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>
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.
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
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?
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.
Common sense in regard to law? That's unpossible!
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
Yup. The 16th Amendment:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
They sure as hell were gonna make sure that's clear as crystal.
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
Where to start?
Your model of "content", as something some people produce and other people consume, is nonsense. Art and science build on previous art and science, and feed on the store of public domain knowledge and "content". Lock all "content" away indefinitely, and the producers suffer.
It isn't based on Constitutional law, either. The Constitution permits Congress to set up temporary monopolies for the purpose of encouraging people to do things. A copyright law explicitly on the basis of "my content, my rules" would be unconstitutional.
Your argument is also far too sweeping. You make arguments that, if valid, would support the idea that there should be some sort of copyright law. I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing with that. (You'll find people violating the existing laws, which isn't the same thing. Somebody driving 70 miles per hour in a 55 zone is not necessarily against traffic laws in general.) Where you get the idea to malign "people upset about current copyright laws" in general, I don't know. Where you get the idea that changes would "take power away from the producers", I don't know; rolling back the copyright law to before the Sonny Bono extension, for example, would affect "content" where the producers are dead. The dead, themselves, have no power, and rolling back the copyright laws can't possibly take away what isn't there.
So, would you care to explain why the current copyright laws are ideal, and why, say, clarifying fair use provisions is offensive to you?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In the USA, copyright is a social contract which is intended to promote content creation -- by providing a profit motive -- so that the rest of us can then beneficially consume it. In short, in the USA, copyright exists at the pleasure of the people. If at any time the costs associated with copyright outweigh the benefits derived from it, it is the people's right to abolish it altogether.
In the USA, anyway, copyright is a privilege, its poor choice of name notwithstanding.
When you think of an idea, it is entirely yours and nobody else has any rights to it whatsoever.
If you choose to share that idea with somebody else, then you are either explicitly or implicitly assigning rights to that person. Perhaps you have an explicit contract with that person specifying what they can do with your idea. If so, then that contract is binding. Copyright law can be thought of as the default license agreement for content if you do not have an explicit contract with the consumer. You can unilaterally choose to waive some of your rights, and this is what the GPL does. You can't unilaterally take away the rights of the person receiving the content.
So by all means, make your own rules for your content. Just make sure that other people have agreed to those rules before you give them the content. If you choose to give your content out freely to the world, then you are implicitly agreeing to license it under the terms of copyright law, and that includes fair use.
The rules for what constitutes a contract have been significantly weakened in this day of clickthrough licenses, but even there in theory there was an interaction with the user; they chose to accept the contract by clicking "OK". I'm not aware of any court case validating a contract that exists merely by passively viewing a document.
Further, once your "content" is displayed/performed/exposed, you can't take it back. Therein lies the biggest motivation for the whole of copyright legislation. Without it, we as a society would end up being a bunch of information hoarders. There would be no open exchange of ideas. There would be no derivative works. Information would be exchanged under contract and NDA between interested parties. There would become a horrible social rift between the information-haves and the information-have-nots.
Copyright is a contract between you, the content producer, and "we the people." In exchange for a short-term monopoly, complete with "force of law" coverage, you agree to contribute said production to the "we the people" at the end of the term. During the short-term monopoly, it's up to you to make a buck (or not.) There's no guarantee of profits. You aren't entitled to anything other than fair treatment under the law.
Unfortunately, the **AA and their ilk are in material breach of this contract. Many works should have entered the public domain by now, but through lobbying and outright bribery, the content distribution cartels have stolen that content from the people. And yes, "stolen" is the correct word to use here, because I am deprived of access to the content. I've also paid taxes supporting the copyright enforcement during the term of the original agreement, so I'm out financially as well.
Finally, you're not obligated to participate in the copyright program. You're welcome to hoard information in your vault. You're also welcome to produce a work that is contributed directly into the public domain without restriction. You shouldn't expect compensation in either case. The current crop of content dstributors seem to think that they're entitled to something. They're not.
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?
:(){
Compare to a natural right; you cannot sell or purchase the right to free speech. Similarly, the government cannot take it away because it does not grant it.
The Constituion is pretty clear. It grants the Congress the ability to create copyright. Congress grants you that privilege, in exchange for it being public sometime later.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
"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."
Let us examine this more closely. The "reporter out in the field" has been paid. The program has been paid for. By the advertising placed on the original broadcast of the material.
Since there is little value on old newscasts (do you really want to watch last years news?) EXCEPT to people doing critical analysis (or, in some cases nostalgia), the money MUST have come "up front".
Which means that it DOESN'T matter what the cost WAS. If it couldn't be covered, it wouldn't (or shouldn't) have been aired. Anything else will lead to rapid bankruptcy.
Most other broadcast material is in the same boat. Of what value is last years "American Idol"?
Just saying -- the "it must be protected because it is valuable because it costs a lot" is a red herring.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
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
1) Because society as a whole benefits from the wide distribution of ideas,
2) Because your work relies, in its turn, on concepts and ideas created by others. Every creative act relies on other people's works and ideas to one degree or another.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (Article I, Section 8) The only reason you get a monopoly on your content "for limited Times," according to the U.S. Constitution, is to motivate you to create it in the first place.
Only in the modern U.S. Judicial system is 100+ years even conceivably what "limited Times" means.
How are copyright laws currently unfair to consumers?
Because not even their grandchildren will see works that are already 50 years old pass into the public domain, and become a part of our cultural inheritance, where the Constitution says they should already be.
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.
Wrong. I'm upset about current copyright laws, for example, because it is impossible to obtain many out-of-print books I wish I could own at affordable cost, if at all. If the work was published after 1921, it's off-limits. Copyright owners neither reprint such books nor give permission for others to do so. So ... if I want to add such material to my library, how do I do so? If Congress would bother with the Constitution, those books would no longer be under copyright, and could be added to Project Gutenberg. Much the same applies to all kinds of other content, which is effectively locked in a vault where no one can get at it, to no one's benefit and to the detriment of anyone who doesn't live near a University-class library.
If you create one thing, then sit back and milk it for decades instead of continuing to innovate, write, and create, who's the leech?
The consumer already has all the power they need, the power of the purse.
Actually, the content producers have the power of the purse, because they have a monopoly on the content and can charge whatever they like. Yes, if BigGreedyRecordLabel Inc charges too much for the music recorded by Dead60'sRockStar, they won't sell much of it. However, the fact remains that BGRL Inc. is holding part of our culture hostage, because neither Congress nor the Courts can read and understand the plain, simple meaning of words in the U.S. Constitution.
doc
"common sense" doesn't mean what you think it does. There's nothing "common" about common sense.
My content, my rules.
Nonsense! Your ONLY rightful, natural, irrefutable, undeniable, perpetual claim is that of authorship. All else is off the table. My copy is MY copy, to do with as I please. In other words, My copy, MY rules! And your other tired old stuff is just that. It's been rehashed thousands of times already. If you don't want to accept those rules, then keep your damn "content" to yourself! We won't miss it. It's not like you're the only one out there. Man! It's like marrying a pretty girl and then wondering how the hell I put up with that voice.
Oh, and I'll be perfectly happy to pay you to reproduce your(or anybody else's) content in a live performance, at a concert for instance, if I happen to like what I hear on my copy. A recording of me eating a steak doesn't fill my stomach. Why should a reproduction of your work fill your wallet? What makes you so special?
What?