Arguing the Case for Fair-Use by Example?

bobej1977 asks: "Happened to be perusing my local newspaper website and came across a link to one of those corny news websites, a la Dave Barry. Included were a couple of funny Fair-Use related stories. This got me thinking about how it's often easier to explain the idea of fair-use in terms of the absurdities that occur when people stop using their common sense. Anybody else have any interesting links/stories?" Read on for examples of what bobej means. bobej1977's article examples:

"In December, Australia's TV Channel 7 reported that many schools across the country, at the behest of the Australasian Performing Rights Association, were discouraging parents from making keepsake movies of their kids' appearances in Christmas musicals, because recording the holiday songs might violate copyright law. [Seven Network Ltd. (Australia), 12-22-03]"

and

"In February 2004, according to a New York Times report, cuts from 'White Album' by the band Sonic Youth were being listed for downloading on Apple's iTunes online store, and included was 'Silence,' a 63-second cut consisting of no sound at all, for which fans were nonetheless expected to pay the regular iTunes price of 99 cents. (In a subsequent clarification, a Sonic Youth spokesman said 'Silence' would only be sold to purchasers who bought all of the album's cuts.) [New York Times, 2-9-04, 2-16-04]"

Are these decent examples of the absurd, that make a fair to strong case for fair-use? What examples might you have?

Comments

Old article, but good (several examples)

[jvmatthe]

There are some good examples of how crazy copyright law can get in this article by Jonathan Zittrain. My favorite is the bit about Teddy Ruxpin, the toy bear who moves in response to the sound on a tape put into the cassette player in his back. (Putting a tape of, say, Madonna in him and turning him on constitutes a performance of the work, or some such.) Also talks about TV sizes in bars, the "strangler" VHS comment, filesharing, and others. This was linked to in a previous Slashdot story.

Reverse engineering

[scumbucket]

Wouldn't reverse engineering something like a device driver, assorted hardware, etc. be considered by some a violation for fair-use?

In other words...

[Big Sean O]

"I know obscenity use when I see it..." --Potter Stewart
s/obscenity/fair use/

Re:Illegal Art

[jeffy124]

ok, so i did a quick google and found it: http://www.illegal-art.org/ -- I strongly recommend you temporarily disable your pop-up blockers, as you'll miss one of the exhibits on the homepage. (dont worry, it's nothing malicious, nor is it an advertisement or anything)

Silence costs

[Twylite]

The second example of purchasing a silent track isn't as ridiculous as it sounds (pun intended). There are people who will intentionally pay for what they consider to be art, or at least to reward the creator(s) of what they consider to be art. A silent track certainly falls into this category.

What you failed to mention is that the track violates Copyright law. Here's a note about a related case concerning silence, plus a thread on SlashNOT that includes links to the CNN article. That is the part that is really sad.

Re:Silence costs

[jc42]

...purchasing a silent track isn't as ridiculous as it sounds (pun intended).

Back in the 1970's, there was a '45' put out that was several minutes of silence. Many bars and restaurants reported that it was the most-played selection on their juke box. Lots of people were willing to put out a nickel or dime or whatever to prevent any music being played for a few minutes.

I wonder if that "recording" had a copyright notice?

Churches using copyrighted worship music.

[xanderwilson]

A few years back, before we even got into the big issue of online music sharing, I remember hearing about churches getting sued for using copyrighted music for worship and reprinting the lyrics for all of the congregation (or even putting the lyrics on a transparency for an overhead projector) without permission from the copyright holder or even a blanket license like the CCL.

A friend of mine and I were both musicians and worship leaders at the time and he was the one who told me about the issue. He said he'd probably sue to get reimbursed for copyright violations, even from a church. I still don't think I would, but then I never depended on my music for my livelihood.

Many years later this ethical/spiritual debate was brought into the online world when P2P filesharing service ZPoc was shut down. I didn't know about this one myself until after the fact. I think it's an interesting area of the filesharing and fair use debates, since the issue of morality vs. legality is often brought up on both sides.

Alex.

Re:Churches using copyrighted worship music.

[Brandybuck]

Beyond the hymns, the Bible itself is copyrighted! At least most modern translations are. The King James version is in the public domain, but I'm not aware of any other common English translations that are. Reading scripture from the pulpit might be against the law if you don't use the right translation!

Here's how the process works. To create a English new translation you pull out the original texts along with your Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic dictionaries. Find the most accurate translation. Then look at the translations done in a couple dozen other modern versions, and make sure you didn't translate it the same way. Odd are you did. So use different phrasing or synonyms. Instead of "Blessed are the peacemakers", write "Those who keep the peace will be blessed". Never mind that this can subtly change the meaning of the verse.

Copyright is a temporal law, not a spiritual law. The rules and regulations of mankind should never take precedence over the law of God.

Happy Birthday

[alan_dershowitz]

is STILL copyrighted. That's why every restaurant has their own goofy birthday song instead of the universally recognized happy birthday song.

If your kid has a birthday party and you hire a clown to come in and he sings Happy Birthday, the law was broken. What kind of bullshit is that?