Slashdot Mirror
Coble-Berman Bill Would Restrict Fair Use
Amazing Quantum Man writes "News.com is reporting on the new Berman-Coble copyright bill. This bill is a two-edged sword. It would make life easier for webcasters, but it would restrict fair use. Interestingly, according to the article, Berman allegedly opposes the bill that has his name on it as a sponsor! I don't think it's on Thomas yet, but Politech has a copy of the bill (2.1M PDF)." The report which the memorandum attached to the bill refers to is online. Congress is making an effort to reconcile traditional copyright law with the realities of digital copying; there's no telling whether the end product will be something tolerable or not.
they complain about broadband users sucking up all the bandwidth, take a look at that file size, 2 megs! 2 megs just for a document. That's horrid.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
The only fair use copyright holders will agree to is what makes them money $$$.
This is just another example of what happens when our established laws and traditions smash into the emerging ways of the digital revolution.
There is no conflict here about inalienable rights (speech, et al), but about the "rights" that are more rooted in common sense and conventional wisdom than in any deep philosophy or moral framework.
What is Fair Use? Did God intend for us to have Fair Use rights? Do animals have Fair Use rights? Clearly, reasoning on this level leads quickly to absurdity.
In cases like these (for I think we will continue to see legislation like Coble-Berman as the Digital Age gets into full swing), we have to reflect on what it is that has made this society so successful. Few would argue that Western civilization has triumphed due largely to the ongoing improvement of technology.
During the Rennaisance, during the Age of Reconnaisance, throughout Colonialism and the Industrial Revolution, the common sense values of the time were invariably abandoned or metamorphosed as required by the upward march of technology.
The Fair Use doctrine has played an important part in 20th century law. Now, in the 21st century, we should not be so attached to it and other anachronisms that we lose sight of the end goal: the improvement of the society of Man through technology. If disposing of these antiquated ideals is the price for better technology, then it is we, the technological elite, who should be the first to sign the bill.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Copyright has a long tradition, It wasn't something drempt up overnight and in IMHO on the whole not to bad, the only thing I would change would be to reduce the length of the copyright(basicly putting the law back to where it used to be).
I live in the UK, and it seems that the US and UK are making extram changes about somthing they don't understand, they should ask them selfs: what is copyright for? and is there anything wrong with the current system. and I think they'll find that copyright it to protect the original producer from being ripped off and at the same time to encourage creativity and derived works and that there's nothing wrong with the current systems.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Quote "'The biggest impediment to more licensed, lawful services online is piracy, and that's why he is pushing his peer-to-peer bill,' Smith said. Berman represents California's San Fernando Valley, adjacent to Los Angeles and Hollywood's cluster of entertainment companies. " - End Quote
I mean. I may not agree with him but this is a politician who is doing something most politicians don't do. He's representing his district ( this includes the media/software conglomerates ) and so you have to give him credit for that
NOTE: I don't endorse the proposal, but before people roast this guy alive just remember where he's coming from. Unlike Hollings who doesn't care a lick about his constituents
Since apparantly Terrorists are behind every corner, 100% of America's vigilance must be rivited to 'watching out' for them on major holidays and/or sporting events.
.. those people who buy the big foam fingers at minor league baseball games have the right to vote too - I mean , unless there is a terrorist hiding behind the booth .. then they may just be too concerned about that to pull the lever. There are more of them then there are of educated, informed people - and the media companies both know and *count* on this.
.. Would that be the struggling american public .. most of whom have a 6-7th grade reading level .. and less than 50% own a computer .. even less with broadband ? Or could it possibly be the SAME companys that own the news channels that captivate (distract) the same voting public with sensationalistic programming ?
.. considering im SURE Disney is a major player behind this bill.
.. not the government .. to tell him what he is allowed to do with a CD that he just bought. With money he was already taxed on.
Does anyone else find it suspicious that Major 'Terrorist Attack' ratings boosters appear to distract the 'average joe' whenever one of these bills is introduced ?
Remember folks
Just for fun ask 10 people who voted in the last election - if they can name 5 people (aside from the person they voted for) who appeared on the docket along with their 'chosen' canadate.
Or make it simple and just ask why they voted the way they did.
This bill is strictly a media bill. Who on EARTH would profit from allowing people to NOT record TV shows
I find it very funny that Micky Mouse was brought up
Our system of laws, while the intentions are good, has degenerated into the 'informed' and the 'un-informed' Folks don't object to bills because they are spoon-fed the baby bird version by mamma CNN. What does a farmer in the middle of Iowa care if he can upload the new britney spears song to his sister's kid in Ohio? But ask the same guy if he thinks its fair for MEDIA COMPANIES
Im betting you would get a totally different answer.
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
At first glance this seemed the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. I mean, taping shows in VCRs is the best way to catch a show you missed, and letting a friend or parent watch it if they missed it too is second nature.
Then I got to thinking about this in terms of today's technology. Pretty soon, we could be burning these shows onto DVDs with DVD-like quality and giving them to people. Of course this could happen today, but I'm talking mainstream ala VCRs. But then, with that kind of technology you could tape the shows and then sell whole series on DVDs to people. You could even edit out commericials. The possibilities are endless.
Is this a bad thing? Not inherently, but it could get worse, imho. VCRs are tediously outdated, but are used because they are simple. With DVD or like technology, shows can be uploaded online with ease, carried around, played on your work computer, etc. It really changes the way you think about the whole TV/Movie/Music watching concept, and as such our laws around them must change as well.
I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It may be that pretty soon you can't let anyone else listen to a CD you bought.
All of this is a total rehash of the printing press.
Years ago there was no mass publishing, information could be tightly controlled, accessable by only those with the books, or access to them, or those with the sizable sum necessary to pay a scribe to copy one.
Along comes Gutenberg and his printing press, all hell breaks loose. Suddenly the cost of reproducing data decreases, consequently it costs less to purchase as well, so there are more who can afford it. The Powers That Be (PTB) freak out completely, and begin to exert all manner of controls over the presses and the publishers.
After some time the PTB settle on a concept called copyright. Which was ok at the time, presses were still relatively rare and pricey, and it helped apease the small number of authors and scribes who were upset. But more importantly it allowed the PTB to control to some extent the dispersal of information.
Hop forward to today, now everyone it seems has their own press in the form of a PC, the PTB flip again, because their former solution is basically obsolete, no matter what the seem to try to adapt the system. Creators and publishers are up in arms again, but what can be done.
I haven't a clue where this will settle, but I do have a feeling that I'm not going to like it. Time to begin hoarding old hardware.
Consider the simple provision of no longer allowing people to tape a show and lend it to a friend. Unbelieveable! I can think of many times that I've simply forgotten to record a show, and really want to see it, but it would be illegal for me to request it from a friend as that would now be copyright infringement. I suppose I could wait for the five or more years to see it in syndication (if it gets syndicated) or buy the DVD or VHS tape (if they bother to release it.)
I think a fair amount of the problem is simply access to the content. Companies are stricting controlling access to all of their "content", even if it is pure drivel that only rapid fanatics would be interested in. It strikes me that any provision to disallow the simple sharing of tapes should also be accompanied by some kind of compulsory license on the content. If they want to be able to restrict it's dissemenation then they also need to make it available at a reasonable price. For example consider all of the "crap" DVDs that get sold at Walmart. Wouldn't a couple of episodes of Red Dwarf or MST3K be worth approximately the same as say the $10 copy of Excalibur?
People want content, companies want money. People don't want to be forced into a limited pay-per use society, despite the fact that companies desperately want that, because it allows them to help crippled business models limp along for another few years. I'm glad to see that Universal is potentially getting it right, finally.
Fair use seems to be such a straight-forward thing. I have written my representatives several times about this. I can only hope that they will support Boucher in his attempts to straighten things out fairly. Though even he does occassionally stray from being our consumer protectionist champion.
First, by the very fact that this legislation is being submitted, we know that the "established laws and traditions" which are being challenged by "emerging ways of the digital revolution" (btw, "digital revolution" is a dead giveaway, nobody who isn't on the industry dole would say that) is in fact the institution of copyright, which is being challenged by what I will call the Even Fairer Use practice of modern free information sharing. Thus the whole premise of your post is backward: you suggest that technology has somehow threatened our ability to take advantage of the Fair Use rights granted to us under current law, which couldn't be further from the truth. Of course, as a PR industry representative, your goal is not discussion but confusion, so such consistency would not interest you.
Your framing of the issue also makes your bias blatantly obvious: you suggest that Fair Use rights are in dispute, while tacitly assuming that copyright is necessary. To illustrate this point, let me rephrase one of your paragraphs: "What is copyright? Did God intend for us to have copyrights? Do animals have copyrights? Clearly, reasoning on this level leads quickly to absurdity." By your own "reasoning," this suggests that copyrights are as open to question (i.e., not inalienable) as are Fair Use rights, and you make no effort to show why one is preferable to another. In fact, copyright is the institutionalized restriction of the right to free speech, which you call inalienable; sounds like we should question the "conventional wisdom" about keeping copyright.
Next, you betray your insider knowledge that your industry trade group plans to continue purchasing this kind of offensive legislation until it succeeds. Gotta be careful about that. And you engage in some Western jingoism about technology, which is implicitly equated with copyright. Unfortunately, you fail to point out that much of this technology (e.g., the Internet) was created by government and university research which would have been impossible if intellectual property law was written the way industry wants it to be.
Then you suggest that we abandon common sense, suggesting that it has happened before without giving a single specific example, again for "technology" (and another slice of jingoism), which you again fail to link to copyright.
Your last paragraph, though, is by far the most obviously industry-funded. You dismiss "Fair Use" as an "anachronism" and an "antiquated ideal," without mentioning a single thing which might be wrong with it. I would suggest that it is copyright which is the antiquated anachronism in an age when digital copying allows us to benefit huge numbers of people for almost no cost. Surely that would accomplish "the improvement of the society of Man." You suggest that this bill and others like it will somehow result in improved technology, again without specifying how; in fact, it will not do this in any way. Finally, you attempt to flatter and browbeat the reader by suggesting that he is elite, and that elite people ought to favor this type of legislation, again without any sort of explanation why. Of course, this is because your reason for favoring this legislation is that it will either preserve or increase the profits that your employer makes from restricting the rights of others to distribute information.
Finally, your presentation is not credible. Your post contains zero grammar or spelling errors, no technological jargon or acronyms, and multiple marketing buzzwords. You are obviously not a programmer or a sysadmin; your background is clearly marketing and public relations.
I am very concerned that this post was moderated to 5. This means one of two things: either PR people are not just posting to Slashdot but also moderating, or the average Slashdot moderator is unable to recognize PR rhetoric when they see it. I submit this message in the hopes of helping to fix the latter if it is the case.
Congress is making an effort to reconcile traditional copyright law with the realities of digital copying; there's no telling whether the end product will be something tolerable or not.
Consider me a troll or whatever. I'm just honestly looking for a logical argument that somehow copyright law needs to be adjusted because the medium has changed.
Under prior law, copying works without due authorization has been illegal and punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.
How does new and proposed law change that fact?
As nearly as I can see, new law seeks only to take away our rights to secure our purchases with backup or to transfer medium. It also seeks to control which devices can access the media the works are published on.
I find this to be unfair and a strike against innovation and the free market. It also further removes the classic "american tinker" that this country's industry and strength came from.
I guess I'm deviating from my original quesiton quite a bit. So to restate the question: How does new and proposed law become necessary simply because new media is available for publication?
Who was it that said that the greatest danger to law enforcement was unenforceable laws?
I disagree. The greatest danger to law enforcement is laws that are easy to enforce but do little for the greater good. How many times have you seen people pulled over by speed traps when there were better things that could be done with the cop's time, like actually patrolling an area?
Laws need to be focused on things that can be agreed upon by society as a whole. If two large sides vigorously disagree yet something is made illegal, then obviously something should probably not be made illegal, since the purpose of the united states government as designed is to protect freedom, not to restrict it for the benefit of the minority.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I've been writing music in my spare time for a bout a year, which I give away for the cost of a blank disc. This is something I do for fun, I have no desire to become a professional. If there were no copyright law, anybody could take my work and claim it to be their own, posibly making millions of dollars (though not likely, I doubt my stuff is that good), and would not even have to give me credit. If this were the case, I would never let anyone listen to my music, no matter how much they were willing to pay.
Now I know what you're saying, you're saying "PastorOfMuppets, your music probably sucks any way and the world would be a much better place if no one ever heard your crap." Well I have two thing to say to that. First, ouch. Second, I doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way. Most artists would continue to create art even if no one paid them, but very few would make their work available to the public if someone else could just claim that they created it.
Basicaly, what you would have is one or two "artists" that would "embrace-and-extend" every new work of art and claim it to be their own invention, Microsoft style.
--
If you don't have anything nice to say, shut up you stupid prick.