Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google and Microsoft Help To Defend Fair Use

Posted by Zonk on from the fighting-the-good-fight-via-proxy dept.

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."'"

17 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. About... by netscan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    God damned time

  2. Of course.... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course, at least one of those companies is selling/making money from systems that won't allow you to exercise your fair use rights...

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    1. Re:Of course.... by Elemenope · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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)
    2. Re:Of course.... by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Of course.... by coryking · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, at least one of those companies is selling/making money from systems that won't allow you to exercise your fair use rights... You think any of them want to do that? You think Microsoft is happy they had to pour a gazillion dollars into some cockeyed DRM scheme dreamed up by coke snorting clowns?

      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?
    4. Re:Of course.... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:Of course.... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have to wonder what use of software would fall under "fair use" guidelines.

      Educational & backup copies, of course. And of course, derivative works, for stuff that is open source to begin with.

      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.

      That's strange, I'd argue exactly the opposite- that patents are a wrong fit, as evidenced by the LACK of fair use since software patents have been applied.

      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).

      Correct. But also, given fair use (as predated the DMCA, which completely trampled fair use) the consumer's right to fair use should give them the ability to say, make an ISO file of any CD they own.

      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".

      True enough, though I'd argue that for the widest form of fair use (multiple copies supplied to a classroom for educational purposes) any reasonably well-funded school should be able to circumvent easily (by using nearly identical hardware, thus defeating the "license keyed to specific hardware" algorithm), and have done so for non-circumvention reasons (for ease of maintenance- every computer in a classroom should have identical and interchangeable parts).

      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.

      Interesting idea that- which would make Windows Genuine Advantage illegal tech....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:Of course.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hence, Microsoft's actions here are, conceivably, entirely consistent with one another.
      Consistent, but hypocritical.

      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.)
  3. Google and Microsoft in it together? by garnetlion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google and Microsoft? Going above and beyond the call of "Don't be evil"? Together?

    Wonders never cease. Nice work.

    1. Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? by BoberFett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Google and Microsoft in it together? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game.

      It seems that major sports leagues are given special legal status in general. For one, they're exempt from antitrust laws. (Not that I like anti-trust laws, but selectively enforcing them can be worse.) For another, they seem to have additional rights to the content of their games beyond what IP law normally grants. Like, if I watch a game and stream my commentary about it so people can listen as they watch with the official broadcast's sounds muted, I'd be shut down in a heartbeat. But if I did the same thing to the e.g. Kasparov/Deep Blue chess match, IBM couldn't stop me if they wanted to.

      --
      Apology to Ubuntu forum.
  4. It's a trick... by Loosifur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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!
  5. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Funny

    This Microsoft + Google alliance reminds me of that episode of He-man, where He-man and Skeletor have to join forces to save Eternia from this interdimensional monster - or when the guys from Dungeons n Dragons have to help Venger defeat Tiamat.

    This is getting sooo interesting! *grabs some popcorn and enjoys the show*

  6. History Repeats Itself by argmanah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds like those entertainment lawyers DCMA'd one too many people. The lawyers start letting the fact that they were able to trample on the little people get to their head and eventually piss off someone big enough and with enough teeth to fight back. When SCO declared they were going to start charging $699 Linux licenses, it was the little guys who were concerned. Then they picked on Novell and IBM and look where they are now: Litigated into oblivion.

    --
    Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
  7. ZOMG THE IRONY! by kimvette · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Am I the only one finding it ironic that Microsoft is demanding that Fair Use be recognized, while shutting down Autopackager and infringing on the right of first sale, even in cases where the software isn't even opened?

    Sorry, I'm just frustrated that I spent thousands on two MSDN subscriptions and have been trying to activate them for a week, and have spent over 115 minutes on the phone, with the last two calls assuring me with 100% certainty that the problem is now resolved, only to discover they are STILL not activated and I have to call them yet AGAIN. GRRRRRRRRR!!! This is why I run Linux for everything except for client projects. Ugh.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  8. Copyright EVERYTHING and destroy it all! by ThanatosMinor · · Score: 3, Funny

    If everything were copyrighted (most things sort of implicitly are), and we upheld MLB's version of Fair Use, then lawyers' motions would be copyrighted and as such could not be discussed by other lawyers or judges. Nobody would be able to talk about anything that had been written down or produced in any way. One could even claim that all speech is a derivative work and we could only use words and letters that hadn't been used in the same combinations anyone has used in the last half century!

    Nobody would be allowed to do anything because they would be sued by people who wouldn't be allowed to sue!

    Now that I think about it, such inability to enforce anything would be like having no copyrights at all. One end of the spectrum is exactly the same as the other. Too bad circles are copyrighted.

  9. That can't be true... by mattgreen · · Score: 4, Funny

    That explanation is REDICULOUS(sic). I have a far more reasonable one, so allow me to elaborate.

    Everyone *KNOWS* that Microsoft enjoys being evil precisely because they are evil! Or, at least, that is what people around here have told me. I have a feeling the people in Redmond drive into work like everyone else, but once they get into work, they start smiling. When they finally start working, they are chuckling to themselves: "Haha, its time to SCREW OVER THE WORLD! I can't wait to subtly break everything we've made, and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of users!" Because evil has this amazing ability to attract other forms of evil, thus allowing it to compound faster than one would expect, evil alliances are formed with alarming regularity: "Hmm, its Thursday, we should find a KKK club to sponsor since its been rather quiet this week." Naturally, everyone drives cool cars around the campus. Bill Gates is known to be able to fly, teleport, and destroy someone with a single thought of the mind. But few actually get close enough to him to observe these things, unfortunately.

    I am sorry that this information is so long in coming. But I am glad I decided to post it on a site that is a beacon of truth, logic, and unbiased opinions.