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.

Here's one from a few year ago.

[MarkusQ]

So, you like to sing at camp?

-- MarkusQ

Illegal Art

[jeffy124]

there's an art show out there called "Illegal Art" that's chock full of art works that "test the limits" so-to-speak. An example would be that drawing of various Disney characters in curious positions. The html file of DeCSS source code laid out like the DVD logo is also part of the tour. I dont have time to dig it up now, but they have a website and there are occasional news articles in local papers when the show tours that locality.

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.

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?

Re:Happy Birthday

[brigc]

I think it's pathetic that a melody written in 1893 is still covered by copyright... barring additional changes in law, the song's now protected at least 2030!

The actual details behind Happy Birthday are kind of interesting... a good synopsis is available from the reference librarian's best friend, Snopes.

...brig

Re:Happy Birthday

[extra88]

If your kid has a birthday party and you hire a clown to come in and he sings Happy Birthday, the law was broken.

It's not illegal to sing "Happy Birthday," it's illegal to sing it publicly and not pay the requisite fee to ASCAP or whichever organization handles the collecting of fees and distribution of royalties to composers.

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.