example, you can copy a CD to a portable music player so that you can listen to the songs while you're jogging.

3. Users have the right to make backup copies of their content.

   This gives you the right to make archival copies to be used in the event that your original copies are destroyed.

4. Users have the right to use legally acquired content on the platform of their choice.

   This gives you the right to listen to music on your Rio, to watch TV on your iMac, and to view DVDs on your Linux computer.

5. Users have the right to translate legally acquired content into comparable formats.

   This gives you the right to modify content in order to make it more usable. For example, a blind person can modify an electronic book so that the content can be read out loud.

6. Users have the right to use technology in order to achieve the rights previously mentioned.

   This last right guarantees your ability to exercise your other rights. Certain recent copyright laws have paradoxical loopholes that claim to grant certain rights but then criminalize all technologies that could allow you to exercise those rights. In contrast, this Bill of Rights states that no technological barriers can deprive you of your other fair use rights.

This is NOT Ideal

[CrystalFalcon]

In writing "Ideal", you suggest that this is exactly what you want. I'd consider it a start.

There are several things I'd like to see additionally. For example;

• The right to sell a used copy of a film, like you can do a book.
• The right to sell a used copy of any software, like you can do a book.
• The banning of software licenses. Software copies should be SOLD, not licensed. If I buy something from you, you should have no right to regulate how I choose to use that item.
• The banning of use-limiting technology that harms the consumers, sorry, citizens (such as DVD regionalization). See above. Or perhaps, rather, the outlawing of enforcing such technology. What I do with my DVD is for me alone to decide.

This is just a start. For example, if you consider the law to be a sum of the generally acceptable morals, then peer-to-peer file sharing should be allowed and legal. Judging by the volume of Napster, Grokster, DirectConnect etc, this is considered acceptable activity by citizens. So fucking what if some corps think it damages their bottom line? Get a new business model. To quote somebody else; the law is not indended to protect obsolete business models. If nobody wants to buy your stuff, you had damn better get into a different business, and that's it.

Phew, got into an intense rant there. Anyway, I think you get my idea. I think the law has to shift more than these basic points, but they are a good start of making the public (and lawmakers!) aware that there is another tray on this scale.

All my commercial software is licensed

[JordanH]

I'm not sure how Fair Use would apply to commercial software I use. All that I use, AFAIK, is both copyrighted and licensed.

From what I understand, the book publishers tried to license all their works around the turn of the century and this resulted in the "First Sale" doctrine we have now when the Courts struck that down.

I'd be in favor of "First Sale" recognition for software, but until we have that Fair Use doesn't have much affect on me. Even if Fair Use would allow me to do something with software that I don't already do, the license would probably forbid it.

Is there any chance that the Courts will just strike down the licenses for software? Are we to act like these software are only protected by copyright, including Fair Use provisions, to get this brought before a court?

Re:Appeal to the artists!

[killthiskid]

To quote the parent:

This is when the tide will turn, and not before - because corporations do and should have rights to protect anything they own and right now they own the rights to the content we want to copy.

I have two issues with this, the first is well said by Robert Heinlein

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

The second is that we, as citizens have granted these rights you speak of to the cooperations. We also have the power to take away these 'rights'. I feel that several things are obvious:

• Copyright legislation is out of control and is not serving the any where near the obvious intention is was set out to:
  

  To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

• Artists are moving towards having direct interaction with their audiences. The problem is that record companies actively supress music by going for a small number of big names. The record industry is kick and screaming it's way into this new paradigm (crap word, I know). The are actively work to hamper this from happening... so its not just a matter of artist changing their ways, its is a matter the record industry actively trying to stop this trend.
• I am not a 'consumer'. I am a god-damn citizen. I very purposely do not consume from the RIAA or MPAA. And I get by just fine without their crap.
• Another quote:

  Until that changes, we the people are screwed and can't do much about it.... legally anyways.

  So what, we're just suppose to sit on our asses? If you keep doing the same thing, you keeping the same results. CHANGE, DAMN IT!