Slashdot Mirror
Lawmaker Revs Up Fair-Use Crusade
peipas writes "Wired News has posted an interview with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). In it he defends his stance in support of fair use and against the DMCA and other measures sought by the entertainment industry. The interview also touches on universal broadband and the recent overturning of the broadcast flag."
Skype is a file-sharing application and that's used by millions of people. (Universities) are using file sharing as a way to disseminate research papers and other legitimate items. Getting away from centralized servers and going to peer-to-peer communications all across the map means the communications are faster and much more user-friendly. I will predict that within a number of years, most of the uses of file sharing are going to be legitimate.
I think you mean Peer to Peer, not "File Sharing", which is one kind of P2P. Using Skype for internet telephony and downloading legit files from bittorrent are completely different things. The first is at risk from phone companies, the second is at risk from **AA organizations.
Yeah me too, so let me point out where you have an almost criminal misunderstanding as to what fair use is...
No I didn't realize that, but that may be because Fair Use rights only come into play when you don't own the copyright!! Fair Use is when you use a copyrighted work without having to ask permission from the copyright owner.
You can cite statutes all you want, but unless you know the case law behind it, you don't know what it has been interpreted to mean. For instance, did you know that the Supreme Court has held that "any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a 'fair use;' the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." SONY CORP. OF AMER. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 US 417 (1984).? I can tell that you didn't.
Did you even read what you cited? That is a list of "EXAMPLES", and the list is not exclusive. Again, if you did any research you'd find that there is no exhaustive list for "fair uses" nor is there any bright line test for what constitutes fair use. The factor that has the most weight to ascertain whether or not a use is a fair use is "was it for commercial purposes?". That's the biggy, so if you're using it for personal use (does that include sharing? we don't know yet) then it is more likely that your use is non-infringing, but even that is not dispositive.
OK, you just contradicted yourself. You said previously that you can't copy an entire work without infringing, but now you say that Fair Use has only been generally (read: not entirely) applicable to copies of whole works? As I said before, there is no bright line test for what is inringing or non-infringing, but it is entirely legal to copy an entire cd under the doctrine of fair use. Will saving a television show and sending it to Aunt Sally fall under the auspices of "fair use"? I don't know because the case isn't in front of me, but I do know that you are completely off-base to that unequivocally that doing so is an abolute infringing act.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but the next time you try to slap someone down, make sure your facts are correct and that you indeed know what you are talking about.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Individual assistance to those who otherwise may fall through the cracks.
Plus, both parties at this point seem to bow to their corporate masters rather than champion anything based on their ethical/moral considerations.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
"I sure as hell dont remember hearing about the republican party being particularly active protecting civil rights of disenfranchised minorities during the sixties"
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
House Republicans 138-34
House Democrats 152-96
Senate Republicans: 6 against
Senate Democrats: 21 against
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Senate Democrats: 47-17
Senate Republicans: 30-2
Civil rights Act of 1968
Senate Democrats: 42-17
Senate Republicans: 29-3
Or 4) he's right.
Go look it up. The average American who is uninsured makes more than $50,000/year. That is enough to buy perfectly adequate health insurance.
It is not enough income to drive a 7 series BMW, live in a large house overlooking the ocean, eat out at gourmet restaurants twice a week, send the kids to private school *and* buy health insurance, however.
You've just got to decide what's important.
Certainly you don't think I should be paying for the health insurance of those who'd rather drive a more expensive car?