Slashdot Mirror
RIAA President Decries Fair Use
triskaidekaphile writes, "Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, has an editorial on CNet responding to the Consumer Electronics Association's support of the Digital Freedom campaign for fair use. Sherman proclaims, 'The fair use doctrine is in danger of losing its meaning and value.' Like a true spinner, he indicates that fair use is indeed important, then states 'Let's be clear. The CEA's primary concern is not consumers, but technology companies — often large, multinational corporations which, like us, strive to make a profit... But to seize the mantra of "consumer rights" to advance that business interest is simply disingenuous.' Slashdotters, trollers, and pollsters one and all, what say you? Disingenuous or dissembling?"
zoi gy Well, this time I am really leaving. I will try to speak only Lojban, as much as possible. Doing so here would get me modded down to oblivion. Keep up the good work, everyone! The Singularity is near! Don't take my weapons and armor! Use Hexadecimal! Use Binary! Don't use decimal! Be an atheist! Be a libertarian! Wow. Let me make it somewhat relevant. I don't want to listen to non-Lojbanic music. This means I'll be getting by on a lot of instrumental stuff. Much of which happens to be non-RIAA. gy
u'e sai
fa'o
Just not one that I agree with.
I don't think the CEA "invented" the idea that fair use is a consumer concern. Whether you will be legally limited in reprinting (reposting?) or sharing some copyrighted work is pretty much the definition of a consumer concern about IP.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I certainly understand the philosophical difference here, unfortunately, it runs aground the law. Maybe they need to draw their "business interest" back into the chosen norm of our laws rather than declaring it obsolete.
...area rapist decries the right to bear arms, saying "the ability of a woman to defend herself is in danger of losing its meaning and value."
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Which is why RIAA has gone for a lot of soft targets http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35 669
Engineering is the art of compromise.
"Like a true spinner"
Let the guy make his points and disagree where you feel appropriate. But there is no need to preface it with a comment. You could say that about anyone trying to make an argument.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
> Slashdotters,
Information wants to be free.
> trollers,
First Goatse
> and pollsters
79%
> one and all
79% of information is goatse.
I think he meant to say:
"Let's be clear. The RIAA's primary concern is not artists, but themselves -- a large, quasi-multinational corporation which strives to make a profit... But to seize the mantra of "artists rights" to advance that business interest is simply disingenuous.'
Has any member label of the RIAA ever said or done anything in favor of fair use? I don't think so.
/me wonders what the RIAA has up their sleeves
He sharpened his fangs carefully, didn't me?
Where were you when the voynix came?
It sounds pretty unfair to me.
he says: "don't believe their creations will be adequately protected from IP theft and other unfair...."
Considering that it is impossible to steal IP (you can only copy it), he has no idea what he is talking about. Either that, or he is intentionally lying. He also quotes a Grokster judge who said that Grokster was theft, and says that this judge is tech-savvy. How can he be? If he knew a thing about Grokster, he'd know that no theft ever took place on it.
Where were you when the voynix came?
(emphasis added by poster.)
You know the Democrats are in power when the RIAA line is that fair use has to be eliminated due to "large, multinational corporations", instead of "freeloaders" and "free riders".
I'll give Cary this much. He's smart enough to adjust the spin vector to best conform to the prejudices of whichever group of thugs happens to be in ascendance on the Hill. But then, that's what he's paid for.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
The bottom line for fair use is this:
I should be able to make a copy, for personal use, of any content that I can receive, whether it is broadcast for free or (especially) if paid for.
This is what Fair Use has always been understood to mean, in addition to being able to use small excerpts for review or educational purposes.
It was about us popping a tape in our VCR or radio and making a recording.
Now that the recordings are equal quality to the original, the RIAA and company want to renig on the deal. It's as simple as that.
If you've paid to receive the content, or it is freely given away, you should be able to make a copy for personal use. Period.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
"Reading the whole article, I think his point was to mislead"
He did lie about a couple of situations being theft, when in fact no theft was ever involved.
"For me, fair use is being able to backup my cds onto my harddrive and encode them in any format I please for my mp3 player."
That about does it for me, too. Add to this DVD/video content (including anything I download or view online) and being able to view such content on my DVD player.
Where were you when the voynix came?
The consumer electronics association has everything to gain from legal, clearly defined fair use; more goods sold to the user to duplicate, backup and store copies of perishable media such as those that the RIAA peddles. The RIAA loses ground because they can no longer force you to buy a new copy of your product if the one you purchased is no longer usable. My point is, of course the CEA has a lot to gain from it, but that only demonstrates that consumers aren't the only ones that want legal clarification of fair use statues, or stand to gain from it. This seems more to me like the RIAA standing up saying "Not Fair! He wins if the consumer does and we don't!" Go cry in another corner, emo boy...
If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
This is a classic ad hominem attack, which seeks to avoid addressing an opponent's main argument entirely by casting into question the person or entity who is making that argument. Thus, an ad hominem ("to the person") attack addresses not the argument on its own merits but the person making the argument, usually by attempting to undermine the person's true motivation or intention in making the argument. I think in contemporary developed society, this kind of ad hominem maneuver can't be very effective in actually swaying anyone. We're not very susceptible to the "they're just capitalists like us" argument. First of all, it's not a very strong counterargument to begin with. Secondly, consumers are VERY FAMILIAR with the fact that businesses are interested in making money, or, in general, that societal forces are composed of opposing interests and groups of interests that seek common ground in order to push forward an agreed upon agenda that meets the needs of multiple interests. So on the one hand, you have the RIAA, an entity that has demonstrated its own desperation, ignorance and sheer laziness, as well as a sense of entitlement and mean-spiritedness that does not stem from actually producing anything but merely licensing and distributing it. Remember when Creedence Clearwater Revival's recording company sued John Fogarty for stealing his own style of making music? (And lost?) They're essentially luddites; if they could get rid of the technological successes of the last 20 years, they would. And on the other hand, you have a bunch of companies that want to sell you some shiny bits of kit so that you can walk around with your tunes and feel cool. Oh, and a bunch of pissed off, anti-control, anti-corporate consumers. Who do you want on your side? Who is on your side? The RIAA counterargument is substanceless and ineffectual, just like their feeble anti-piracy countermeasures.
Most people only like a very small percentage of all the music being released, yet they are exposed to a lot of stuff they dislike/hate because the companies push their crap through any medium possible.
So if the companies think that it's fair practice to torment unsuspecting Consumers(!) in public and private spaces, then Consumers surely have a right to freely sort through all that crap in the privacy of their own home.
And only if the Consumer is happy enough to pay for it after going through this tiring process, should the company be relieved to have made a sale.
...as for the consumer.
I work for a consumer electronics company.Though things like DRM are of vital importance for any CE-company that wants the support of content generators (the ones RIAA speaks for, or should speak for), they see the problems it brings them.
They need to invest a lot of money to get DRM to their products, and as such can experience a lower market interest due to higher product cost- this, while the product simply does the same thing and (because?) the consumer does not get any better from DRM.
Apart from that, things that invalidate the current DRM scheme (like fairuse4wm?) cause a great deal of problems on a CE-company: the DRM-scheme they support is suddenly out of date and their devices need upgrading - which is sometimes impossible due to lacking hardware support.
The consumer again ends up on the loosing end (with no content supporting the failed DRM scheme on their device), and supposedly has only the CE-company to blame for it, while they really should blame the company insisting on DRM for their content in the first place.
CEA simply has no other choice than to resist DRM, while still being realistic in that they have no other choice but to support it for the time being (read: as long as the content generators keep insisting on its use).
I think a lot of these thoughts are explained by pure logic reasoning.
Is there anything else you can buy in the world, where there are such restrictions placed on its use? Stuff that's reasonably easy to duplicate, and has potential for such abuse, that it has protections?
Looking around my (typically messy) desk, I see... hmm, my camera. Ok, I can pay $1300 for a lens on my DSLR.. Canon doesn't say "dude you can't put that on any other camera". Nope. Of course, there's no other camera to put it on, but I knew that when I bought it, and canon doesn't say that I can't do what I want with the results of the pics.
Ah, there's a clip loaded with .22's (well, this is the country, and the other day a coyote tried to get at my chickens!). Remington doesn't say that I can only put these in their rifle. I bought the bullets, I can do what I want with them, as far as the originating company is concerned (Uncle Sam may disagree with me, of course, but you won't see Remington getting involved in that).
So, is there anything produced where the manufacturer places specific use restrictions (not "suggestions", like a recipe which calls [let me exercise "fair use" in an excerpt here] for "1 bar (8 oz.) NESTLÉ CHOCOLATIER(TM) 62% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate Baking Bar, broken into sections" or "2/3 cup LIBBY'S® 100% Pure Pumpkin" as though something else is going to ruin the recipe - they're not denying you the right, or ability, to use their recipe unless you use their product!) other than media?
Perhaps the special thing about media is that the company wants to sell you not "listen to this song" or "watch this movie" but "listen to this song only on this one thing". There's a clash between what the consumer believes himself to be buying, and what the company claims to be selling.
"Let's be clear. The CEA's primary concern is not consumers, but technology companies -- often large, multinational corporations which, like us, strive to make a profit... "
But, unlike you, the CEA does not seek this profit through monopoly control over the products they sell (OK, with the possible expception of Sony...). A CD player is a CD player is a CD player, no matter who manfucatures it, but a new Death Cab for Cutie CD can only come from Atlantic. Because the electronics manufacturers don't have nearly the same amount of federal legal power to fall back on to protect their profits, they are far more inclined to (day I say it) cater to the whims of the customer (insert previous Sony caveat here).
While there is always the danger of manufacuring cartels getting together to limit consumer choice in the realm of hardware (DVD-CSS), these cartels don't have the same kind of legal protections that copyright holders do, and are always susceptible to competitors making cheaper yet more functional devices (Wal-Mart won't try to sell bootleg movies, but will be more than happy to sell you a region-free DVD player).
Copyright is a social contract. The government agrees to protect a monopoly for a limited time in exchange for an idea being released into the Public Domain. The Fair Use clause is a reminder that the materials copyrighted will become Public Domain and is an exclusion to benefit everyone for the limited time where the monopoly is in place. Of course they don't want Fair Use. For one, it is an excuse for users to be able to access the idea they bought in a convenient manner. The content providers want you to re-buy for you DVD/TV, DVD/computer, DVD/PSP, car, iPod, etc. Fair Use explicitly states that you do not need to buy multiple copies of the same thing. Additionally, Fair Use is a reminder of the contract. The Limited Time portion has already been forgotten by Congress. The more the content middlemen can get people to think that their ownership of copyright is a right, the more they can separate themselves and their tactics from the intention of copyright.
I ask myself one question. Do the laws surrounding copyright encourage innovation? My answer is "no, they do not." With that answer, it means that I must necessarily think that the laws regarding copyright are unconstitutional. Innovation is not when Velcro's replacement is held back from public consumption until after the patent on Velcro has expired. Innovation would be releasing it when it is discovered. Many companies hold back the next generation of products until the previous generation patents have or soon will expire. Companies use patents to prevent competitors from making obvious enhancements to their own products. Copyright law is being used to prevent Fair Use and extending the copyright every time it get close to expiring indicates that it is not a limited time. Author's life + 10 or 25 years, whichever is shorter would be more than sufficient for protecting the creator for profit to encourage creation of new content.
Oh, and "Science and useful Arts" does not include business processes.
Learn to love Alaska
Sounds like the Pot calling the Kettle disingenuous!
I have but one thing to say about that. If the consumer market did not want it, the manufacturers wouldn't make it! This premise has been shown again and again. They don't want to make things people won't buy. They buy it because they want it. They make it because people ask for it or they think the people would like it. (product failures are common, no need to cite examples...cue cat)
Disingenuous indeed...
" (Wal-Mart won't try to sell bootleg movies, but will be more than happy to sell you a region-free DVD player)."
Which Wal-Mart is this???
Where were you when the voynix came?
Now that Mr. Sherman's exposed the vileness of the CEA's motives with regard to fair use, maybe some of the viral marketing used by the CEA will come to light. Obviously all these posters on /. attacking the RIAA are PR shills, since no genuine consumers might agree with the CEA's position otherwise.
The only reason people want fair use rights is to support the manufacturers of music players. Brilliant.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Let's be clear. The CEA's primary concern is not consumers, but technology companies--often large, multinational corporations which, like us, strive to make a profit.
Sometimes, all of these entities are the same company. Look at Sony for example. They own a record label, produce consumer electronics, and sell blank media.
Slashdotters, trollers, and pollsters one and all, what say you? Disingenuous or dissembling?
All of the above. I have the right to use my media as I see fit. What, is he next going to claim that ripping my own CDs is illegal? Pesky "Fair Use", it's holding back commerce and hurting the economy. Hey, we have record executives to feed! They have children to put through ivy league schools! And Hummers to buy! The rabble is getting just too damn uppity, I say. Do you honestly think that's disingenuous?
Sheesh!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go download last nights Frisky Dingo episode.
The RIAA and the artists they represent are not as concerned about the quality of the recordings as they are about the fact that unlimited copies can be made and handed out freely to anyone who wants one.
Yes, but ...
Today, the right to make a copy for personal use has been extended to making a copy to share with friends. And, because we're friendly on this planet, "friends" means everyone on the planet. Make no mistake, the more militant folks out there want to enforce "buy one copy, share with the planet."
Electronics manufacturers have somewhat less to lose than content producers, but both are going to lose in the long run as long as fair use is translated to "free music and movies."
Just exactly how do we put the cork back in the bottle? Well, unbreakable DRM probably isn't the answer although it seems like a pretty attractive goal. And a 99% solution (assuming 100% is impossible) is fine with the folks implementing it. Heck, a 75% solution is fine with them. Strict enforcement isn't going to happen, neither through civil or criminal means. Patronage might be the only answer, but it would mean pretty much the end of music as a business.
If these RIAA type jerks existed hundreds of years ago.. we wouldnt have libraries today (or rather, probably the founding fathers would have slapped them down HARD). Anyway, if they had their way it would be illegal to lend books. This would have been disastrous, cause, for example .. the Wright brothers wouldnt have been able to invent the airplane because they wouldnt be able to utilize the Dayton Public Library (which they did extensively). Everyone benefits and has benefitted from fair use. So to think someone deserves a massive "forever" monopoly for an extended period for simply being the first to fill a market need is ridiculous.
The CEO of the RIAA claims: "We celebrate advances in technology and recognize the importance of finding new ways to deliver content." At the same time, the Chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group claims MP3 players are: "just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it."
It seems fairly clear that neither the RIAA nor their member companies really understand technology well at all. They try to stagnate music distribution in the mid-80's, and they disregard how easy it is to compare and contrast their messages to make the lies obvious.
Both stories showing up on the same day is just a nice bonus. It's a bit like the old Dilbert where the PHB is holding a meeting:
Item 1: record profits -- executives will be getting bonuses.
Item 2: financial difficulties -- layoffs of technical staff.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Although not in the way he thinks. Yes, the CEA's policy will do some damage, but frankly just enough to perhaps tip the scales away from the major record labels and force them away from this continual creation of musical dreck. Let's face it, a lot what the big labels produce nowadays is regurgitated, repackaged crap. It's the same set of monotonous music, only varying in tempo and voices. Truly fresh artists, when they are allowed to appear at all, are soon chewed up by this system and forced to follow this same formula, or be left out in the cold.
Ultimately, the RIAA is helping itself and the big labels, not the artists. Then they will be forced to discover that, lo and behold, there has been quite a bit of diverse content all along, they've just been too busy stomping it out to notice it.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Uh huh. And the RIAA's primary concern is
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
In response to the RIAA President, this Slashdot user would offer the anaology of prostitution. Aristotle, I believe it was Aristotle, said that teaching was akin to prostitution because a prostitute sells love for money and a teacher sells wisdom for money. Aristotle wasn't necessarily opposed to prostitution, he was just pointing out the analogy.
But the analogy hits upon a very important point. Love, knowledge and wisdom are all best when shared freely. A society composed of decent moral individuals is by necessity that society that is most willing to share amongst its members. This is true for material goods to some extent, but in these immaterial goods it is fundamentally important.
Fair use is not merely an uncontestable good in the context of our times, it is easy to argue that copyrights, patents and trademarks absolutely must be struck back by force of law with the utmost expedience. Furthermore, those, like the President of the RIAA, who would argue otherwise must realize that they can, should and hopefully will be held accountable for their anti-social and irresponsible behavior.
Who do you think you are anyway?
On one far side of the IP continuum, you treat intellectual property almost EXACTLY like physical property. Lifetime ownership, lifetime copyright etc... This situation probably grants excessive monopoly power to the IP creator and creates inefficiencies.
Extreme #(2)> ... This situation creates a variation on the classic tragedy of the commons. Everyone has an incentive to use the common IP resources; no one has an incentive to create them. (And no, communism does not work and the broad population will not create free stuff for the benefit of mankind without compensation.)
On the other side, you have absolutely no rules whatsoever. Everyone is free to use/steal/whatever anything.
(3) The Fuzzy Middle
Then there is some position in the middle that grants a time limited monopoly (copyright) with certain exceptions for "fair use." Where "fair use" has a strict definition. A brief quotation is "fair use," while a larger excerpt is not. the Anti IP group (2) people want to redefine "fair use" as "all use." (Switch US system from (3) to Extreme #2 by stealth.) Not that I'm an RIAA fan, but the opinion piece here has a point.
Good Cop Bad Cop.
Right now, this guy is playing good cop. While another part of the organization litigates the end-user into oblivion.
The goal remains, Greater control for higher revenue, which naturally entails drastically limiting consumer usage.
Microsoft's goal, RIAA members goal. All of them.
That this is even being considered as thoughtful by some is just... astroturfing.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
"It is proper to call the act of removing money from the content owner's pocket theft."
Yes.... which has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
"You can say "I just made a copy" but that does not change the fact that you accessed something I should have been paid for to enable your access"
Accessed? Like in your wallet example? Theft is theft. Period. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period. Sounds like you are discussing some sort of unauthorized access. There are other forms of unauthorized access which are also not theft (such as trespassing). The person who has "just made a copy" is guilty of copying, not stealing.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Haven't we paid to upgrade from record to 8-track to cassette to cd to [for some] mp3?
I think they may be trying to keep their outdated business model alive.
"life is too short to be taken seriously." - me
"Electronics manufacturers have somewhat less to lose than content producers, but both are going to lose in the long run as long as fair use is translated to "free music and movies.""
If things degenerate to free music and free movies, we'd still need electronics to play them on. How could the electronics manufacturers lose? Or are you referring to how if media because driven by the customers instead of by bizarre descrees from companies to buy everything all over again in a new format ever 8 years, the hardware guys lose out? Because you don't have to keep buying new players for every new format change? That kind of loss is....acceptible.
Where were you when the voynix came?
- of losing its meaning and value' - most excellent point, Cary Sherman.
And you, yourself are one of the dangers.
Read radical news here
...has to say is all well and good (well not really, but I was looking to coin a phrase). I find it interesting where the artists stand on how their work is disseminated to the masses, and what they think is fair usage. I'm in the "For me, fair use is being able to backup my CDs onto my hard drive and encode them in any format I please for my mp3 player" boat, but it goes with out saying not all people/entities are. To hell with the RIAA anyways, basically it's another form of insidious governance.
Seems like they're attempting to cast a negative connotation to the words "fair use", or at least confuse the term until it loses its meaning. If carefully done, this can take the strength out of their opponents' arguments.
The effectiveness of this can be demonstrated by the conservatives' redefinition of the word "liberal", which nowadays is used pejoratively. Originally, the word had a positive meaning (one with liberal views, supporting individual liberty).
Whether downloading is illegal or not ignores the real question, which is does it help artists and should it be illegal?
Wrong. The question should be about respecting private property of all kinds, no matter who it belongs to. The alternative is a slippery slope on which the government tells you what you are allowed and aren't allowed to own.
"Extreme #(2)> Everyone has an incentive to use the common IP resources; no one has an incentive to create them. (And no, communism does not work and the broad population will not create free stuff for the benefit of mankind without compensation.)"
This is not about communism, since communism is all about brutal totalitarian dictatorship. Anyway, I'm getting happier and happier with this extreme. Why? More and more of the content I am finding and enjoying is made by people for the pure fun of it in the hopes that other people will like it. Here's just one example: http://kupras.net/gollum.swf Yes, I laugh at this one.
Where were you when the voynix came?
He is attempting to portray the fair-use balance as the interestst of the content publishers versus the interests of the equipment makers. At one point he makes this explicit. At another he talks of balancing the interests of "all players". This is totally bogus.
In fact the copyright balancing is the interests of the content producers versus the interests of the content users (of a number of types - including the content PURCHASERS who want to format-shift their property in order to player-shift or space-shift it, whom he carefully ignores).
The makers of the equipment, software, and other insturmentality that enables the content users' exercise of their fair-use rights DO benefit. So they have a financial incentive to support the content users' position. (Indeed, the industry's activity is an effective way for the content users to fund the defense of their own rights.) And their profit is indeed part of the overall social benefit intended to be promoted by the copyright law. But (despite Sherman's FUD) the copying-equipment industry's interest is NOT the other side of the "balance" of fair-use.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm not arguing that I should be able to get my music for free, but once I pay for it I can do with it whatever I want, as long as it's fair use. I'm not going to accept his version of "fair" - probably no media shifting, no format shifting, if possible no time shifting and hardware-locked to a specific player - I want the rights I deserve for having paid.
You make the mistake of accepting his framing of the argument: he isn't "giving in" in the slightest, he makes an outrageous demand, and, when no one will fulfill it, backs down a little. It's the same as if I asked you to pay me a million dollars for using the same air that I breathe, and if you aren't willing to pay, well, I can back down to a payment of one dollar a month. I guess you would consider that a great deal, since I "backed down" so much...
(I'm not accusing you personally, but every time I see something like this I wish people were more aware of basic manipulating tactics - these are old tricks, and, sad as it is to see, they still work).
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
Actually, camera manufacturers do make camera bodies that are compatible with certain lenses. It is just a way to create a lock in. In your example of a Canon lens, it probably won't fit on Nikon body.
You don't entitle your article "The Farce Behind Digital Freedom". And you don't immediately open fire with loaded words like "extremist". I have little hope for the rest of TFA at this point...
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
give this man mod points!
"Today, the right to make a copy for personal use has been extended to making a copy to share with friends"
These guys object to my right to watch what I paid for. Case in point: I have a few out-region DVD's. In order to be able to watch them on my DVD player, I had to crack them (using a utility that breaks the CSS code) and then re-burn them as region free. The RIAA and MPAA guys oppose even this. The DVD region system was a strong disincentive for me to buy these few DVD's, but I bought them anyway. If the MPAA is so concerned about copying cutting into sales, then why do they (1) discourage sales by having the DVD region system and (2) encourage me to crack and copy DVD's just to be able to watch them on my own player?
Where were you when the voynix came?
"You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
"Originally, the word had a positive meaning (one with liberal views, supporting individual liberty)."
Since liberalism itself evolved (in the US) to mean more power for the state at the expense of individual liberty, it's clear that liberalism redefined itself (a more fundamental matter than the mere situation of conservatives insulting it.) The "positive meaning" no longer applies in most ways.
Where were you when the voynix came?
If it wasn't for fair use rap wouldn't be legal.
"Fair use" does not define a certain limited amount of copying that you have permission to do. It defines copying that you do *not have to ask permission for. You can try to prevent "fair use" technologically, but there is nothing in copyright law that prevents my circumventing that technical measure. Now I defer to a smarter man:
(Moglen on the DMCA): "You never read a case, because there never was a case, in which under the copyright law, somebody was charged with a federal legal offence of any kind for writing a book about how photocopiers work or for distributing blue prints of photocopiers or for manufacturing and selling photocopiers. When you see a legal regime that is engaged in trying to charge people for doing those things, you can be pretty sure it's not the copyright law, it's something else. The fact that they put the word copyright in the title doesn't make it a copyright law folks"
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
"Haven't we paid to upgrade from record to 8-track to cassette to cd to [for some] mp3?"
There are many products that we buy and replace because they wear out (record, 8T), or because newer products offer better quality (CD) or convenience (mp3). If you made most of those conversions, it's because you had a good reason and obtained a clear benefit from doing so. You could have, for example, bought some equipment and recorded all of those 8-tracks to CDR, but the quality would have sucked, and you didn't really want to take the time to do it anyway (convenience). Again, things we often pay for.
This is what makes the transition from DVD to BR/HD interesting, because in one way you may be paying for the "same" movie yet again... but on the other side, it's not the same movie, but a much higher definition, clearer, sharper version.
Worth paying for? Your choice.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Ummm.... no. It's never was about that. Fair use is certainly about Parody, Commentary, and Quoting. There is no argument about any of that. That's pretty much settled case law. How much you can copy for Education is more case by case, but it's still got a lot of leeway.
The concept of broadcasting caused some large waves in the whole copyright/fair use issue. There were in fact arguments that stations should pay per receiver tuned to their channel. The concept of recording those broadcasts didn't come about until the late 50's [IIRC].
It was the Betamax case which determined that timeshifting was a fair use of broadcast material. But remember, when tapes cost $15 each, people didn't make collections. You taped, time shifted & reused. That was what was determined to be fair use. The permanent recording & collecting was not addressed as such.
As for format-shifting, there is a history of acceptance, but very little in terms of case law explicitly saying that "A consumer may copy records they own on LP's to Tape."
Software on floppies used to have a notice that the first thing you should do is copy the disk & put it in a safe place - use only the duplicates for daily use. That was a grant from the copyright holder to make the backup, not a fair use mandate.
With the advent of digital storage and networking, the concept of music/video/images as IP distinct from the physical media they are stored on was created. There is very little case law regarding what is and is not fair use for digital information. There are things which are not fair use. Digitally transferring 12K copies of your favorite album to 12K complete strangers is not fair use. Is streaming that same album to your best friend? It might be if the use is analogous to holding the phone to the speaker. If you stream that album to them every day, it stops being fair use.
Is ripping your CD collection to create a digital jukebox fair use? The RIAA said it was when talking to SCOTUS, but they are pushing DMCA & DRM to prohibit it anyway - in the name of protecting copyright owners. In short, there is not & never has been and explicit exception in Copyright law which permits you make a copy for yourself. There has been the agreement that it was permissible since the 60s, but no codification. If format shifting is fair use, then current DRM applications are invalid as they prohibit a fair use - which means that the whole DVD123 case needs to be re-decided.
"Should"?
When someone comes to my house to replace my roof, I "should" be able to make a copy of his/her "roofing performance," so that in 15 or 20 years I can have some shingles delivered and then just replay that "roofing performance".
When I buy a car, I "should" be buying a car design, from which I can extract a new car over and over again so long as I do not wish to rake up horse muck.
All kinds of things are possible once you get into "should" vis-a-vis the ways of the world.
But, in fact, you can only get what you can coax people into agreeing to. They create a product and offer it for sale under certain conditions. You are free to accept or reject the offer, or you can attempt to re-negotiate a better offer.
You'll notice there's no "should" in that last paragraph.
The airwaves "should" belong to the public. But, alas, they were stolen. What a world!
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
but how long will it be before they determine that fair use doesn't allow you to watch a movie with your significant other unless you both separately purchase copies of the movie? How about saying you can't play your own CDs in your car unless you have no passengers with you, or all your friends have already purchased their copy of the CD? I can't see that campaign being too far away.
The right to time-shift and format-shift for personal use are well-established as part of the fair use exceptions to copyright law. As long as they don't grant this ability, copyright owners have nothing to complain about when their copy protection gets cracked, or people forego the distribution medium.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
>>I'm talking putting the song on your favorite player not copying for your friend
Isn't that what the home recording act was about? (Making copies for your friends, not the 10,000 people you upload to on the net.)
Music not the media it is on. As such I should be able to transfer the music to any media that allows me to listen to it.
IS that to hard to understand?
Actually I remember back in the day, it was pretty common with folks with "hi-fi" systems that had both a LP turntable and a reel-to-reel, to dub their best-loved LPs to tape, and then play the tape, thus saving wear on the vinyl.
I once dug up an early 'mix tape' that my father had made this way, in the late 60s...format shifting is not a new idea, and it's fairly recently that its been attacked and called "stealing."
The previous upgrade cycles mostly happened because there was some perceived consumer advantage. 'Cassette tapes' sucked less than eight-track (cassettes), particularly for use in cars. CDs were superior to vinyl in terms of damage resistance (or so they said at the time, anyway), not wearing out, ease of FF/REV and SKIP, and sound quality. People chose those upgrades. Anyone with a decent home stereo could go from LP to cassette tape pretty trivially, and some people did (I know I did, for my car), but it was time consuming and most people didn't bother.
With the CD to MP3 format changeover, moving one's music oneself is trivial. Put the disc into iTunes, hit Rip. Thus, a lot of people aren't repurchasing their music as they did in the past, because this changeover is easier than any in the past. This drives the record companies crazy, because they've been used to getting a huge influx of cash every time one of these changeovers has happened in the past -- in fact, they think they're entitled to it. That is their critical mistake. They are not.
Frankly, I think it is this sense of entitlement that really aggravates me about the RIAA and its member companies most of all.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
My point was the question: Is there another example, other than media, of something produced with a license which states that you can't use the product except in a single or limited application?
Limitations due to legalities don't count ("may only be used in off-road applications").
Eg (though media so doesn't count for my question) - you can buy sheet music for a song; they don't say that you can only play it on one guitar (though as it's copyrighted, you can't photocopy it for a friend, though your friend can borrow it for a while, and you can sell it {if you didn't keep a copy!}, etc).
For example, "fair use" means you can quote a few words from a textbook, but cannot repeat the whole book. "Fair use" also means you can play a few seconds of a song, or a few seconds of a movie without permission or penalty.
You are mistakenly conflating two forms in the statutory basis for fair use: borrowing for purposes of quotation or criticism and limits on commercial exploitation.
It is perfectly legal to spend an afternoon photocopying a complete book in your public library and lugging the reams of 8.5X11 home with you, if your purposes are scholarly or educational and you have no intention of commercial redistribution. Mr. Sherman is pleased by your confusion in this regard and your mistaken guidance to the hoi polloi. In fact, they are relying not upon the deterrent effect of a handful of lawsuits, but the great murk that this tactic generates around these questions in the public discourse.
It is perfectly legal to make complete copies of any copyrighted work provided there is no commercial intent and no restraint of commerce (read: giving them out for free and destroying the market) and anyone who will tell you otherwise is mistaken or lying. Grokster died not because copies existed on its servers or servers it indexed, but because it had no way of guaranteeing that those copies were not commercially exploited or that restraint of trade was not occurring. It purposefully marketed this anonymity of purpose as a value-add.
illegitimii non ingravare
I bought the media content on those 8-track and cassette tapes. The medium which conveys the media matters little in this argument.
Without the content they are just blank tapes.
When I purchase the music I will listen to the music on the original -or- a copy of that original as I know all too well that any mechanical carrier wears out with time and the medium is not the message, the content is.
My library content goes back to reel-to-reel tapes and yet I have no reel-to-reel machine anymore. It died in 1989 after I copied the content to cassettes, then when computers came out I encoded those cassette tapes to mp3.
My original purchase of the content allows me to continue to listen to it to this day. That's what I call 'fair-use'!
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Considering that it is impossible to steal IP (you can only copy it)
Sherman obviously wants to gut fair use, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in using the term "IP theft."
Trade secrets are intellectual property. When you steal the designs to your competitor's new widget, you can get nailed for trade secret theft.
The same is true of patents, copyright, and trademark infringement cases. Theft is appropriating a right that was reserved for the owner of the IP. When you abrogate that exclusive right for yourself, you are stealing, because you are taking that right from its owner. For example, one of the rights in copyright is to prepare derivative works or to license others to do so. If you create a Star Wars comic book, when Lucas had already arranged for Dark Horse Comics to create a derivative work, you are infringing on Lucas's ability to decide how derivative works are handled. You have abrogated one of his rights for yourself. You've stolen from him.
There are numerous problems with the IP regime, but if we're going to engage in meaningful reform, we have to first be clear about how the law currently stands. Theft of intellectual property has been recognized by the law for a long, long time - well before the advent of computer software and the Internet. Regardless of whether you think this is right or wrong, it's the law.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Finally, an intelligent comment about Fair Use on Slashdot. I wonder if Hell has frozen over.
People assume that Fair Use gives them all sorts of rights where it absolutely does not. Fair Use doesn't assign any rights to the user at all, rather it limits the rights of the publisher to assert their copyright in specific circumstances. Fair Use was designed specifically for comment, satire and education. Fair Use is also painfully vague, leaving the judge to decide the extent and possible damage. Codification of explicit rights would probably be appreciated in this day and age.
(I work in the consumer electronics industry and have done so since 1972.) We have seen the RIAA try to sew up all uses of the music we wish to hear so that they can sell it to us again and again. As a mid-50's age guy I can remember buying the same music in LP, cassette, 8 track and CD forms. The RIAA has tried to make it impossible for us to legally make a copy for ourselves of anything, first in analog and then in digital form. Now they are trying to close the 'analog loophole' in radio and other formats so that we are not even able to make any copies legally of the music we purchased to listen to in our own cars or homes. As an example of their power: They killed the DAT tape format in the USA as a consumer format with threats of lawsuits. I see multiple mentions of Gary Shapiro and the idea of fair use being linked somehow to more sales of equipment by consumer electronics companies. What are you going to play it on? Do you have a wind up Victrola for your MP3 collection? We in the Consumer Electronics Association and the high fidelity related industries are arguing for fair use, the more enlightened ones of us, because we see digital rights management (DRM) as an anathema to anyone who wants to actually buy a piece of music and use it freely for themselves in their home in any way they choose. You BOUGHT IT didn't you? You were not sold a limited term lease... This is not saying to make many copies and give them to others or sell them as bootlegs. If the RIAA has its' way you will be leased the use of a song or download for as long as it lasts during playback and have to pay for it again each time you wish to hear it.They would, perhaps, be satisfied then. Maybe.. This forum, as a group, is very much related to personal computers more than to stereo equipment or home theater equipment but all forms of equipment will be affected in a serious fashion if the RIAA has its way freely with all of us and our wishes for the right to playback music we have bought. You should all join the fair rights movement. We as a group in the CEA cannot be the only voice calling for the right to enjoy music we for which we PAID GOOD MONEY and wish to hear it again and again in our own way. JOIN THE MOVEMENT TO SAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE MUSIC YOU PAID FOR WITH YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY.
Mod parent down for spouting complete nonsense. Time-shifting and format-shifting are well-established parts of the fair use exceptions to copyright law...
He seems to be suggesting that it is a conflict of interest somehow for a large organization to become a champion for "the little guy." I see two problems with your logic Mr. Sherman...
1) You've forgotten that the RIAA was originally founded with the intention of being a large organization which championed the "little guy." In that case, at that time, the little guy was musicians, who got screwed left and right by both record labels and copyright infringers (the REAL ones, you know, the guy who would happen upon the lyrics for some unpublished song and claim it was his own, or collaborate with someone and then fail to credit them). I see his point here, sure, but the organization which he represents is his own best example of how such an organization can be perverted to serve the needs of a special few.
2) He is claiming that it is somehow wrong for a large powerful organization to take up arms in the name of joe consumer. What I read into this, however, is that he is afraid. I'm damn sure he would much prefer to continue winning little battles against poor defenseless consumers, rather than have to win a war he knows cannot be won against an organization with the legal muscle to force him into a fair fight.
"The GPL is viral by design, like any good religion."
Conservative used to be a positive term too, you know.
He is absolutely right in saying that there is a major conflict of interest between the content providers and the technology companies. Both are led by large corporations, and both serve "the public" to different extents (content producers and consumers). He is also right in pointing out that fair use is necessary for all, acknowledging that "so much of what we create is built on the art that came before".
He also makes a couple of interesting points: first, that downloading is illegal and immoral (the opposite view being an "extremist position"); and second that the new fair use will stop artists from producing content because there would be no economic advantage. And IMHO both of these points are flawed and misleading.
For the first one, there is no mention of what makes it an extremist view (other than his obvious agenda), and the opposite view is just as extreme. Downloading is not illegal everywhere, and it certainly is not immoral - there is no morality on the reordering of a bunch of 0 and 1s on magnetic storage. Nothing was lost on the other side.
But the second one is more interesting. It is simply not true that artists will stop producing content if people are free to use the technology as they see fit. This is already happening, and the attempts to outlaw it is a proof of that. But the impact won't necessarily be worse than today if allowed to happen.
I think that these are hiding another, deeper, threat for content companies: the fact that technology companies serve both consumers and content creators, and it scares the crap out of them because of the implications.
In other words, technology massively lowers the barriers of entry for new artists. Massive distribution technologies allow users to bypass the traditional and oligarchic "means of production". Cheaper equipment means more talented people can reach the eyes and ears of listeners, which will cause money to be distributed more broadly, and more fairly - at the expense of the traditional players of the content industry. An example of this is how, given a specific content, some illegal copies manage to release something of a better quality (no ads, multiple subtitles in different languages, better size/quality ratio, etc).
Content industries have a history of perverting technology for their own economic ends. DVD zoning is an example of this. I can understand the marketing drives to do it - artificial market segmentation, and so on. But in a increasingly global world they become as annoying as they are obsolete.
So yes, the technology companies have a lot to profit from this. But guess what - their best economic interest is to allow the people (artist and consumers) to be able to do more with their gear, not less. So if I have to choose my side, I'll go with the technology companies, not with the people who would like to "license" things to a given item of hardware and still charge as much as possible.
Some people are getting it... these guys are trying to offer a free HD TV show on the net. In other areas such as gaming, there are many examples of freely available software, which are free yet fun to play. This is the future, IMHO, and is arriving sooner or later. Yes, in part, I like it because I get a free ride, but that's because I'm given one by people who have the means of doing so. And those means are given by technology.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
Here's a quote from a CD:
Unauthorized copying, reproduction, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
Again, to a certain extent the medium does matter, since rerecording older versions off LPs or tape entails a loss in quality though generational copying and also recording the scratches and pops on the LP and background noise and hiss on the tapes. So the "quality" aspect of my argument applies here, since people didn't get the "same" content for their money when they upgraded to CDs, but (arguably) a better version thereof.
You also choose to spend your time doing so, whereas others often will pay not to spend their time doing drudgework when they could be off doing something else they enjoy more, much like I pay someone to mow my grass so I can go out and play volleyball.
As to what you call "fair-use"... well, I can call my cat a dog, but that doesn't mean she's going to go fetch the paper.
While I think that what you did is "fair", it doesn't yet fall under the "comment, discussion, satire" statues of the "fair-use" doctrine, nor does it really fit into the "personal backup" or "right of first sale" aspects of other law. And as another example, I know several people who think torrenting a song to 10,000 "friends" is fair-use.
Which, when you get right down to it, is why we're having these discussions regarding personal rerecording, device shifting, file sharing, TIVO-like time shifting, and so on, and why those definitions need to get nailed down so that fair is fair, for everyone.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
This digital music IP issue reminds me of those machines in sci-fi movies that can synthesize stuff out of any raw materials. Imagine if those existed and they were affordable. Imagine trying to have a capitalist economy coexist with such machines... You could stick a dog turd in and get back diamonds. Except - why bother? Diamonds would be of no more value, just less smelly. Turn it into something useful like dog food.
As technology gets good enough, it starts undermining capitalism. You can't charge $18 for a music CD when the raw materials and medium costs basically nothing when it's digitalized. No package, no shelf space, no retail store, no salespeople.
Next will be movies (already starting - digital rental/purchase downloads will kill rental stores and DVD sales), then books and magazines. When the technology arrives to replace paper medium, someone is going to come along and iPod/iTunes the book/magazine industry. I'd give it 20 years maximum.
At some point robots can start taking over service jobs in some industries (slave labor, no food, no health care, etc). They've already replaced people in parts of the manufacturing industry. Eventually, if we make good enough use of technology, there just won't be enough work for people to do and we'd have to switch to some kind of communist system.
I mean, we're talking about our distant generations of offspring here, so f*ck em, but still...
I almost choked on my dinner last year when I read about one record company exec expounding on how "Apple should start sharing-out some of the profits from iPod sales." He seemed to firmly believe that a percentage of any profits related to music sales (even they are from hardware purchases) is due the music industry. This on top of the fact that iTunes makes little money for Apple since the bulk of the profits already go to the rightsholders. There has to be some form of mass-psychosis at work here, at least among the upper management of these outfits.
Besides, how do you tell when the head of the RIAA is lying?
His lips move.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Yeah, their history sucks. But is what they're saying now unreasonable? If you push your opponent against the wall and he finally relents and gives you what you need (not saying he's giving everything, but he is giving something) do you just scoff at him?
Hell, we need to be taking notes on what he's saying now and we need to stick him to his word. He says things should be balanced. Yes, they should. He says we should have some, but not unlimited fair use. Yes and yes.
When your enemy gives you ground, you don't go hide in your bunker and call him names. You advance. I consider this an opportunity.
Since you're using this warfare analogy, lets look at this a little more closely.
For a long while, the countries of Listeneria and Distributeria lived side by side in a peaceful trade agreement. The Distributers sold products (imported from distant Musiciania) that the Listeners wanted to buy, and so the they bought them and everyone was happy. Then along came technological advances which allowed the Listeners to domestically reproduce the products they previously had to purchase from Distributeria, and other advances that would allow the Musicians to sell their new products directly to the Listeners, completely bypassing the Distributarian trade routes. So, fearing for their livelihood, Distributeria invaded Listeneria and tried to halt and reverse their technological progress, plunging them back into a more primitive way of life where they would again be dependent on Distributeria.
But, banned by international treaty from the sorts of weapons they would need to use to successfully conquer Listeneria, the Distributers found a long, drawn-out battle that they could not hope to win, as Listeners fought a guerilla war against the Distributers. The Listeners knew that in the end they could never be conquered, but the Distributer invasion was seriously disturbing the peace in their lands.
Fast forward to today, after this hopeless battle has been continuing for many years, and suddenly the Distributers say "you know we don't really want to hurt the Listeners at all, we've always liked them and just want to live in peace with them again." They haven't pulled out of the country, haven't stopped their attempts to destroy the Listeners' technological infrastructure that let them be free of dependency on Distributeria. They're like the Martians of "Mars Attacks!", running about and shooting their ray guns shouting "do not run, we are your friends!"
Would you expect the people of Listeneria to just walk out into the open and say "oh ok, they didn't want to hurt us in the first place!"? Or would you imagine they would tell the Distributer to "fuck off and get the hell out, and then we'll talk about getting along peacefully"?
You're right that when your enemy gives you ground, you don't just hide and call him names. But when your enemy just says "I'm putting down my guns now, you can come out, I promise I won't hurt you", it pays to remain suspicious, unless he's saying that because you've just pointed a bigger gun at his head. We the consumers don't have such big guns to point at the RIAA's head, so there's no reason to think that they would just happily give up the fight.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Copyright is not private property. Copyright is a limited-time government-granted monopoly on the reproduction of intangible works.
I own a bicycle. I own it forever -- my ownership of the bicycle never lapses.
I own the copyright to this message. 70 years [or whatever the Disney Corp. manages to extend it to] after I die, the copyright expires and this message automatically goes into the public domain.
Nonsense. With copyrights, the government is controlling what I can do with the book I already paid for. And the government already says you are not allowed to own some things -- like other humans.Unlimited growth == Cancer.
"Musicians, artists, filmmakers and others won't produce rich, diverse content if they don't believe their creations will be adequately protected from IP theft and other unfair, illegal uses."
...Promise?
BULLSHIT.
PLENTY of artists continue to create and release works under Creative Commons and other open license on a daily basis. Only artists and commercial publishers like the RIAA's clientele won't produce content without restrictive "protections". If they went away, the commons would only grow.
"Threatening" us with the bankruptcy of proprietary artists does NOT serve you well as a useful argument. It makes me want to call your bluff. No more Britney or NSYNC?
Of course, we both know you're not going away. So quit bullshitting.
I have been inspired by this article to patent the specific waveform signature of the distorted electric guitar. As such, this sound is now the private and restricted property of BadassFrigginMusic, Inc. and anybody using this sound -- currently or retroactively -- is attempting to parody or modify my work and capitalize financially on the fruits of my labors, as it took me a really long time to save up for this sweet amp.
In addition to this, the process used to create the dulcet vocal tones for which I am famous (forcing air through the larynx in an expulsion of sound) is a process which I have spent countless hours and funds in a quest to perfect. To hear professional 'speakers' and other 'sound-generators' use this technique glibly and without regard for the source of the material (me) is to listen to the herald's trumpets of catastrophe, as my family sits starving at the table while pretenders usurp the rightful profits of my unique vocal mechanics.
I demand satisfaction.
Those loosing power will do and say almost anything to get it back. Valid points sure but the extent of the problem how it is stated in the article I disagree with. The money to be made from creating music will shift, be it from Record companies to technologies companies and even to small companies that specialize in cataloging and offering music (iTunes in idea not necessarily the company) the artists on the other hand will just have different bosses.
Point two: Downloading songs without paying for them is bad. I agree with that as well.
Should really read:
Point two: Downloading copyrighted, for-profit, commercial songs without the expressed permission of the copyright holders and not paying for them is bad. I agree with that as well.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The keywords are research, education, criticism, and parody, and nonprofit. The "nonprofit" part is what factored into the Betamax ruling. But the dissenting opinion (reproduced in part in the Betamax case entry) said time-shifting is nonprofit personal use and is different from nonprofit educational/research/critical use or parody, and is not fair use.While dissenting opinions can't be used to establish legal precedent, they still can be used to argue points of law. And the law regarding format shifting is still evolving. The 1992 Audio Home Recording Act allowed consumers to make digital copies for private noncommercial use. Additionally, there would be royalties paid on the equipment and media that would go to the artists. It added a new section to the US Copyright Act, including the following clause:
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
This was used by Diamond Multimedia in Recording Indus. Assn of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc. (1999) where it was found that format-shifting was permissible and enables us to use MP3 players.
All well and good, but then we have the DMCA (1998) that prohibits circumvention of DRM. And people like Sherman who want it so that there is nothing available without DRM.
That drugs are good for you.
When I studied Copyright Law as part of my engineering degree, it was emphasised that you cannot copy the whole material regardless of whether it was for educational or non-commercial use.
If you want to read more, you can do so at the US Copyright Office website:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
From that site:
Note that nowhere in those examples does it say wholesale copying of a document.
They're not the recording industry and the don't benefit America. so what's the deal?
They are a powerful lobbying organization who simply can't be trusted.
what is going to happen when the recording industry (let's be real about that, they are publishers) when the publishers no longer wish to pay the extortion fees of the RIAA?
They're using their grammar skills there.
Sorry but I doubt my copies of the Marx Brothers or Futurama get any better in HD. Will future movies look better? Yes. Do I see a reason to upgrade my collection? No. There is plenty of old music that is only in Mono, but we buy it on CD in quality formats... because it's cheep and we already own a CD player. When HD formats become as prolific as the CD, I'll buy it. Until then I'll stick with my 'cassette tape' called DVD.
And frankly I don't think that day will come. CD's were an infinite improvement on Cassette in more ways than just recording quality. DVD's were a great improvement on VHS. HD... just looks prettier and holds more. I don't need a LotR level of special features with every movie I rent or buy.
Anyway format wars aren't the topic. I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned when you buy a CD to upgrade your music you're buying the convenience. The average consumer doesn't see it as a re-purchase of their licence. If they wanted to upgrade formats themselves, they should be allowed too.
Shick's Law: There is no problem a good miracle can't solve.
Eventually, if we make good enough use of technology, there just won't be enough work for people to do and we'd have to switch to some kind of communist system.
Not so. At least, we wouldn't have to switch to some sort of "communist system" in the sense that all extent and historical so-called "communist" states have used - forced equal distribution of resources.
If by some technological means we arrive in a situation where capital and labor both are so plentiful as to be free (via robots and Star Trek-style replicators as you described), we won't have just outgrown capitalism, we'll have outgrown the need for any system of economics. Economics systems are just means of trying to "fairly" (for some value of "fair") distribute the limited resources available to us. The reason why we don't have any economic interest in buying and selling (or communally producing and distributing) something like air is because it's an effectively unlimited resource - there is no real scarcity of it, at least not here on Earth. (Though if we had lunar colonies, you can damn well bet that there would be a monthly air bill like your water, gas, or electricity bills you pay on Earth today).
No scarcity, no need for any economic system. You need some of something, just take it, and nobody will care because there's plenty of it left. Like air. If for some reason we ever did run into a scarcity of air and needed more of it, you can damn well bet that people would pony up to pay for air production - and as air is a physical thing that can't be freely duplicated, there could then be valid complaints of "theft of air" and such. But then, with your Star Trek style replicators... if you've got a sample of good-quality air, just replicate some of your own, and let others do the same, and voila, no more air scarcity. Information is now at that stage of effectively free reproduction and thus absence of scarcity. So the distribution of *copies* of information no longer has need for any sort of economic regulation at all - people will do it for free, just to share with their friends, since it costs them virtually nothing.
Now, the *original production* of information (including artistic works like music) is still a scarce resource, and so it would make sense to pay for that. There's any number of ways to do so. Work for hire (get paid to produce a creative work by someone who personally wants such a work) is one way, and how it was done in ancient times - kings would pay great artists to create beautiful paintings and compositions for them. Ransoms are another way (effectively a group version of the above, where a large number of people pool their resources and pay an artist to produce something for them all). Concerts could be a form of ransom - acts could work with concert promoters to find a venue that will likely sell enough to be worth it, and then sell CDs at the concert (or include the CDs in the ticket price).
One way or another, once the information is out there, if someone wants to replicate it and give it away, there's nothing you can ethically do to stop them - they're not stealing from anyone. If it wasn't worth it to you (the music producer) to produce and release the music in the first place, you shouldn't have done so. But then, great artists will produce art for it's own sake, if only the can afford to do so - and if the can't afford it, they should probably be focusing on getting their livelihood together before they worry about their art. And if our society is such that most people don't have enough leisure time so that the artists among them can create art for it's own sake, then there's something wrong with our society. Either we're not as prosperous as we think we are - in which case we should probably be doing other, more important work before we start worrying about having enough new music - or we are prosperous, but a lot of people are getting ripped off and a few bastards are reaping the profits of the masses' labor.
This post is full of enough analogies as it is, but one more: with
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
'The fair use doctrine is in danger of losing its meaning and value.'
Damn straight it is! Listen, your failure to adapt to technology and a changing consumer are the reasons you're taking it in the shorts! Napster gave you a chance, but you took the high road, and look where it has you now. You're at least 10 years behind the curve and what are you going to do about it? Fat chance on changing the way consumers perceive 'sharing' music, what are going to do to *coax* them in? Because what you're doing now is throttling them in the throat.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Fuck the RIAA.
*bows out*
Care about privacy? Read this!
Everyone raise your hand who thinks Cary Sherman gives a fig about what's "fair".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
This is what makes the transition from DVD to BR/HD interesting, because in one way you may be paying for the "same" movie yet again... but on the other side, it's not the same movie, but a much higher definition, clearer, sharper version.
you obviousally haven't look at hddvd and dvd side by side. We demoed a HDDVD player to a big client on HIS home theatre.
you could not tell the difference between the regular DVD through his $30,000.00 video processing system and $55,000 projector and the HDDVD of the same movie.
HDDVD is not that much better, most people that would benefit from it 120+inch screens usually bought good video processing gear and ended up with a fantastic picture from regular dvd and therefore see a marginal or in the case of what we viewed no difference.
HDDVD is capable of fantastic, the studios are not giving anyone anything fantastic to play.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Sherman must have been talking to the telecommunications industry's marketing folks recently. This is essentially the same argument as the one that the telecoms were running in their pre-election anti-net-neutrality ads. Namely, that the electronics industry and Google want net neutrality for their own nefarious purposes that would directly conflict with the needs of the consumer. However, they (and Sherman) fail to explain why those desires are different, all the while ignoring that the real reason they want {net neutrality | more restrictive fair use} is to put the whammy on the consumer.
How can you steal a concept, a feeling, or an idea? If I do an excellent moonwalk, have I stolen exclusivity from Michael Jackson? Do Robin Williams' impressions infring on the exclusivity of the impersonated? You can't steal an idea of exclusivity, only money associated with the loss thereof.
I'm much more comfortable with the argument that piracy is stealing from the (mostly well lined) pockets of record companies and artists. This at least holds water when directed at those who could have/would have otherwise paid for the content.
By your logic, artists could sue for the pain and suffering their loss of exclusivity caused them.
Businesses are consumers too.
Signature applied for, Patent Pending
"...an extremist interpretation of fair use to frighten and mislead consumers and policymakers."
Did he just call CEA, a fair use extremist? Then what does he call RIAA and himself, copyright extremist?
Amazingly he yaps about what "fair use" is...
"Fair use is, fundamentally, a balancing of interests. All interests. Fairness requires us to look in all directions and to hear from all sides. The thousands of people who work in our industry--from songwriters, to musicians, to artists, to producers, to engineers, to promoters, to label employees--deserve that consideration." - Cary Sherman, November 13, 2006, 4:00 AM PST {C|Net}
If Cary Sherman wasn't on crack, he wouldn't have been confused "fair use" with "copyright". Fair use is not a balancing of interest. Balancing of interest would be the "COPYRIGHT" itself.
"Fair use is a right granted to the public on all copyrighted work. Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works."
Yeah, I pity the fool.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
When I turn on the radio, I can get all the music I want, for free.
If I want to keep it, I just need to turn-on the tape-recorder.
So, why should I pay for music if I can tape it from the radio???
I very acutely disagree with one statement made in the article, perhaps on a choice of words more than anything.
If we had previously heeded the concerns of the creative community, we would have no radio, no TV, no VCR, no computer, no e-mail and no Internet.
Hold on one moment here. The "creative community", as far as I'm concerned, would be the musicians, script writers, actors (to an extent), and all of the 'little guys' behind the scenes that the MPAA seems to care about so much as of late. AFAIK, those people were never complaining, or at least never complained loudly. The ones who did complain were the copyright owners, many of whom have no creative talent, and have never really been part of that "community", but instead have been dampening it for years.
As much as I usually rail on people that say "this new industry should be more like this old one because that's how it is" [1], I think the movie/music industry could stand to be a lot more like authoring books. If you write a book that gets published, you get to hold the copyrights in your hands. You don't have to turn them over to Kensington or John Wiley and Sons, you get to keep them. Conceptually, why should you have to dump your copyrights to some **AA giant just because you sing or videotape your artwork instead of write it down?
It's not like the movie execs are burning the midnight oil writing all the scripts they own the copyrights for. Why doesn't the artist have it? Authors of books have held theirs as long as that industry has been around, and that industry has been around for a LOT longer than selling records, CDs, or videos on VHS.
With any luck, maybe the gradually growing trend of independent music labels will start to catch on, and in however many years, we'll look back at the **AA's with a thought of 'good riddance'. Someday. Maybe.
[1] Example: on opposing 'net neutrality', saying that the postal system is good because you can pay extra for good service; therefore the internet would be better if it had that.
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
Similar thing happened, but the main thing going on now is the use of "neocon" as a catch-all term for any conservative the user of the term does not like.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Copyright infringment is theft. Period"
You might have a point, except you forgot to make one. Copyright infringement fails to meet the definition of theft (mainly the part about taking)
"And unauthorized copying is a form of stealing"
This statement of yours has the same problem. "Taking" is missing. I do not apologize for judges who fail to look at the dictionary. If I ask you to come up with one example of theft resulting from copyright infringement, you won't be able to produce one.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"If you claim that the SCOTUS isn't THE definitive source of interpretation of law (in the US) then you are a liar."
Words retain meaning whether or not the courts/law agree. There's simply no evidence that copyright infringement is theft: you have not provided any.
"Of course there are arguments as to why copyright violation is theft "
I have yet to see an actual argument. One with any substance. Typically, the weak defenses of the false claim fall into two pathetic groups:
1) "It is theft because I say it is. Meanings don't matter: only my opinion does"
or
2) "Copyright infringement is a crime. Theft is a crime. Therefore, copyright infringement is theft."
Do we need help finding any real argument? Yes. There haven't been any yet.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Can it be agreed upon that theft is when you take something away, without permission, from someone else so that they no longer possess it, or as much of it, as they had before the theft? Then copyright infringement _IS_ in fact, a type of theft."
No, since the taking away part you describe as necessary is not present in copyright infringement.
"Therefore fair use copying isn't stealing, since the copyright holder has implicitly given permission to copy for such purposes. "
Actually, it isn't stealing, since no form of copying is stealing (whether it is unfair use or fair use)
"But make no mistake.... copyright infringement is most definitely stealing."
BR Ermmm. yeah. Despite the fact that it does not meet the definition. Chalk this up to the weak argument: "copyright infringement is theft because I SAY it is, no explanation necessary."
Where were you when the voynix came?
" but that doesn't mean he's wrong in using the term "IP theft."
He is wrong, however, due to the definition of the term theft. Nothing like theft occurs in anything he discusses.
"Theft of intellectual property has been recognized by the law for a long, long time"
It hasn't. For one thing, the phrase you used is an oxymoron.
"If you create a Star Wars comic book, when Lucas had already arranged for Dark Horse Comics to create a derivative work, you are infringing on Lucas's ability to decide how derivative works are handled. You have abrogated one of his rights for yourself. You've stolen from him."
This statement has a great leap to get to the last sentence. You've violated his copyright and character control. However, nothing was stolen from him. If we are going to engage in meaningful reform, it is time to stop lying about copyright infringement, and stop making such great leaps. Theft is illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal. It's pretty silly to confuse the two.
Where were you when the voynix came?
With the CD to MP3 format changeover, moving one's music oneself is trivial. Put the disc into iTunes, hit Rip. Thus, a lot of people aren't repurchasing their music as they did in the past, because this changeover is easier than any in the past. This drives the record companies crazy, because they've been used to getting a huge influx of cash every time one of these changeovers has happened in the past -- in fact, they think they're entitled to it. That is their critical mistake. They are not.
Actually you make an excellent argument for why some might consider the format changeover a violation of copyright law! I don't agree myself but to play devil's advocate take a look at the fair use write up in Wikipedia that I posted in another comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
One of the criteria for whether a use is fair is the effect it has on the market for the original. Clearly as you point out the format changeover has an effect on the market and therefore COULD be construed to violate fair use.
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic..." - Eric Hoffer
Seems that in Europe the RIAA and their various equivalents aren't getting their own way as much as they are in the states.
Makes you wonder what this freedome thing is all about?
Freedom to exploit other people and rip them off if you've got the power to do so is pretty much at the top of the list over there isn't it?
Illustrates the danger of having a very limited idea of what freedom is (as well as allowing big business to become so powerful.)
Well, are we buying a physical media or a license to listen to a recording?
If we are really buying a license, then why can't I get a replacement for damaged or outdated media for a small fee?
If we are really buying physical media, why did they (and do they) go insane wrt backing up our media? (see DAT, Sony rootkit)
They can't have it both ways.
--- Do you believe in the day?
Theft does not require the lose of a material item. By copying illegally, you are taking the right to control distribution away from the content owner."
Nothing is taken away. He can still distribute the material the same way as before. I see also your intentional abuse of the term "taking" to be broadened to mean "inconvenience someone". Using your ignorant logic, a bum sleeping on someone's driveway is really a thief since he has taken away the driveway owner's right to drive on it. Thankfully, the law recognizes (despite the occasional lying judge) that theft is one thing, trespassing is another, rape is another, copyright infringement is another, and so-on.
So what is your problem? Ignorance or ill will? Copyright infringement and theft are two separate situations. The claim that copyright infringement = theft is entirely false. This is not a matter of opinion. Just look up the terms.
Where were you when the voynix came?
I guess Mr. Sherman never heard of SONY v. Universal Studios, the Betamax case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that noncommercial home time shifting of television broadcasts onto video tapes was a fair use.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
He said "that ``deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft''
Whether or not he is a Supreme Court Justice, he did make a blatantly false statement. Copyright infringment does not meet the definition of "taking". That removes the bridge that he connected copyright infringement to theft with in his statement. Supreme Court justices has been wrong before. There is also a difference between what a term REALLY means and what the government says it means, regardless. Consider the Vietnam War. In US law, it was not technically a war. The facts and the real definitions show it was a war (just like reality distinguishes copyright infringment from theft), even if the government has its own official definition. (
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Unauthorized distribution is "taking" the owner's right to control distribution from him."
Tell me, is a bum who sleeps on your driveway a "thief" for preventing your complete control and use of it? Perhaps such a "theft means anything" definition might explain your attaching the word to unrelated concepts such as copyright infringement.
Where were you when the voynix came?
"Copyright is theft...."
See subject. Then see dictionary. Then see the US Supreme Court. The equating of copyright infringement = theft is not present in the Court's Grokster decision.
Where were you when the voynix came?
One one line you say "But he has had his right to deny you the ability to distribute taken away from him, and on the next you say "taken was your word.... It's been taken from him"
If it's my word, then why do you use it so much? If you want to dispence with the word, fine. That should get rid of any claim of theft, because it is not theft without taking. Not that it is theft anyway: "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny (dictionary)". Really quite a stretch, don't you think? Not only the "taking", but the "personal goods or property" part? What reasonable person could call a possibly infringement of a right as an example of carrying someone's stuff away?
Where were you when the voynix came?
I too wish I had my points at the moment.
...best I can do since I have no mod points at this time...
It seems to me that we're all crazy.
:)
When you download something without somebody's permission and redistribute it, that's legally wrong. And it's one law I kind of agree with: you make something and try to profit from it, and you should be legally protected from people getting it for free and sharing it across the internet. Now I'm as idealistic as anyone and it would be great if we could replace our corrupt economic models with something that promotes human cooperation and etc, etc... but as it stands, in most of the world people need to make money to survive. If you're robbing income from somebody, especially if that someone depends on that income, it's hard to justify that with "Fair Use." I can guarantee that if Justin Timberlake came to your door and asked you why you were sharing his album without paying for it that you would have a hard time "Justifying" yourself to him (har har) in person.
Now I'm not being self-righteous here... I have a ton of music I didn't pay for. It happens unconciously, wanting something that is so easy to get for free. But having this issue brought to the fore in recent years has made me re-evaluate the issue personally, and it comes down to simply not doing something that you wouldn't want done to yourself. Even if you disagree with the legality of the way the RIAA is pursuing this you have to admit that downloading and sharing music without the artists' persmissions is a bit hard to call "Fair Use."
If you disagree with me, please explain in simple terms without a lot of hyperbole and metaphor what makes it Fair Use, and I'll shut my damn fool mouth.
Also, just want to make clear that I'm not endorsing listening to Justin Timerblake in any way shape or form!
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
qz
"but on the other side, it's not the same movie, but a much higher definition, clearer, sharper version.
:)
Worth paying for? Your choice."
Ahh but here's the problem: You already technically own a universal liscense to view the actual CONTENT of movie, is exactly the same. So the cost of the new version for those who already own the liscense already should be at simply the cost of the materials, since you already own the liscense. Funny how no for profit company ever argues copyright law in that direction... considering the consider your purchase a "liscsne to view" their IP.
Time for the consumer to use that double-edged sword I say.
http://www.zug.com/pranks/riaa/
Call Cary in person.
Dowling (473 U.S. 207), was a narrow ruling about the National Stolen Property Act. The court found that under the terms of the statute the defendant's interstate shipment of bootleg records was not covered under the terms of the Act, because it was a criminal statue, which must be construed strictly.
This does not mean that the court would not construe copyright violation to be "theft" under a different statute. I'll agree with your premise that in this case the court differentiated between IP rights and rights in tangible property. Despite the language of Justice Ginsburg's concurrence, "And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft," the term doesn't seem to have been used in a majority opinion by the USSC in defining copyright infringement. So perhaps for copyright, at least, there is a clear line between infringement and theft.
That still leaves us with theft of trade secrets, trademark, and patents.
The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 explicitly refers to the theft of trade secrets.
It may be that trade secrets are the only area of IP law where the term "theft" is explicitly used, and it may be that patents and trademark both conflate infringement with theft. I don't have time to go sifting through cases, but it does seem clear to me that at least with regard to trade secrets, the law explicitly states that theft of IP is possible.
I appreciate your bringing Dowling to my attention. I was obviously overly broad in my portrayal of infringement as "theft." I'm pleasantly surprised.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This thread's headline is utter bullshit. Sherman defends fair use. It's the "all's fair" definition of fair use to which he objects. So do I, a freelance content creator.
Anyone remember Boardwatch magazine, the first trade rag covering dial-up bulletin board systems? In its infancy, when the thing was printed on a 9-pin Epson dot matrix printer, publisher Jack Rickard was invited to speak to the Colorado Computer Users Group - for free, of course. He prepared a presentation and showed up on time. He found photocopies of his entire subscription-based newsletter on a table outside of the meeting room, free for anyone who passed by. Jack turned around and went home, of course.
That's not fair use, that's "garden-variety theft", as Supreme Court Justic Byer put it.
Theft is illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal.
You are, of course, quite right.
My interpretation of current American law on the subject of IP infringement was not as nuanced as it should have been (see my reply to the AC).
As the court pointed out, IP rights are more nuanced than rights in tangible property. However, I do think the line between infringement and theft (as defined by current statutes and stare decisis) is thin. IP is much more economically important now than it ever has been, which is why interference with IP rights is now considered so much more harmful than it was in the past. I wouldn't be suprised if the term "infringement" becomes "theft" at some point under the Roberts court.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Classic use of the Chewbacca defense
Local charity shops here are full of Babylon 5 VHS tapes. Fans are all upgrading to DVD, you can hardly give the tapes away.
However, "rights" cannot be stolen either. They can be infringed upon. You can violate somebody's rights, you can even deprive them of their rights.
But rights are not physical objects. Those rights only exist in the first place because we, as a society, have agreed not to violate them. Violation of them is not "theft", it is breaking a societal agreement.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You see what happens when they ruin the English language.
Copyright infringement is immoral and a crime. It's not theft, that's a different immoral crime.
Just like pretty much ALL the music released by the RIAA's employers is unoriginal and formulated, that's not art, that's plagarism! And the people who sing on the tracks aren't 'artists' they are proffesional musicians. You can't make art for money. Art is not equal to Product! NB: You can sell art, but if you can't make it for money. Hence the term 'selling-out'.
To recap: Please stop muddying the definitions of art and theft! Otherwise I'll need to come up with new words to replace the ones being bastardised.
Rather than think of it as theft, think of it as a form of trespassing. You aren't taking the right to copy away, but you are violating the concept of exclusivity (that only X is allowed to make a copy).
Even then, trespassing also has its limits as a metaphor, since the trespasser in the physical world is using resources that you had explusive rights to, such as using your private road as a shortcut without asking permission. Making unallowed copies isn't the same since it doesn't actively inflict wear and tear.
It's more like sitting on the roof of your house and watching the ball game in the park next door, despite the protests of the park owners and their wailing that each lawn chair on your roof is stealing ticket income from them.
The whole concept of copyright was based upon the idea that the publisher had to recoup his costs before a rival was allowed to make copies. It wasn't about directly supporting the artist, but about indirect support by letting his patrons enforce monopolies. The studios behave more like pampered pimps who complain that the johns are screwing their wives and not coming to their prostitutes any more.
Yes, I agree, and it always should be the individuals choice. The MPAA and RIAA are simply trying to scare people into believing that choosing not to spend money is illegal.
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
"It's the exclusivity that's stolen, not the right itself."
Let us return to that place where those who abuse the definition of "theft" fear to tread: the dictionary. Definition of theft "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
Aside from the gross inapplicability of the idea of "carrying off" to a possible diminishment of a right, let's look at the "taking" requirement. You are arguing that exclusivity is stolen, right? If this is true, then how come the copyright infringer does not gain any exclusivity???. If he's taking it, he'd gain it, right? Of course he doesn't.
The word "theft" once again is proven inapplicable. Even if we assume that this right is a property, the act of infringing on it does not constitute the right being taken from one person by another. Rather, it constitutes the destruction or damage of the right.
In a real-world analogy, crimes where you wreck something but don't steal it are often called "property destruction" crimes. They are never called theft. A vandal smashing a window is doing something similar (in the analogy) to what you describe when talking about damage to the exclusivity right. The vandal certainly can't be accused of stealing a window.
Where were you when the voynix came?
>Ummm.... no. It's never was about that. Fair use is certainly about Parody, Commentary, and Quoting
/for/the/masses/ is about being able to make a copy of whatever TV or radio program you are watching/listening to for personal use.
Right. Everyoneone rushed out and bought cassette players and VCRs to brush up on their parody, commentary, and quoting skills.
No, what I meant is that what "fair use" has always been about
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>"Should"?
>
When someone comes to my house to replace my roof, I "should" be able to make a copy of his/her
>"roofing performance," so that in 15 or 20 years I can have some shingles delivered and then just
>replay that "roofing performance".
>
>When I buy a car, I "should" be buying a car design, from which I can extract a new car over and over
>again so long as I do not wish to rake up horse muck.
>
>All kinds of things are possible once you get into "should" vis-a-vis the ways of the world.
Let's not change the subject to things that are 1) improbable and 2) irrelevent.
If I've bought a CD, I should be able to make a copy of it for my own personal use. If I've bought a DVD, I should be able to make a copy of it for my own personal use. If I am paying for XM radio, I should be able to record programs off of that service for my own personal use. If I am paying for cable TV, I should be able to record programs off of that service for my own personal use.
If and when the technology becomes available to duplicate cars and roofs we can discuss those at that time.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
For the love of God, quit tagging everything with "fud". It isn't clever, nor is it usually accurate. Show some originality, break from the groupthink.
If I put in front of you a load of rocks and give you permission to smash my rocks in return for a small fee, you can then legally smash those rocks. However, once you've smashed them all into sand and there's nothing left to smash, I don't have to provide you with any more rocks. You've got a licence to smash rocks, but no rocks to smash. Likewise, if your stereo system eats the tape out of your Britney Spears cassette you've got a licence to listen to that album, but you don't have that album. A licence to do something doesn't guarantee the ability to do so.
Discussing theft in a copyright infringement discussion is typically off-topic. However, Sherman (in the news item) dropped two intentionally misleading references to theft. Aside from the usual correction of the "copyright infringement = theft" liars, discussion of this does now related to the news item, even if it is not the main subject. No one has yet to step up to the challenge and show one thing stolen via Grokster, old Napster, or any p2p.
Where were you when the voynix came?
And RIAA claims to represent anyone other than scum sucking lawyers are disingenuous.
"but I have lost my right to control distribution"
Yes, something is lost, whether or not we call it property. But does loss to one person mean theft by the person causing the loss? See the example about a vandal breaking a window. Yes, he has caused loss of the window, but you cannot call him a thief because the window was not taken. The vandal just does not have the window. Similarly, the copyright infringer in what you describe does not gain the exclusive control that the copyright holder loses. You have a situation of destruction, not a situation of transfer from one person to another. Because typically a copyright infringer (p2p, etc) does not have any exclusive control over the content.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Actually /most/ SLR lenses can be used on "non-native" bodies with the use of mount adapters. Cameras with the 4/3 mount (Olympus, Panasonic) can use Canon, Nikon, Leica, M42, Pretty much any lens with the use of an adapter.
Canon DO NOT stipulate ANYWHERE when you buy a lens that you are only licensed to use it on Canon Bodies.
"If "IP theft" were my concept, how do you explain this? http://www.google.com/search?q=IP+theft&start=0&ie =utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:e n-US:official [google.com]"
Wonderful. I did a google search for King George Bush, and found 32,000 hits. I guess that means that he really IS a monarch (guess the Constitutional description of federal offices was wrong!!!)..... using your logic that a high number of google hits makes an assertion true, no matter how false it is.
Where were you when the voynix came?
While the law may or may not have intended to protect authors from unauthorised "distribution", what it actually controls is COPYING.
"Fair Use" (or "fair dealing" in some jurisdictions) and compulsory licensing may permit some kinds of copying: personal copies, non-commercial copies, etc, but in principle ANY copy is an infringement UNLESS it falls under one of the explicitly permitted categories.
Historical note - it's not just modern copyright law. Ancient Irish Brehon Law had a similar precedent. A book was loaned to another monastery, which made a copy. The original owners complained, and the ruling was "to every cow its calf, to every book its copy". The copy, along with the original, had to be returned. The data, if you like, was protected.
Back to the present. Copying, not distribution, is what the law currently controls.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
[pro dog trainer/breeder hat]
The closest I can think of is in dogs, where there exists "full" registration vs "limited" registration:
With full registration, you can breed the dog (ie. "create copies") and register its offspring (effectively "acquire legal title"). If you buy a dog with full registration, you have purchased this "right to copy" along with the original dog itself.
With limited registration, you can breed the dog, but you cannot register its offspring; any such offspring are effectively "bootlegged" (ie. there is no "legal title" or "right to copy").
There is usually a significant difference in purchase price between full and limited reg'n, so you do indeed "pay for the right to copy" when you buy a dog with full registration.
BTW this is subject to abuse much as is copyright fair use, thus: rather than using limited registration *as it was intended*, which was for quality control (by removing substandard specimens from the gene pool), most breeders use it to artificially restrict competition by preventing others from breeding dogs (or at least from breeding dogs with full market value).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
" The FACT is the copyright infringement IS theft (at least in the US as declared by SCOTUS)."
There are two non-facts there. Are they both lies, or are you just blissfully ignorant? You have yet to provide evidence that copyright infringement is theft. As for SCOTUS? They never said it. Their opinion on that Grokster case did not contain any such false statement. The lie is, however, present in Breyer's concurring opinion. Whether or not he is a judge, he lied. It's not the first time Supreme Court justices have done dumb things. Concurring opinions are the opinions of judges, and are not part of the actual decision: just like dissenting opinions are. They are often published alongside the actual court decision, but only someone grossly ignorant of the Supreme Court process would dare to assert that opinions of individual judges are the same as the Court's official decision and actually think that concurring or dissenting opinions had any weight.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Dfghjk has accused you of being willing to steal Apple's software. Despite (as usual) any support from you of doing this, or anything that implies a pro-theft attitude on your part. So tell us, do you like theft? There's no evidence of it, but perhaps Dfghjk can read minds :)
Where were you when the voynix came?
"She admits to her willingness to steal software and admits to illegally downloading content from bittorrent"
Can you show one specific instance where LaurieKnight said he/she was willing to steal software? Validate please? The bittorent reference is off-topic for the question, so I'll ignore it (it is as relevant as accusing Laurie of flatulence on subways).
"Why must you insert yourself into other conversations, krell"
That might have almost looked like a good retort, but you forgot to change the subject line which I set a while ago when I started the conversation. I'm changing it again now...
Where were you when the voynix came?
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
"you do not have the right to re-copy and distribute it when you purchase the DVD"
What if it is not available in the theatre and you are too lazy to sell the DVD? There was a period of some months, I recall, between when "The Two Towers" stopped showing in theatres and when the first DVD was sold of it. Someone gave me a copy, which I watched gladly (I could not wait until the regular DVD of it was out, and I bought it....but there are probably many others who got the free one and never bought the real one when it came out). What of situations like this where a pirate version is the only one available, and the proper content distributors won't even take my money for it?
Where were you when the voynix came?
I think you are confused on what copyright protects. No body has (to my knowledge) suggested that the works of da Vinci or Picasso were dependant on copyright - copyright didn't exist and somehow art was made. Copyright protects commercial art. The point of copyright for the public good is that society has found out (despite your opinion) that when art can be profitable, a lot more of it is made, and that this is worth it to society even if we must now pay for it. Earlier posters are correct in saying the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of personal profitability, but please consider that (for example) none of the movies or tv you watch would exist without rights over the material. Art composed by people who will create it regardless of whether said creation requires they live in poverty constitutes only a small portion of all modern art, and it's ignorant to pretend otherwise.
Relax I just want some peanuts.
If you want to stand up to this latest BS from the RIAA join the Digital Freedom Campaign Campaign. At least they're trying to do something to wake everyone up to what's happening...if we just sit around it will be too late. Check them out...