Slashdot Mirror
Google and Microsoft Help To Defend Fair Use
An anonymous reader writes "The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a complaint this month with the FTC 'alleging that professional sports leagues, Hollywood studios, and book publishers were all using copyright notices that misrepresented the law'. That is, they were aggressively pursuing 'right' that they were not entitled to. Now a group, backed by companies like Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Sun, and Red Hat, has launched a web site called Defend Fair Use that shows they are serious about making the complaint stick. From the article: 'In contrast to copyright notices that take no account of fair use and claim control over "all accounts and descriptions" of a game, the CCIA offers a different copyright notice of its own. "We recognize that copyright law guarantees that you, as a member of the public, have certain legal rights," it says, "You may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law."'"
God damned time
"Self-interest might well be among of their motives, too, as companies like Google and Microsoft are routinely sued over copyright-related issues. Defending fair use might be good for consumers, but it might turn out to be good for business as well." ....get an axe.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
You might have one or two minor problems persuading a court that "tape recording/ripping movies and putting them on the internet" is fair use
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
It shouldn't really be surprising. Neither Google nor Microsoft have much of a stake in content creation. What they have in common is creating systems which aggregate and display content. If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game. That would definitely get in the way of both companies' business model.
I have the right to print a publicly distributed newspaper; however, I can't do that, because I don't own a printing press or the means to rent the use of one. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you have the resources or tools to make good on that right. There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also failing to provide the technical means to exercise that right, or even placing technical hurdles to exercise it.
Nobody said it would be easy.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
It's great, but a long way from anyone defending personal fair use. This is just corporations fighting over who gets to disseminate sports scores. In short, companies fighting over money. Just using fair use as the angle of attack.
Wake me when the megacorporations start fighting for my right to rip my CDs and play them on my MP3 player.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also... placing technical hurdles to exercise it.
How is that not a conflict? They're countering their own defense of the right. I agree they have no obligation to provide the tools, but they intentionally (actively) cripple the tools they sell to prevent fair use. They spend money creating the hurdle. They also attempt to counter fair use rights in their own software licenses (i.e. legal hurdles on top of technical hurdles). Seems like a logical conflict to me.
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsoft would be pleased as punch if customers could buy hi-def capture cards from Fry's that can plug into any computer and work with MCE. They would be giggling like school girls if a beige-box PC could record hi-def HBO without a set top box like Tivo. Google would be pleased as punch if you downloaded the show from them instead of used the hi-def capture card. Apple wants you to buy the latest "New Kids on the Block" single from their online store. RedHat wants all of the above to work on Linux.
All these companies are pissed because they cannot get access to the media their customers desire. While it may seem like all these companies, especially Microsoft, "support" DRM schemes, trust me they don't. Would you want to piss away a bunch of your developers time writing in crazy DRM crap that only keeps your company from innovating?
I'll believe it the day Microsoft includes the above language in Vista's EULA, not before.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Well, you could say...
"Provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law, you may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication."
But I suspect any watered down language would take the negative approach to remain in good standing with the law...
"You may not copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, or transmit any portion of this publication unless such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise explicitly permitted by law."
And, for good measure, (and if there's time or screen space), they'll add "Any intent to apply or exercise of fair use rights shall be sumbitted in writing to the content license holder prior to such use, and approval or denial shall be determined at the sole discresion of the content holder except as determined in a court of law."
See, now wasn't that easy?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I have to wonder what use of software would fall under "fair use" guidelines. Then again, I have to wonder why we treat software as similar to music and literature by placing it under copyright scope in the first place. If software needs a form of IP protection, copyright is the wrong fit, and fair use just makes that all the more evident.
To the broader topic: That a company is not required to provide for your fair use is established law, true. Of course, that concept predates the DMCA. The DMCA takes us out of balance by introducing the infamous anti-circumvention clause. Under this clause, not only must I respect the rights of the copyright holder, so must any technology in which I traffic. Not so with fair use -- I can traffic in technology that tramples the consumer's fair use right (per prior law), but not in technology that might be used to trample the copyright (per the new law).
Most fair-use advocates assume that the best solution to restore balance is to elmiinate the anti-circumvention clause. This returns us to the world of yesterday, where the most technologically capable among us have exercisable fair use rights and the rest of the citizens don't; except that DRM schemes are ever more complex, resulting in an even higher technical barrier to entry into the world of the fair-use "haves".
But there's another way. Keep the anti-circumvention clause, but add a new clause. Make it illegal to traffic in technology that abridges fair use. If it's illegal to make tools that violate one right, make it illegal to create tools that violate either right. Restore balance. And at the same time, give everyone the ability to exercise their fair use rights, regardless of individual technical knowledge.
Consistent in that the actions both lead to more profit.
Hypocritical in the sense that the rhetoric they use to defend one set of actions contradicts the rhetoric they use to defend the other set of actions.
Microsoft's action are logically consistent, but their rhetoric is not. (Also known as being a liar.)