Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MGM Concedes Some Fair-Use Rights Exist

Posted by timothy on from the how-very-gracious-of-them dept.

jambarama writes "MGM seems to have given a little in the Grokster case. After getting nailed on the possible implications of banning P2P software, they've now admitted it is perfectly legal to rip one's own CD and store it. Is this a return to the stripped down 'fair use' rights or a temporary court concession?"

7 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. short term problem by geoff+lane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Writers and artists survived for a long time before copyright laws existed and will continue to survive for a long time after copyright laws are abandoned as unenforceable because of modern technology.

  2. Of course by bonch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As technically-inclined people, we need to make sure society as a whole understands that there is a difference between technology and the use of technology. P2P is just a technology. Banning P2P because there are people who use it illegally is ludicrous. We have to make sure the fair and legal uses for P2P are known.

    Naturally, this opens up other discussions about technologies and their uses. Some might argue that based on the above argument, everyone should have the right to own a gun, since it's not the technology that's bad but the use of it by certain people. But these are debates that need to be had to mature the discussion about the difference between a simple object or technology and the way human beings use it for their own gains or against others.

    Basically, confronting the issue with education and discussion, instead of reacting with lawsuits, is the way to find a position the majority of society can agree on.

  3. Re:Thank you, MGM by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It is a limitation on a copyright holder's rights.

    You mean a limitation on a copyright holder's privileges.

    Nobody has a "right" to control copying (even given the misleading name for it) - they are granted the privilege of controlling it with the goal of benefiting society.

  4. Re:Thank you, MGM by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A lot of freedoms aren't expressly protected by the Constitution, because the original idea of our govt. was that people could do whatever wasn't forbidden, and it was govt. that was limited to a specific list of behaviors.

    Your post attests that this idea is dying out.

  5. Re:Thank you, MGM by Trillinon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nor shall we forget the all important: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. If the people want the right of privacy, that power is granted to them.

  6. Re:Thank you, MGM by glsunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You missed the part about "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..." I take it?

    I think we all miss that.

  7. For the last time, you are wrong. by Rumor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the last time, you are wrong.

    The right to copy belongs solely to the copyright holder. There is no caveat on that right except fair use. The right to make one copy, for you, for someone else, for throwing in the garbage, for anything, is a right solely vested in the copyright holder.

    There is no law against distribution. If there were, there would be no First Sale doctrine, because only the copyright holder would be able to sell or give away a copyrighted work. Anyone who possesses a copyrighted work can sell it or give it away (in general). If copyright was distroright, then you would never be able to sell your books or your cds to anyone, or even give them away. But that would be stupid. You simply cannot make a duplicate of a copyrighted work, for any purpose.

    Unless it falls under fair use.