Slashdot Mirror
Congress Must Make Clear Copyright Laws
WSJdpatton writes "WSJ's Walt Mossberg takes a look at what's wrong with the DMCA and DRM given the recent lawsuit brought against Google's YouTube by media giant Viacom — 'Under fair use, as most nonlawyers have understood it, you could quote this sentence in another publication without permission, though you'd need the permission of the newspaper to reprint the entire column or a large part of it. A two-minute portion of a 30-minute TV show seems like the same thing to me. But why should I have to guess about that? What consumers need is real clarity on the whole issue of what is or isn't permissible use of the digital content they have legally obtained. And that can come only from Congress. Congress is the real villain here, for having failed to pass a modern copyright law that protects average consumers, not just big content companies.'"
I'm afraid that our friend over at WSJ misunderstands the law a bit. The length or exact portion of the copyrighted material does not matter. In fact, the key issues that a judge looks at is if the use is necessary to the contested work, and if the contested work shows enough original thought to be considered a separate entity. Direct copying of even a small snippet is very much illegal if there is no larger work around it.
For example, if I had only quoted that paragraph above and smacked the "submit" button, I'd be guilty of copyright infringement. I'd also be looked upon as a tool by the Slashdot community as a whole. But by including this commentary about the quoted work, I'm creating a greater work that requires the fair use of someone else's work. And Slashdotters get to decide whether I'm a tool or not based on the opinions I state in the larger work rather than some silly action.
It's the same for videos. Taking a 2 minute clip and copying it verbatim is pretty much copyright infringement. Using that same clip for purposes of video or text commentary, on the other hand, would be perfectly acceptable "fair use". Similarly, creating a fan trailer, a movie review video, or generally commenting on the state of whatever would also allow you to make fair use of the video clip.
However, one does need to keep in mind that a judge will consider whether the entire clip is necessary or not. If you put up the entire interview of Bill Gates on the Daily Show just to comment on how funny the cat's name portion was, you're still guilty of copyright infringement. A judge would be likely to find that you were using simplistic commentary to try and cover over your infringement, and that showing only the part dealing with the cat incident would have been sufficient to make your point.
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to point out that the DMCA is actually a positive in this situation. (I know, I know. How could I defend Slashdot's favorite whipping boy?) The Safe Harbor and common-carrier provisions of the law ensure that sites like Youtube can exist. Without those provisions, Viacom would have a much stronger case against Youtube.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, only an individual with an interest in the law.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It's a mistake to ask congress for a definitive non-porous law. The citizenry are no friend, only the companies behind the lobbiests that line their pockets. If they put their foot down right now and cemented some law it seal away what final rights we are "illicitly" enjoying.
Am I naive to believe that someday, some day, the US will have a congress that's for the people?
More Twoson than Cupertino
I think recent (the last decade) legislation has shown that Congress is hardly qualified to make that kind of determination.
/. readers would probably say that there should be no copyright laws (mostly those who have no IP worth exploiting), and others would say that ultimately copyright should be left up to individual license, but honestly, how much does the government really need to intervene with this?
Copyright lawyers seem to be on one side or the other of the "bribed by content creators" fence.
The EFF is hardly a nonpartisan source of opinion.
So that leaves the question, who is qualified to make these sort of determinations as to what form copyright laws should take?
A good number of
Honestly I think there should be a collection of strong prohibitions which indicate what IP holders are NOT allowed to prohibit, and then let individual licenses go on from there.
The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
The big companies get to lobby 24/7 and 365 if they want. Consumers only get to lobby every four years, and not enough turn out to vote, and make their preferences felt.
<larger_work>Direct copying of even a small snippet is very much illegal if there is no larger work around it.</larger_work>
Of when congress made anything clear?
What if I build a 15-minute commentary around a 30-second TV ad and it's clear there's nothing that can be cut?
:)
Am I guilty of infringement?
If so, you've just found an "out" for anyone who wants to copy anything - just surround it with enough original, informative commentary that using the entire original is necessary.
If not, then you've used copyright laws effectively stifled my freedom to comment on your work in any meaningful. So much for the 1st amendment.
Suppose using the entire 30 second commercial IS a violation. Then I can work around it by writing multiple commentaries, each using 10-15 seconds but collectively covering the entire commercial.
Now the question is, just how much commentary do I need to add to "fair use" copy Bill Gates's interview with Jon Stewart? I hope nobody minds listening to 5 hours of commentary
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You can have any copyright law you want. You just have to bribe^?^?^?^?^? donate more to the congressman's re-election campaign than the RIAA does.
The Great and Honorable Walt Mossberg Jumps on Bandwagon (after 100,000,000 others).
The US Constitution is pretty clear about fair use; it's the bribed congress that has allowed intellectual property to become seemingly permanent for the benefit of IP aggregating organizations.
Does it matter that a self-aggregandizing WSJ columnist has now finally also asked for clarity that this is newsworthy? St Walt is going to get all of those lobbyists out of the pockets of Congress? I hardly think so.
Mark me up as flamebait, but he does clarity no great favor by asking for it, especially so late in the game. It's like asking Bush to remove troops from Iraq. The come-lately's have no guts.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
It's the same for videos. Taking a 2 minute clip and copying it verbatim is pretty much copyright infringement
But what if you put it up with the idea of collecting comments about it? Or for use in a wholly different webpage to reference?
The concept of "larger work" is a but fuzzy where you put something up anticipating the larger work that may come later.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apply common sense. Is it necessary for you to show the entire ad? If it is, then you're probably in the clear. Obviously it's a case by case situation, but genericly, you'd be in the clear.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Have you read any of the laws Congress pases? None of them are clear. They are vague and selectively enforced.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
But unless you get all IP law to limit its scope to that of plagiarism, it's all a bunch of hogwash. Present law deals with distribution. It has nothing to do with the creator of a work. In effect it's a "prohibition", just like that against drugs.
What?
what's the deal with the google logo? what do they have to do with this?
Congress is a mindless amorphous blob of crap that only changes shape when large bags of money are used to beat it into line.
Almost all polititians have so compromised their positions to fix something else, that they have no desire to fight a fight that isn't directly related to them, hence the money bags of DOOM!!!
Get them to understand that fixing the Copy Rights laws, and fair use laws are in their interests, and they might do something useful.
Now, perhaps your fundamental goal is the copying, and not the commentary. However, you still do have to produce the commentary, or you don't get to copy. So, in the end, it works out the same as if your fundamental goal were the commentary.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
...first the RIAA is getting slapped around like a 12 year old girl, then ISPs are under fire for trying to keep service data secret, now this. It's almost like it's Bizzaro Day on Slashdot or something.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Common sense in regard to law? That's unpossible!
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
Why the hell should the consumers get any right to content I create? How are copyright laws currently unfair to consumers?
My content, my rules.
The Free Software community wants to ensure that their rules remain on their software, so they add the GPL that limits what the consumer can do with their content.
Viacom wants to prevent people from viewing their content on YouTube. Same thing as the GPL placing restrictions on what you can and can't do with the content.
If you want to share, more power to you. I'm posting this comment to Slashdot to share it with you. My content, my rules. I'm using Slashdot, so they're allowed to moderate it, because they're publishing it. Their content, their rules.
The only people upset about current copyright laws are the people that want to take power away from the producers (without which there will be by definition no content) and give it to the leaches, who consume but do not produce.
Yeah, there are more consumers than creators, but the creators are providing the service. If the consumers don't want the content under the rules the creators set out, they can just not consume it at all. The consumer already has all the power they need, the power of the purse.
The problem today is many copyrights deter, rather than promote, the useful arts and the lifetime is practically infinite. This is particularly true of orphan and out-of-print works and works where the creator refuses permission of others to build on the work.
I would recommend patents and copyrights both have frequent renewal-requirements as well as availability and affordability requirements. Availability means no "Disney Vault" or "orphaned works." It also means changes in the fine-art print world, in that while a given print run may still be limited, additional prints, perhaps inferior in quality, must be made available to the buying public. Call this "mandatory licensing" similar to how some music is licensed for radio airplay.
Affordability means the price is capped at some value relative to its intended purpose. A building blueprint, computer software, or "for theater" movie print or other "commercial tool" will have a much higher capped value than a home-use DVD movie whose purpose is to entertain a family. Capped values will be above market prices for similar items but not so high as to be practically infinite.
Trade secrets, including unpublished works and the unpublished computer source code of most closed-source computer programs, would not fall under the availability and affordability rules, as they were never intended to be made available to the public in the first place.
Of course, such a situation has problems of its own:
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
.....Now the question is, just how much commentary do I need to add to "fair use" copy Bill Gates's interview with Jon Stewart?......
The copyright violation should only be predicated on the premise that it is NOT a violation at all if the one that does the copying cannot ever benefit financially in any way. That is what real 'pirates' do. They use other people's IP to make money for themselves. A consumer copying a CD or file to their ipod or emailing a song to their friends should always be allowed. What difference does it make whether I listen to a new song on the radio and then go buy the record or whether I get a copy of the song in an email or download and then buy the recording? Either way I was exposed through advertising and decided to buy. Why should radio, even recording the song therefrom be legal and downloading it from the Internet be unlawful? All avenues of content distribution should be treated like. The content companies should let anyone advertise their wares and be even happy to get all that free advertising. Apparently they don't get this idea yet.
All theory is gray
it's the producers of content that post intentionally post missleading 'notices'.
When you watcha DVD there will be an official and clear copyright message, usually follwed by another 'notice' created by the industry.
This creats confusion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How frigging naive can you be? The Congress that passed the DMCA without opposition, that passed the "No Electronic Theft Act", the Congress which has been extending the scope and duration of copyright for decades, the Congress which is fully in the pocket of the xxAAs, THAT Congress is going to pass a new copyright law which protects the little guy?
No, Walt, that just ain't going to happen. When the other side suggests that the answer is just to follow the law and if you don't like it, get the law changed, I know that's just gloating over the power they have. When someone who opposes the status quo says it, and it's not credible that they are really that naive, I have to wonder what is going on. Are they so afraid to believe the system is broken that they cling to ineffective measures? At what point, Walt, will you say "To hell with it, the system's broke, raise the Jolly Roger and copy away"? Never? Then you may as well throw your lot in with the xxAAs.
There's FOUR solutions:
1) Suffer loudly. Follow the restrictions and complain about them. Unless you're a major public figure, nobody gives a shit about your complaints, so if you do this, the xxAAs win.
2) Suffer in silence. Follow the restrictions and don't complain about them. This is the xxAAs favorite solution. Equivalent to 1 if you aren't somebody big.
3) Pirate loudly. Violate the restrictions openly and notoriously. Best case, you get what you want but otherwise nothing changes. Worst case, you lose your freedom and your life savings, and your name becomes a word to scare other would-be pirates with -- the xxAAs win with that. And no one who hears about it who matters supports your case -- civil disobedience does not work when the issue is esoteric, and even less so when your opponents are the media.
4) Pirate in silence. Violate the restrictions and try not to get caught. Same outcomes as 3) above, only the worst case is less likely.
The outcome where the copyright laws are changed for the better and those irritating digital restrictions go away? Sorry, that outcome is simply not available. No matter how many times Don Quixtote tilts at the windmill, the windmill still stands. The only way to get rid of the restrictions is self-help, and that means violating the law.
And as for "steal the stuff"? Just because they bought a law doesn't make it "stealing". I'll give them the term "piracy", because everyone knows the difference between piracy on the high seas and copyright violation. But calling it "stealing" isn't intended as metaphor; it's intended to actually blur the distinction.
That's exactly what happened in the '40s when someone made a "compilation piece" out of a lot of songs.
The original artists wanted to pull the plug.
He wanted a free ride.
The courts split the baby.
They ruled that copyright law could not be used to stop him from creating or airing this original work, but he had to pay royalties on the pieces he used.
I'm not sure if the courts imposed a royalty agreement, left it up to the parties to negotiate, or told Congress to settle the matter.
I do remember this was one of the reasons we have mandatory music licensing today.
Anyone know what case I'm talking about?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Consumers vote everytime the spend money, write a letter, and speak out.
Everytime someone breaks copyright law, they vote.
If the number of people who complain that congress doesn't work for them actually got involved the laws would change.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Right here. What we need is proper interpretation and enforcement.
What?
I can parody it.
I can use it in satire.
I can use it, with limits, for educational purposes.
In some cases I can make backups.
If I've purchased it on a media and never broken the seal, I can usually resell it under the doctrine of first sale. In some cases, such as a book, this applies even after I've read the book.
I can wait for the copyright to expire and do pretty much whatever I want with it.
I've left a few things off the list, researching copyright law is left as an exercise to the reader.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
5) Circumvent them by only buying music from independent labels who distribute without DRM or with a creative commons license and watch as the bastards flail helplessly trying to sue you for not breaking any copyrights.
6) Write and perform your own music.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
You DO have a point when it comes to deliberately extending the useful life of a work by destroying old copies and releasing only modified copies. I expect the folks at Disney are working hard to get back any missing early prints of their 1930s and 1940s movies so they can prevent anyone from releasing high-quality copies of the soon-to-be public domain works. They'd much rather sell new "enhanced" versions that have a fresh coat of copyright paint.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
... give you a monopoly on anything in the first place?
it has nothing to do with your intrinsic rights. it's about net worth to society. in theory, you're more likely to create since you're more likely to author something original.
in reality - if congress limited copyright protection to 5 years - producers would still profit enough to keep producing. and more importantly - those ideas could get reused faster. ie, higher networth to society.
you as an individual don't mean jack.
I'm pretty sure I can sell a CD or DVD after I break the seal.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I haven't looked into Slashdot's tag system yet. Can anyone tell me how to tag an article with "In Your Dreams"?
Is it possible this is symptomatic of a larger issue with our legal system? Specifically, when laws get so bloated, so numerous, and so detailed that it requires a specialized degree to understand, how is the average citizen supposed to comply with the law?
The summary asks "Why should I have to guess about that?" But this is hardly the only area where statutes on the books are virtually incomprehensible, if they can even be easily accessed, by a nonlawyer.
A quick offtopic example is when my driver's license was suspended, and the judge said it would be suspended for 90 days. Fine. To me, that meant that on day 91, it was no longer suspended, and I could drive. Long story short, I got caught driving on day 92 and arrested for driving on a suspended license -- because I hadn't paid a "reinstatement fee". Now, how was I supposed to know about that? When I posed this question to the court I was told only that "it's the law".
I realize there will always be certain circumstances or specific areas where laws need to get detailed and intense, but for the majority of things the average citizen is going to do, there is a problem if that average citizen cannot comply with the law because he cannot access it or cannot understand it.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
> A two-minute portion of a 30-minute TV show seems like the same thing to me.
With the time for the adverts removed, a 30 minute show on network TV probably amounts to about 16 actual minutes of content, itself made up from a recipe: the introduction, maybe a highlight at the beginning, some filler, the "main attraction", some more filler, don't wait, we'll be right back, for some more filler.
A two minute portion of that show may amount to the "main attraction". There's a lot of work that goes into creating shows around very little content, but if people are just going to watch the interesting bits online, what is going to happen to their viewing figures?
Most SlashDot users will disagree with my stance. I'm not a fan of the DMCA or RIAA. However, a two-minute excerpt exceeds fair use principles. Fair use excerpting is about critical review, not just adding some excerpt to your MySpace profile. The emphasis is on criticism, not sampling. For further discussion, do some research or look at the Wikipedia page for a primer. Just because you dislike the recording industry or believe the RIAA is too aggressive in prosecuting downloaders does not justify pirating intellectual property.
signature pending slashdot approval
You're 100 percent right, but you're 100 percent scary!
It's become apparent over my short 25 years that asking congress to do anything is worthless, no matter who's in charge, They are like a mini version of the UN, a lot of talk a lot of work, and something might get done a couple years after the first discussion begins.
And you're right about the Copyright lawyers being biased (hell any law they write will be written in such a way that both sides will still be needed for years to come. AKA Active lawyers should not be allowed to write laws)
And you also identify the issues associated with looking to the EFF for help. Personally I find them to be extremists in a bad sense of the word, they want freedom even if it means the destruction of everything America is and was.
It's basically time to define "fair use" if I tape a football game off the tv I should be allowed to give it to a buddy or to show it the next day at a friends house where 20 of us get together to root for our team, I should be able to charge admissions (it's something that every person gets) as long as I'm not just making copies and selling the copies themselves.
I mean I'm allowed to invite everyone at the party to my house when the game is originally on (even if it's on a network they don't get) and so on.
However the NFL would probably disagree with that. Instead of relying on the courts to solve this type of issue let's get a senate committee to investigate this and maybe figure out some rules, unless they are all too busy looking at the best way to pay back Bush/burn the republicans. They are the ones supporting the FCC, why not make the FCC do something and ratify simple rules to clarify fair use for television and internet. However at the same time realize that if we do ask them to do this, we shouldn't constantly bitch if they disagree with out personal rules, we have elected these officials (or in the case of the FCC the officials who appoint them) to lead us.
Unfortunately, this YouTube case has some merit. What a news program does make money by providing a stream of data with snippets of content sandwiched between commercials. YouTube makes it money by providing a stream of data with snippets of content sandwiched between online ads. When you have a community site with people recording the snippets from TV and displaying them on YouTube, you've created a direct mechanism that does direct harm to the content creators.
This is unfortunate because there is great value in people having the ability to comment about what is going on TV.
What I really like about YouTube is that I not only see the content, but I get to see another person's comment on the content. The second rate economist inside of me screams that the commentary on content shouldn't undermine the ability of content makers to profit from their work. Making quality content is expensive, it can costs tens of thousands of dollars to get a few snippets of a reporter out in the field.
The commentary on content is valuable. However, commenting on another's content is something that is relatively inexpensive to do. Once you are set up, you can record, snip and publish till the cows come home. (NOTE, most of the content on cable news is just cheaply produced commentary. Commenting on commentary seems like a different issue than commenting on a report from the field or real research).
I don't think it is possible to derive the perfect copyright law from the aether. The way the legal system works is that when a massive community like YouTube starts directly affecting the ability of content makers to profit from their work, you have to have a lawsuit. I can't see a way out of this one.
The ultimate solution would involve complex mechanisms that classify different types of content, and that creates mechanisms that allow for rapid mass negotiation for use of the content. I doubt that a legal system is even capable of creating a really good solution.
You make some good points. However, you miss a third possibilty in your "listen to copy then..." scenario and it's the one that the RIAA and MPAA are hanging their hats on: the possibilty that you will listen to a copy and never buy a "real" copy of the material from them. This loses them money and the fact that unauthorized copies of something exist is why they lost the money, hence, in the world according to the alphabet lobbies no copies should be allowed, at all. That's why the RIAA is suing everyone, including people who've never used computers or have no Internet access, for copyright infringement if they suspect that the person may, at some time or place, have been in the presence of a copy of some music. It's why the so-called "content providers" are working so hard to make sure that Digital Restrictions Management becomes not only ubiquitous, but is also never called by its right name. They want to create a world in which they don't have to change their business models, adjust their profit margins, pay artists more than a pittance, etc.; so they buy legilators and legislation to get their way.
This situation is not liable to change unless people refuse to buy DRM-crippled media and hardware. Only by denying the MPAA and RIAA the chance to totally control the use of their products will we stand a chance of winning this fight. Every time someone buys Deliberately Restricted Media, or hardware that supports the use of DRM, they subsidize the creation of a world in freedom is reduced. The worst part of the transaction is that their purchase of DRMed material not only limits their freedom, but works to decrease the freedom of the rest of us by encouraging the manufacture of more DRMed goods and the development of yet more restrictive DRM schemes. It's for this reason that I have stopped purchasing new DVDs, I want to practice what I preach and forgoing some "entertainment" is a small price to pay for freedom to do what I wish with my own property.
Just my $.02,
Ron
Impeach Barack Obama for violating the Constitutional requirement to be a "natural born" citizen to hold the office of P
Take the NFL's copyrighted copyright statement before their games. "This broadcast blahblahblah may not be reproduced without our permission".
There's currently a fiasco regarding whether or not a Ms Wendy Seltzer could put that video up on YouTube. A lot of people say that she it is a fair use to do so, since she is doing it for the educational purposes.
But, I wonder, what about everyone ELSE who views the video, outside the educational context?
The greater implication is that, given your statement about creating a larger work, when I create the larger work and I use YouTube as the platform for a piece of this work, what happens to everyone else who can look at YouTube...minus the larger work?
:(){
While it's true artificial price controls can affect the supply/demand curve, we are talking about licensing costs not copying/manufacturing costs. In other words, if I buy 1 copy of an out of print book, I just have to send the publisher a check and I'm entitled to make another. If I need a million copies, I pay a million times the fee. To the publisher, it's "free money." The only cost to the publisher is that he cannot build "high prices through scarcity" into his original pricing model, as one would with an original piece of artwork or limited-edition print run.
Your comment is applicable if the "mandatory licensing" actually discourages the creation of new original works. I don't see this being an issue outside the world of collectables.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Fair Use. The is significant original work in relation to the fair use work, and the larger work depends on the fair use work.
If the distributor owns the rights or has permission, then he's clear. Otherwise, he's violating the copyright. Simply shifting the media used to carry the content does not convey any original thought.
Again, naively splicing together full clips does not express an original thought. Therefore, there is no larger work. However, the programmer does have rights to the software he wrote. While its use is not original, the exact code is an original expression of an idea.
Assuming that neither component (software or video) is pirated, then the user is in the clear. He is free to use the content given to him for any* personal use he can come up with. He only gets in trouble if he redistributes either piece without permission.
* As usual, absolutes are not absolute. Use of both pieces is potentially subject to other laws. For example, if the software could be used to circumvent copy protection schemes in violation of the DMCA, then there is a technical violation of the law. In practical terms, however, that portion of the DMCA is unenforcable until the user in question attempts to redistribute the material. Then he's hit with a double-whammy of copyright infringement AND a DMCA violation.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Ok, so what about mashups and musicians like MF Doom who sample music?
You might have an answer for that too, but it really doesn't matter. The problem is that there are a lot of situations that don't have a clear answer. Use common sense? That works great if everyone has the same "common sense", but since people have differing opinions on things, using common sense is not the answer. If it was that easy, no one would be listing counter examples to your explanation. The point is that common sense doesn't help most people when it comes to copyright questions, so Congress needs to clarify the issue (I'm not sure if Congress is really the one who needs to step in or not, but that was the point of the article and summary as I understood it). The responses to your original post, the post I replied to, and your original post in that it pointed out how the author of the article didn't understand the law, all help to support his point that there needs to be clarification.
Mash-ups are probably copyright violations, although depending on the content they may be classified as parody or satire. If you release a CD of mash-ups for the sole purpose of making $$$ then that is copyright infringement. Also, with regards to sampling, there really isn't much in the way of clear laws, but MF Doom is probably ok while say Puff Diddly is not (unless he licenses the samples). Typically sampling is not covered under fair use since you are creating a work based on the copyrighted work which is (typically) not parody, satire or a commentary upon the original work.
Copyright doesn't make sense in a digital society. It can still apply to physical copies of works, sure (at a more realistic time frame -- say two to five years), but copyright should not apply to digital copies of information. It just doesn't make sense and only serves to hamper the arts and sciences.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
The problem is not the person who gets one song from a friend or from a download and then goes and buys the CD. The problem is the person who gets the song and then copies or downloads all the other songs and doesn't go buy the CD. Unfortunately there isn't really a good way to allow the first kind of person while stopping the second kind. Recording off the radio is different because the whole CD is not available in that case.
Black holes are where God divided by zero.
I've written to my three congress-people several times (yes, I live in a small state with a single House rep) about how long copyright times, the use of DRM, and it being illegal to break DRM are bad for our nation because they're stiffling our culture.
The replies have all been to the effect of "we hear your concerns, but media companies are a huge percentage of our (USA) GDP and we won't do anything to hurt that." Which obviously implies "media companies" give us a lot of money and their lobbyists have more ready access to our offices and restaurants and golf courses on Capital Hill than you.
So until it can be shown to our Congress-people that bad copyright laws (from the POV of the citizen) and legally unbreakable DRM costs more money than the alternative we're stuck with it.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
I don't think anyone is replacing their TV viewing time with short clips on YouTube or anywhere else online. The quality of the online video is terrible, and it definitely cannot compare to that of the actual show on a real television being broadcast without any latency (ideally). Thus, any short, poor quality clips being aired online should only help your television shows gain publicity and maybe even allow people who would never have considered watching your show, to actually start watching it.
If a user online sees a funny clip, or a clip that has been altered in some way of your original content, shouldn't that be a compliment to your show, or channel? I thought imitation was the greatest form of flattery?
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
Know whats funnier?
:: gasp :: !
..and ya know, they should have ended that sentence right there..
"Congress must make clear * Laws." As we all know they can't make them simple enough for the average man to read.. they might actually *understand* them
Kinda reminds me of the Constitution where it says "Congress shall pass no law.. "
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Although I don't know the name of it offhand, there's a textbook case illustrating the idea that even a small excerpt of a large work can be considered infringing, if it's a really important part. I think that this snippet of text is from a magazine article that scooped key details of an upcoming book of President Ford's memoirs. That is, the memoir book was about to come out, and (by questionable means) someone obtained the text and went to press with a few small quotes which were the part readers really wanted: the explanation of why Ford pardoned Nixon. The court found that despite the small size of the quoted portion relative to the book, this copying was infringement.
Revive the Constitution.
it's about participary culture. The era of people passively consuming media is over. Too many people are now pulling out iMovie and making their own mixups. Once again, the people have spoken, and copyright is in the way.
Unfortunately, what is more likely to come out of congress is tougher laws to "educate" people about copyright restrictions.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Some sports stations have "classic" games. C-SPAN has historical speeches. Old game shows are re-run all the time.
The Wardrobe Malfunction from last year's Super Bowl probably has tremendous commercial value. Too bad it can only be aired on cable or satellite.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The only time you have "upfront payments" is when an investor is involved. The investor is only willing to make that upfront investment if they see an adequate return. An intelligent investor looks at the full run of the item that they purchased.
It is true that copyright debate is often dominated by the massive firms with gigantic libaries. These people want to protect their powerbase. The debate on copyright needs to be driven y what we want in the future. Of course, there is no future when nothing is done to protect the investments of the past, since all investment is based on the idea of applying the experience of the past to the future.
Typically sampling is not covered under fair use since you are creating a work based on the copyrighted work which is (typically) not parody, satire or a commentary upon the original work.
No, that's not correct. You're sort of conflating two factors there. If a use is transformative, then it's typically fair. A parody is transformative, but then, so is sampling; this factor is simply whether a new work is created. The precise nature of the work (e.g. parody, etc.) is irrelevant. The other factor is effect on the market, which parodies tend to win on since artists rarely engage in self-parody or condone it in others, so it has to be done without authorization. For samples, there is a market, so it tends to work against them.
But I think this is patently unfair. Sampling is the auditory form of collage, which no one has a problem with. I think that the precedents that have come down against sampling are in error, and that one of the main reasons the courts have screwed up on this is merely that it's pretty new, and that it started out as something of an underground thing.
In any case, a fair use needn't be a parody, or commentary, etc. Those are just examples of uses that are often fair. They're not automatically fair, and works that aren't in those categories aren't automatically unfair. Don't take the illustrative examples to be more important than they really are.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
- 30 Minute source manipulated according to the following scenarios
- , two minutes of which is included in snippets in another 30 minute project
- extensively remixed and/or altered for Comedic effect. Includes filking, etc
- Extensively remixed and or altered so as to be a cover version of the item (even if in a different genre)
- Extensively remixed and or altered so as to obviously be a new work, although with much owed to the original (Theme and variations, etc) (NB Luciano Berio's Sinfonia which has extensive quotes from Mahler)
- Artistic quoting and allusions, although not always satiric, and which might presuppose strong familiarity with a genre (NB Warner Brothers Cartoons)
- Montages, musical and otherwise. Includes various cut and paste (NB Stravinsky, etc)
- Original work is used as a model or template for the new work (E. Grieg Piano Concerto in A minor, modeled extensively on the similar concerto by Robert Shumann)(Note also, Apocalypse Now, based on Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, and the Clint Eastwood Speghetti westerns, based on Japanese samauri movies (often matching scene by scene))
Each of these scenarios falls on one side of the line or the other. Could the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns even be made under current laws, without extensive re-licensing?"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Indeed, copyright for the creative business is like software patents for tech. Only, you don't even have to show any originality in your work, just publish to get your rights! I really think that unless it is made clear what fair use is and when a work enters into public domain, copyright will stifle creativity.
Some ideas:
1) Unless the author explicitly claims copyright, the work should be public domain
2) A work should enter into public domain a fixed number of years after first publication
Reg. 1: Creative works should be registered, if not with publishers then with public directories that keep track of who is the owner of a work and assigns an identifier. Without that, it will be impossible to request permission of use or pay royalties to the author. If you can't request permission then it must be granted.
Reg. 2: When everyone can publish it is practically impossible to track down authors and determine when they died. If currently royalties must be paid till 70 after the authors death, then changing that to 100 years after first publication will amount to about the same on average. And everyone will know when the work enters into public domain.
When in doubt,go back to the original blueprint and marvel at its foresighted wisdom.
4 years exclusive use before the public gets its hands on it.
That means everything! Medicine,inventions,music,business methods,anything you can copyright.
4 years period.That will clear up a lot of problems.Any it creates are only problems for the ones causing the problem now.
4 years.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
"common sense" doesn't mean what you think it does. There's nothing "common" about common sense.
Excerpts, and their size, have nothing to do with fair use. Fair use is quite a subjective concept.
Consider:
- take a 2 minute clip of someone's song / video and work it into a satire*. Fair use? Sure, you say.
- take an 8 second sample from someone else's CD and use it as part of a song your wrote for your own album. Fair use? Hmm maybe not... See Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Brothers Records
Examples like this demonstrate why copyright law is so confusing. Congress needs to put forth some effort to simplify it, both to protect the little guy, and to cut down on the burden to the legal system caused when the big guys fight.
*interestingly, many satirists (think: Weird Al) get permission from the copyright holder in advance to avoid the murky legal water surrounding fair use.
...The problem is the person who gets the song and then copies or downloads all the other songs and doesn't go buy the CD....
The erroneous assumption by you and the **AA is that this person would have bought the CD or DVD if the material were NOT available on the Internet.
There may be a few who will do that, but a much larger number are honest and acquire material honestly. Assuming everybody to be a thief and/or lawbreaker is poor public relations. There is no form of advertising that works better and is therefore more valuable than direct word of mouth. Maybe when some of the current young generation music buyer get control of the music companies, the DRM paranoia and all that goes with it will cease. Meanwhile there is opportunity for others to have a head start on this and profit, selling non-enslaved materials, while the old fogies that run the big media companies today slowly die off.
All theory is gray
I think the reason the TV execs feel so strongly that little snippets are not fair use is because often there are only 2 good minutes in a half hour. It albums vs. tracks all over again.
There is a 30-minute programming slot. It will have many ad-breaks each is bracketed by some good-bye / welcome back & recap repetitive 'non content'. The shows themselves often have ritualized segments where the content that varies per episode (a guest interview say) is bracketed by more filler that could just be a replay of last show (I exaggerate but it's almost accurate). More time is spent on suspense building etc.
The execs know it's hard to come up with interesting compelling content so they have to hoard it and pad it out. When it comes down to it those 2 minute clips are the only meaningful parts, the are 'the work' - so its really not fair to copy and distribute the whole work like that.
The purpose of the cap in this range is to prevent total denial of access or by holding it ransom for 1 hundred billion dollars.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...members of the MAFIAA cartel are *lucky* they aren't all sitting in the pokey now for collusion, price fixing, multiple breaches of contract and fraud with various talent over the years, and so on. That they aren't is a testimony to the power of the "consultation" fee and the loose and sleazy way poly ticks sons are elected.
Put it this way, they can NEVER take the ethical and moral high ground, it simply doesn't exist in their business model and mindset. The word greed isn't strong enough to describe their collective corporate personnas.
MS is greedy, enron was greedy and and sleazy, haliburton is greedy, sleazy and utterly incompetent, the MAFIAA cartel is all of the above-and those are their good qualities.
When you get that band or label's ad account, you can go about releasing their work on a shareware basis. Until then, it's up to the band (and their licensees) how and how effectively they self-promote.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
If it were that simple, I guess we wouldn't need judges.
Think about it.
I didn't assume anything. I know that the whole thing breaks down into several groups of people:
1. Those who download or copy a song and then go buy the CD.
2. Those who buy the CD based on some other information or advertising.
3. Those who download the CD but would have bought it they couldn't find it for free.
4. Those who download the CD but would never have bought it.
Despite your assumption that people are largely honest and aquire their music legally (and I would tend to agree with you on that), there really isn't anyway to know for sure how many people fall into each group.
Your right that treating everyone as a thief is bad PR and bad business if that first group is large enough. However simply ignoring the third group in the hopes of some free advertising could be a bad business decision if that group is larger than the first group. Of course the **AA makes the mistake on lumping the fourth group in with the third when throwing out numbers about how much piracy costs them.
Ideally the music industry will begin to offer downloads of some songs for free (and even allow copies of those songs to be redistributed by other means) so that people can hear them and then sell the full album in a DRM free format. Unfortunately I would imagine that so long as people keep putting albums on P2P services and they keep lumping those last two groups together that isn't going to happen.
Black holes are where God divided by zero.
First sale also applies to other things, not just books. You're perfectly free to resell an audio CD after you've listened to it or a DVD after you've watched it, for example.
butter the donkey
And let's not forget that unpossible is a perfectly cromulent word.