Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Alliance Says Fair Use Not a Consumer Right
KingSkippus writes "In response to a complaint to the FCC filed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) to change copyright warnings before movies and sporting events, Executive Director Patrick Ross of the Copyright Alliance tells us in an editorial that 'fair use is not a consumer right.' The Copyright Alliance is backed by such heavy-hitters as the MPAA, RIAA, Disney, Business Software Alliance, and perhaps most interestingly, Microsoft, who is also backing the CCIA's complaint."
It's the new axis of evil. MPAA, RIAA, Disney, Business Software Alliance, and Microsoft. It's a rogue's gallery of the companies that we hate for their jack booted tromping on the little guys. I guess they are conveniently ignoring copyright law as written when it comes to fair use. Next step massive lobbying in congress to change it. Naw, they'd never be able to buy our upright legislators...would they?
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement suits. It is not some "inalienable" God Given right like free speech or freedom of religion. Meaning you can exercise fair use, and if someone sues you and court determines it was fair use, you're OK. However - you have no "right" to it in that if a company, say, prevents you by means of technical steps from making "fair use" of materials, you can't sue them and in fact can't do anything about it.
Haven't the courts decided this already? That consumers do have some rights to the use of media that they have purchased access to...
Like all amendments, the 1st amendment theoretically supersedes any conflicting provisions that existed before it. On its face this means any copyright law or court injunction pursuant to such a law which prohibits you from saying what's already been opyrighted by someone else is unconstitutional. For better or for worse, courts haven't seen it that way in most cases.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The CCIA is scum, and there's no point in mincing words about it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
(Ab)using the legal system like it was some crude bludgeon to scare people with John Doe subpoenas, claiming insane 'damages', and now trying to claim every person who's ever copied a song from their CD to MP3 player is a pirate because 'fair use' isn't a 'right'... how are scum like these not being classified as terrorists when their entire tactic to 'protect' their intellectual property is to terrorize innocent consumers?
If they had their way, they'd make it their right to take our money no matter what they did. So, I consider it my right to do whatever I want with it despite whether or not I pay for it. They want the extreme; I'll present the opposite end of that extreme.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
The only reason that we issue copyrights and patents is to encourage producers to create and invent new works. Copyright isn't a right at all, it's a privilege which we the people grant to copyright holders, for limited times, for the benefit of the public.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It could be that he is a flat-earth adherent, stating something that quite obviously isn't so.
Or
He could be a fifth column, the leader of an organization, sabotaging their PR from within by his foolish arguments.
I'm leaning towards the former.
You know we here at slashdot see all sorts of these stories, about how the laws are being made by corporations, about how they want to take as many rights away from consumers as possible and so form an "evil" alliance with the government. While I do think that corporate lobbying is a horrible flaw in our legislative system, I have hope through the judicial system. As long as our peers are the ones to determine if Mrs. Johnson should pay 1.2 million for listening to a song she couldn't find anywhere else we should be fine. Jury nullification is a great check & balance against a flawed legislative system. With that said I am disgusted with the current trend in copyright laws in lieu of the dawn of the information age, but I haven't lost hope. Still that doesn't mean we should sit idly by, send a snail mail letter to whoever represents you, ask them for their opinion on these matters and explain yours.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
Seems to me that "fair-use" is an important part of the balance that's been struck between the copyright holders and the public. If they're saying that it's not included in "copyright," then perhaps we all should consider the whole deal is off. Hollywood is pulling the typical negotiation game here. First, they get the extensions in copyright length. Then they try to pull "fair-use" off the table and expect all of the other negotiated points (extensions, DMCA, etc.) to stick.
If they want re-negotiate, perhaps we should go back to the way it was originally setup in the constitution and start back from there. Full and exclusive copyright only lasts 17 years. Period. No extensions of any type. That's my best offer.
Hollywood is playing a very dangerous game here. Public opinion is pretty much against them, while we're re-defining copyright perhaps we should put this up for a referendum?
And it will certainly sound like the truth.
Which meets the objective of the whole cartel.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
You don't have to have lots of money to be evil, but it sure helps.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
The ruling class takes cash from Disney and Disney calls the shots. Any surprise there? you may think the pols are your friend but, no, they like their bankers better. Much better. But, if they smile at you, you'll understand, won't you?
Kevin O'Kane http://www.cs.uni.edu/~okane/
Last time I checked, Copyright, was not a "god-given" or even constitutionally guaranteed right. Copyright is a right granted by the people, and it is a right that can be revoked by the people. The right was granted for a temporary (repeat, temporary) monopoly to a given work, in exchange for a public record to be kept in the library of congress, stored for future generations. In addition, copyright included provisions to not harm the common citizens for utilizing their own copies of such works as they see fit. Otherwise, copyright holders could impose ludicrus and rediculous limitations, such as "if you watch this... no, if you even recieve a copy of this, watched or not, you must agree to sleep with the director" and, if these guys have their interpretations of copyright forced on us, we would be obliged!
So, I shall be publishing a short copywritten piece shortly with just this provision in it, and if anyone knows the guys behind this push, feel free to send copies to them, I insist....
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Congress can make an exception to protecting our rights to free expression (like copying someone else's expression) where economics requires exclusivity of some expressions to promote progress in science and useful arts. But only where necessary for that promotion of progress, and only for limited times - and only to authors and inventors. Not when economics doesn't require the exemption. Not for unlimited (or so long that the limits are effectively meaningless, or renewable) times. And not to record labels, which are neither authors nor inventors.
The "fair use" isn't some exception to copyright. It's the basic right, to free expression. In recognition of its nonthreat to progress, the exclusivity, the artificial monopoly that Congress can create, doesn't apply to that free expression.
The whole copyright exclusivity is obsolete. There's a case for very short times for exclusive exploitation, different lengths for different media, before the content becomes folklore. But these Copyright Alliance creeps are just thieves. Using our government against us. Trashing the First Amendment we use to get our government to protect us. And exploiting beyond any defensible reason their license to mint money that they find in Article I.8.
Let's take them up on their offer to start over. And strip down these artificial government monopolies to actually promote science and the useful arts. 17 years for books and songs, shorter for the rest, maybe a day for news, maybe 15 minutes for financial news. That's progress.
--
make install -not war
First, Microsoft pretty much laughed openly about buying the OOXML vote in Sweden, and now they're openly backing both sides of the argument in this case? Has the borg finally decided to quit pretending, and just display its true form to all who can bear to gaze upon it?
Copyright is a temporary suspension of the free speech rights of others. It was intended by the founders as a short-term suspension of free speech in order to encourage authors / artists and provide them with a livelihood during their lifetime. It's long past time to reign in perpetual copyright and return it to that original limited form.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Actually, yes we do.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm kind of worried about the sort of language being used nowadays. In the media, and by corporations, people are increasingly being referred to as 'consumers', whereas in the past they were more referred to as 'citizens'. I think this kind of language subtly displays a sort of attempted disassociation of people with their rights through getting them to think of themselves not as citizens, with all their inalienable and somewhat inconvenient (for corporations) rights, but mere consumers of products with somewhat more alienable "consumer rights", belittling them in the process. Merely using the term "consumer rights" implies that they are somehow separate from "citizens rights". This has shades of the somewhat fascist book "Starship Troopers" IMHO, with its distinction of citizens and civilians.
Actually, the Constitution DOES say that Congress *may* create copyrights, but it doesn't actually spell out those rights, require Congress to do so, and lists an oft-ignored purpose of advancing arts and sciences. A purpose which has been replaced with "making money" with the cover story that government created monopolies are subject to free market forces which therefore guarantee advancement.
if it was fair use would be required. But as it's not we can take our money elsewhere.
Because I *so* enjoy being told to bend over and brace myself. As a consumer, I work to get money. Then I hand that money to companies that make things I like. Some of these things are intangible--like music and movies and in some rare cases . . . art. Since it's hard to make money off of intangible things (since media and transmission is relatively cheap) I'll allow laws to grant companies exclusive distribution rights so they can make profit and keep making stuff I like.
*My airwaves* *My nation's laws* *My consent* *My money*
#1 & #2 were long since auctioned off. #3 has been rendered imaginary. I still have power over #4, and guess what I'm not shelling out for crap I don't want anymore?
(and why the hell doesn't slashdot have a +1 drunken rant!? Or -1 drunken rant . . . or even Z@!I#NV j60o
The argument that Ross appears to make is a non-sequitur. He says that fair use is not a consumer right because it is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. There's no connection between the two. For those who don't know, an "affirmative defense" is a defense that does negate an essential element of the charge. For example, if you are charged with murder, one defense that you could offer is the prosecution hasn't demonstrated that you were the one who committed the murder. Another defense would be that the prosecution has not shown that a homicide occurred (if, say, there is no body). These are non-affirmative defenses because all the defense has to do is to argue that the prosecution has failed to meet some part of its burden. Another defense to a murder charge is self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The defendant admits that a homicide occurred, that he or she did it, etc., but argues that he or she is nonetheless not legally responsible.
In the case of copyright infringement, civil or criminal, fair use is an affirmative defense because the defendant admits the elements. He or she says: "Yes, I copied material whose copyright does not belong to me", which is the essence of copyright infringement, but its okay because the use was of a type that the law acknowledges as acceptable, just as self-defense is an acceptable reason for killing someone.
There is no reason to suppose that there should be a connection between whether a defense is affirmative or ordinary and whether it is a right. For example, surely self-defense is a right, but it is nonetheless an affirmative, not ordinary, defense. So the mere fact that fair use is an affirmative defense does not show, as Ross seems to think, that fair use is not a right.
The possible grain of truth in what he says is that the fact that fair use is a defense to copyright infringement does not mean that it is a right whose violation is actionable. Statements that describe copyright infringment in absolute terms, without mentioning fair use, are inaccurate, and possibly constitute deceptive advertising, but whether consumers have a legal right to fair use that makes technical measures, such as DRM, that interfere with fair use, actionable, is unclear. There is a colorable argument that there is a fair use right in this sense, which is what the plaintiffs are arguing, but it is also true that this has not been established in court.
So, insofar as Ross is claiming that there is some sort of connection between the kind of defense provided by fair use and whether it is a right, he is wrong, but insofar as he is just claiming that the provision of fair use as a defense does not make it a right, what he says is true. I personally think that fair use is a right, for First Amendment reasons, but this right flows from the First Amendment and not from the fair use provisions of the copyright statutes.
It's about time that these folks laid out their agenda explicitly. No need for conspiracy theories when it's out on the table.
movies aren't. the movie house business is going gang busters, but the dvd after market will fizzle (which evolved from the vhs aftermarket, which these same morons fought with the same rationalizations you hear now, 30 years ago, lost, and came to embrace the vcr as a cash cow. nice foresight, x2)
music will become something people only pay for to go to live concerts. all other music will be freely traded, and musicians will make money from advertising and abovementioned concerts. no, it's not jayz money. as if that was ever a prerequisite for the desire to make music
the only people who are losing are the economic middle men. all we hear are the cries of their death throes. zzz
let them lock up their copyrighted works with all of the advanced tools of copyright protection they want. #1: it's easily defeated anyway. #2: much like newspapers have learned, it's all about accessibility. so let the morons make their product inaccessible, and reap the fruits of that genius strategy in a new world with new rules
all we hear are from idiots in media companies who don't understand what the internet means to their business, or desperate men who do understand what the internet means to their business: it's killing it
oh well, who cares. sucks to be on the losing side of history
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's idiocy like this that makes me no longer respect copyrights. Yes, I want artists to get paid, but I'm no longer willing to go through a leeching middleman.
If *only* Steve Jobs was on the board of one of these companies - we'd soon see a stop to this.
Anti-DRM, pro fair use Steve Jobs would never allow a company he sat on to act like this.
FTA: "So, how exactly would the FTC rewrite these copyright notices to reflect a consumer's ability to attempt a fair use defense? Should they paste in all of the above language? We're wading into the area of providing legal advice"
He is basically arguing that Fair Use is so complicated that explaining it to people constitutes legal advice. Yet he admits that the notices currently in place are simply scare tactics.
"these warnings do exactly what they're meant to do--notify consumers in a succinct fashion that infringement has legal consequences."
In essence, he's saying "Our rights are easier to describe than yours, so we'll forget about yours."
I...I'm attacking the darkness!
Is it possible to believe that reasonable copyright protections can benefit society, while at the same time support a citizens fair-usage of those same materials? Because I don't care much for the either/or extreme positions, that of DRM lockdown of everything, or that of zero protections for ones work.
Is it just me, or is being a lying sack of shit a prerequisite to operating with the big corporations in the US? I'm puzzled and disturbed by what appears to be an increase in skullduggery and flat-out bullshitting. Sure, it's always been there, but the stench seems to be getting stronger...
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Actually, with the recent push to replace physical money with credit cards (at least according to a lot of ads I've seen recently), and the increasing (okay, almost absolute) prominence of credit or debit cards for major purchases, you don't even control your money anymore. Corporations that are governed by laws, which, according to you, have been auctioned off, control most of your money, and, once they control the laws, can do whatever they want with it. Basically, they let you think you have control of their money because it helps prevent rebellion against the government, which would collapse their entire system. (None of the above should be taken as advice, fact, or as anything other than random musings from a parallel universe. If any of it happens to be true, it is simply by coincidence).
Everything is subjective.
Why does a government agency get to dictate what is and isn't true?
As far as I see it, and any so called "consumer" should... if a GOOD is sold... then claim to it is relinquished for that object/service. Whether its an apple, or a DVD, if I give it to you in exchange for your cash, I can't tell you what to do with it or whom to show it to. Neither can you tell me not to use your cash to strengthen my own assets. Oh well, free markets aren't free in this world and will not be for at least a few more years.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Us buying their products is not their right. The sellers and retailer do not control this market place the CONSUMERS DO! We need to take back our control of the market place before this gets too out of hand. The fact that people pay extreme prices for cell phone ringtones that are 30 seconds long is proof of the market slipping out of control. All we need to do is save our money and put it way instead of wasting it on software and music and games that don't give us what we truly want and those who don't will suffer. I really think they need to study up on United States History. /. doesn't have the right to moderate post negatively. Although I hope you don't :P
This is almost as bad as someone saying
Dear God, I pride myself on being a right wing troll, and I am capitalist to the core, but when companies start a public campaign to deceive citizens into thinking they have no rights in order to make a buck, then a line in the sand must be drawn.
The fact is very simple - corporations have less of a right to exist than consumers have of a fair use in copyright, and, even more importantly, the desirability of corporate profits does not entitle them into twisting laws to create an oligarchy. Capitalism exists as an American system to benefit the American people, and not the other way around. Corporations are no more entitled to rent seeking and guaranteed profits than a lazy man is entitled to a government check. If corporations want to earn more money, then they should be compelled to invent new products and new services, not attempt to bend the will of the government and the soul of the people into being enslaved into old products, old services, and worst of all, old ideas.
My fellow Republicans need to be reminded that to be a genuine conservative is to value freedom first and foremost. From that freedom we do have a prosperous society, yes, but prosperity is not why we value freedom and we should not let our greed rule deceive us into believing that the point of freedom is profits for someone else. There will come a time, and it may be soon, when we have to choose between freedom versus wealth, and we can only hope that men of good conscience will have to see that the former is always priceless.
This is my sig.
I've been reading stories about the DMCA, DRM, and stuff like this restriction of fair use on slashdot for a few years now. The more I read about it, the more I start getting the feeling that when my generation (teens-twenties) comes into power in the next 15-20 years, that we're so fed up with this shit that we'll abolish patents and copyright altogether, if it hasn't been done already by then. At the very least, restrict it to a very short time limit. 6 months, maybe a year.
I can see the point in copyrights and patents, but these companies have gotten so power hungry and greedy that they've really started abusing the system. I have started thinking that maybe they don't deserve the system's help. Companies like Coca-Cola have managed to make it well over a century without needing a patent or copyright on their main money-making formula. I believe that any intelligent businessman will be able to make money on any product whether or not they have a copyright/patent or not. The copyright system has become a crutch for extremely outdated business models that have been rendered obsolete.
#1, Mac The Ripper.
#2, Toast Titanium.
Use #1, then #2, then enjoy viewing your unencumbered, non-copy protected, de-DRMed, region free backup copies of your inexpensive previously viewed DVDs via your DVD player, on your computer, and, by using Visual Hub, on your iPod, PSP, or other PMP device.
Don't buy new DVDs. Get them used from your locally owned independent used CD/DVD shops or eBay. You'll save money and won't be putting money into the pockets of the MPAA affiliated studios or Blockbuster.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
There is zero reason why they should be given any extra protection by law then. It should be the companies' responsibility to think of the methods of protecting their idea/IP. If joe public is not allowed to have fair use, no reason why *our* tax money should go towards wasting time of courts funded by us, to help out these companies. Let them spend their own money on trying to devise methods to prevent competitors from copying off their idea.
The whole idea of copyrights and patents was for the benefit of the public, not for the companies, by encouraging invention and arts for the benefit of public. the whole deal is null and void if they want to renegade on their part.
If the joe public must pay for everything, so must they.
If companies can't make money from it - it's not fair.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
It is far easier to be MS when you don't have to pretend any more.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Ya wanna know what my rights are? Not to spend $20 dollars on an album that I can recreate with a .50 cent CD-R and 5 minutes of my time. It's my right to avoid your DRM and Root Kits for the past 10 years (roughly how long its been since I bought a major record album). And judging by what I hear from the major record labels, I'm not the only one exercising these rights. I don't steal music, but I don't buy it either. The fact is, it's Perceived Value (look it up, it's a business term) is no longer there. Sorry, that's the story of progress. If you are confused, refer to auto-factory workers, real estate agents, tax accounts, travel agents,... others who have had to change their careers due to the internet and new technology. Don't worry, your not the only one going through this. Right now, I'm an IT guy who's watching all my job opportunities ship over seas. What you have to do to survive is "go back to school and learn something new."
..."in exchange for a public record to be kept in the library of congress"
Yes, and for that reason a DRMed work shouldn't benefit from copyright, because it is never intended to go into the public domain (or steps have been taken to ensure that it may end up in the public domain), even after that ridiculous lenght of time so that your kids will never see a song by the Beatles in the public domain.
Bert
This old fart thinks YouTube audio is awesome! My music collection is cassette tapes recorded through a condenser mike placed next to a TV or radio speaker.
"Copyright Alliance says Fair Use Not a Consumer Right" It is also our right NOT to buy products which don't allow us to do WHAT we want, WHEN we want. It is also not the right of the Copyright Alliance to force money from our pockets.
If you are too busy to read the article, at least read the summary.
I guess they are conveniently ignoring copyright law as written when it comes to fair use. Next step massive lobbying in congress to change it. Naw, they'd never be able to buy our upright legislators...would they?
It's already a done deal. The law's there in black and white, exactly as they've paid for, along with that 70 years after original creators death, which will be updated to 170 years in a few more decades.
Lobbying is almost as old a profession as prostitution and basically the same thing.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Microsoft seems to be a member of two organisations that disagree completely disagree with each-other. How long will it be able to argue with itself?
Has anyone been arrested, sued or whatever for making a single backup copy of a dvd or cd etc that they own? What is the point of this editorial? Do they want to see people who make a backup copy of a disk and never share it arrested or something? Is that the strategy to deal with pirates?!!? What sort of resources do they think they have if they want to take on the whole world now by calling everyone a "pirate", including the people who are currently giving them money (the consumer)? . Perhaps they need a new spokesman, because this is just dumb to broadcast your product has limited use to the legitimate consumer (who has all money they want to get their grubby little hands on). Even car salesman try to hide the limitations of sales in fast running commercial scrollers. The entertainment industry are actually paying these guys to broadcast how the legit product is limited! I just see a whole industry of anti-pirate consultants raping Hollywood, I have faith that eventually the industry will wise up to how much this is actually costing them (its a fortune directly to the pirates though!).
With deep pockets and business plans.
Quack, quack.
FBI Warning: This media is protected by government backed monopoly which lasts for an undetermined amount of time. The days of copyright representing encouragement of innovation is long passed. The sole purpose of todays copyright law is to generate profits. As such, any unauthorized duplication will be interpreted as theft of possible profits. We take information duplication/theft very seriously. In fact such crimes are more serious than many violent crimes. If you are suspected of such illegal information duplication, you face fines of $250,000, and possible jail time. Suspected parties are also subject to sanctioned private company investigations backed by federal authorities.
Ive noticed that the number of posts is usually proportional to the topic's possible effect on the slashdot community. I'm VERY interested to see how many posts this actually brings in. It'll be a clear indication of how important(or unimportant) the slashdot community thinks this story was.
I'd love it if I could go back to ebooks, but I will not until they fix (or eliminate) their horrible DRM scheme.
p x
m ons.aspx
s tation.aspx
I am a very satisfied customer of Baen ebooks. Baen does it right.
You can download in any or all of five different formats: HTML, RTF, Palm ebook, Rocket ebook, or Microsoft ebook. The book is not under any sort of DRM. They have all their new releases, not just some weird out of print titles. And they have a deal where you can buy 5 or 6 books at a time for $15!
That latter deal they call "Webscriptions". If you buy a really new book, the webscription might include only part of the book. Over time, more of the book is revealed, and finally the whole book is available. But as long as you are buying a Webscription monthly selection that is old enough (which is most of them) you get all the books at once.
And, I believe they are still doing the deal where you buy a monthly Webscription selection and you can give a Webscription selection to a friend. You do this by providing them with the friend's email address, so check with the friend to make sure he or she is cool with giving out the email address. (I made a test email account on my server, and gifted it with a monthly selection; it has never received any spam, so I believe Baen when they say they do not give out your email address to spammers.)
I have spent over $300 at Baen, and my collection of Baen ebooks is up to 200 books! That includes titles from the "free library". Yes, Baen also just plain gives away some ebooks.
Baen free library:
http://www.baen.com/library/
ebooks, and monthly Webscription selections:
http://www.webscription.net/
Here are a few free ebooks to get you going. These are some of my favorites; perhaps you might like them too.
The best of Keith Laumer's classic "Retief" stories!
http://www.webscription.net/pc-347-1-retief.aspx
A book in the style of the old "pulp" novels, with magic and mad science thrown in.
http://www.webscription.net/pc-110-1-doc-sidhe.as
Humans stranded on a planet with large intelligent large molluscs. The humans need help just to digest the local food, but they can do some things the locals cannot, also.
http://www.webscription.net/pc-287-1-mother-of-de
The first of the "Honor Harrington" series, and my favorite of them.
http://www.webscription.net/pc-304-1-on-basilisk-
I hope you will enjoy reading some of these ebooks!
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Companies make overly broad copyright claims because they don't want their customers to say they have an implied license to do X, Y, or Z. I can understand that. But why can't they say something like
This thingamajig is copyright 2007 Fonebone Corporation (FBC), all rights reserved. FBC grants you permission to do X, but does not grant you permission to do Y or Z
That way FBC retains the right to sue someone who does Y or Z illegaly, but doesn't say it is always illegal to do Y or Z.
Whether or not fair use is a "right" is irrelevant. Fair use is explicitly spelled out in Title 17, section 107 as a "limitation on exclusive rights." Not only is it irrelevant whether or not fair use is a right, it is explicity, statutory law that the rights given to copyright holders are limited by fair use. The law is nearly the exact opposite what these thieves are claiming.
Since they seem to be out for nothing more than to squeeze as much money out of consumers as they legally (or illegally) can, maybe we should remind them where their money comes from. People should just stop buying music and software until they remove their heads from their @$$s.
Can anyone explain to me the huge discrepancy between the length of patents and the length of copyrights?
1) Copyrighted works (I'm referring to intellectual property here) generally make artistic/societal contributions, rather than the tangible (e.g. physically manufactured) results of patented products
2) The production of patented (physical) products requires a much larger initial investment in capital than most copyrighted works (which speaks to the argument that "we need this to make back our investment!")
3) The cost of production for copyrighted works is also dramatically smaller than that of production of patented physical products
So why, exactly, do patents last for 17 years in the U.S., while copyrights last almost indefinitely (life of the author plus 70 years)? If we look at the purpose of these programs in terms of granting a monopoly to a given individual for the public interest, is this even remotely logical?
Fair use is not a consumer right.
It's EVERYBODY'S RIGHT!
Part of the reason for fair use is to make copyright law compatible with the US Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, but also the part that allows companies to hold copyrights for a limited time in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Fair use attempts to ensure that copyright law actually promotes the progress of the arts rather than restricts it, allowing other artists and writers to fairly use copyrighted material to create their own works. It also attempts to ensure that copyright law does not run afoul of the first amendment, allowing people to fairly use copyrighted works for news, criticism, scholarship, commentary, etc. So, yes, it can and should be considered a "right" in this sense. And thus laws like DMCA which criminalize the attempted fair use of copyrighted works are extremely problematic.
If I can not fairly use this stuff then I will not use it at all, and least of all buy it. ;-)
They've got one pretty powerful fact on their side though -- copyright, and it's cousin, patents, are about the US's only profitable exports. No IP laws means that export suddenly becomes much less valuable.
Although, the rest of the world is going to eventually figure out that the ever more strict copyright and patent laws the US keeps trying to force us into are just a means of continually revaluing their primary export.
Contracts do not trump the law. Hence the line "Void where prohibited".
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Wasn't this already covered? Wasn't this setting the 'Fair Use' argument in favor of the customer? (I refuse to use the word consumer unless it applies to a customer, hireling, pet, livestock,slave or chattel actually eating/drinking the afore mentioned 'product')
If this is left up to the parties pushing this brainwashing, then soon you will have to give up your credit card/banking info to the MafIAA, and be willing to be charged for even thinking of a snippet of some advertising jingle, much less a line from a covered song, or a memory of a movie scene.
Near Future Scenario: (I am skating as a clerk in a 'Shit-N-Git' in OK-long story, but in this town if you want gas/petrol, you either use a credit card at the pump, or prepay inside at the register.):
Me: Can I help you? *100th cusomer this hour*
Customer: Twenty in gas! *throws $50 bill on counter and starts walking out; there are 8 vehicles at our 12 fuel pumps-all can deliver gas...4 can deliver diesel...(WTF is up with this throwing money thingy?!?!?*)
Me: Which pump are you at?
Customer:*still walking out of door...(There are 2 cash registers with approx. 4-6 people at each register at this time)..THE WHITE TRUCK,YOU DUMBSHIT!!!
Me: *looks out front window to see 10 of the 12 pumps occupied....5 of them are white trucks?!?!?!- the credit/debit fuel purchases show up different on the register, but there are still 3 'white trucks' at the pump, with no fueling activated...tour bus towing an SUV pulls up blocking view of the pumps...OPPORTUNITY HERE!..Hmmmm...Fsck it! Wanna play asshole with me? Heh! Heh! Heh!, I can't ignore the customers in line that do have their shit together.
*runs 6 people inside through checkout...looks out window- tourbus pulling away, not much else happening except for a group of guys back by the beer cooler have stopped to sniff asses/bullshit-they own 2 of the 3 white trucks at the pumps...Heh!, Heh! $50 bill, $20 IN GAS AT one OF THE THREE WHITE TRUCKS?hEH! hEH!...tOTALLY IGNORE HIM AND HIS TRUCK..do I pocket the $50?
Me:* keeps waiting on customers in line in the store- just sets $50 bill on top of register*
10 minutes later: 'By now pissed off, arrogant asshole' comes back in.. still 2 customers in line...Ignore asshole as he's shouting about not getting fuel...take care of last two customers, then:
What's the problem? Can I help you?
Asshole (was customer): Where's my fuel?
Me: What fuel?
Asshole: In the White Truck!
Me: Which White Truck? (still three out there)
Asshole: THAT WHITE TRUCK!!!
Me:*throws $50 bill across, and off of the counter* Which white truck, or you just an asshole?
Asshole: Huh? *picks up $50 bill from floor* I want 50 in gas on pump #6, dickhead!
Me: I'm sorry you cn't express yourself in a polite enough manner to conclude this transaction....NEXT!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
"Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University created this humorous, yet informative, review of copyright principles delivered through the words of the very folks we can thank for nearly endless copyright terms."
g ram/film/a-fair-y-use-tale
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-pro
To each, mine.
Don't forget to abolish licensing. Since it didn't exist before recent times either. Really mess the bastards up.
This should be the beginning and end of this argument. The broadcast warnings clearly speak in absolute terms, and here we see Ross admitting that he knows that the copyrights referred to in the warnings are not, in fact, absolute. Thus the warnings are not just vague, they are factually (and willfully) incorrect. Many unauthorized uses of copyrighted works are criminal and infringing, and copyright notices help remind people that there are consequences to these uses. To which uses? The warnings make absolutely no allowance whatsoever in their wording for non-infringing uses. Again: that is simply factually inaccurate. If this was really what the warnings were for, they would say "Some uses of this broadcast are prohibited," not "Any use of this broadcast is prohibited." So, how exactly would the FTC rewrite these copyright notices to reflect a consumer's ability to attempt a fair use defense? Should they paste in all of the above language? We're wading into the area of providing legal advice, and these examples aren't sufficiently detailed for that." We're supposed to believe that inaccurate warnings about legal consequences do not constitute "legal advice," but more accurate warnings would? Sorry, that is a meaningless distinction. You are either advising consumers or not. There is no question that in the Digital Age, consumers need a better understanding of both the rights of creators as well as the limits on those rights through fair use. Education is the right approach, and one to which the Copyright Alliance is dedicated. But asking the federal government to regulate free speech is not the best way to proceed. This is not a free speech issue, it is a commercial speech issue. That is why it is being argued before the FTC and not the Supreme Court. Commercial speech can be held to a standard of factual accuracy and that is what is at stake in this case. The entire thing could be settled easily by simply softening the absolute language--reduce "Any use" to "Many uses" or "Some uses."
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are as much socially-granted rights as fair use. (And happen to be damn good ones.) All three share the quality of being relatively new ideas in society, in the grand scheme of things. You might say we'd like to think that all three of these rights are vast improvements over how things used to work in historical times. I don't see the distinction you are trying to draw here at all.
By this line of reasoning, *all* rights are socially granted. And that's sort of correct, in one sense: the sense in which we in fact only enjoy the protections that our societies (mainly via their governments) afford us. But when people complain about their rights being neglected or violated by the government, they're certainly not claiming that the government is not affording them some protection that it affords them. That would be a plain contradiction. No, a right, properly construed in this sense (which I would consider the only proper sense), is some protection that *ought* to be afforded. So when people say that freedom of religion of freedom of speech are rights, they don't mean "people don't stop me from practicing my religion or speaking my mind", they mean "people ought not to stop me from practicing my religion or speaking my mind; if they were to do so, they would be doing something wrong".
So, if freedom of religion and speech are genuinely rights (as I'd say they are), then they are not historically recently developments that didn't exist until a little while ago; they are universal and eternal rights which have only recently been *recognized*. Compare the statement that "until early last century, space was absolute and Euclidean in nature, until Einstein made it curved and relative; but even back then, the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, and hadn't been for at least a few hundred years." Sounds absurd, right? The laws of physics didn't change - only our understanding of them did. Likewise, if something is ethically right or wrong, but people didn't recognize it as such until recently, that doesn't mean it only became right or wrong recently, just that we came to understand it to be right or wrong recently.
As this relates to copyright: Despite its name, exclusive copyright is not a right per se, but a restriction of other peoples rights (or, as the government is theoretically representative of the people and always acts by their consent *coughyeahright*, a voluntary waiver of those other peoples rights) to freedom of expression in limited circumstances (namely the repetition of expressions that others have made in a fixed medium) enacted for some ostensible social benefit. That is to say, copyright law restricts the right to copy (a subset of the right of expression, itself a subset of the general right to liberty) to a given party exclusively, "securing" that right to them alone, in the hopes that good things will come of this to all those who have lost/waived their right to copy. The right to fair use is in turn a subset of the right to copy (as it's the right to copy in certain circumstances) which is explicitly exempted from this restriction. Thus, "fair use" terminology in the law describes things which are explicitly recognized as still within your rights, as opposed to the broad category of copying in general which we have theoretically waived our rights to via our government.
To recap:
- It is generally recognized that you have the right (i.e. you ought to be permitted) to do as you please, with some exceptions.
- Not amongst those exceptions is the right to say what you please, which we thus retain, though that too has some exceptions.
- Amongst those latter exceptions is the right to copy what you please, which we have theoretically waived, though again with some exceptions.
- Amongst those exceptions is the right to copy what you please in certain limited ("fair use") circumstances, which we still retain.
Note again that is just what the law officially *recognizes* as our rights; that does not
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Gripe eloquently on Slashdot?
If you want something for nothing, there are plenty of places on the web that have free stuff. There's free music, free movies, free books, all available right now. Just read through some of the posts and you will find links to the same.
On the other hand, taking something that is not free, is theft, pure and simple. You may not like how something is distributed, you may think the thing is overpriced, you may not like the restrictions, but that does not justify theft.
If you weirdos get your way and copyright is abolished, and it aint gonna happen, there would be no incentive at all to produce anything. Do you think the movie studios are going to keep making movies when everyone is just downloading and watching them at home? It's not just celebrities involved in making a movie. There are a lot of people from caterers to grips involved. When you steal a movie, you're stealing from the caterers and grips as much as you are stealing from a studio.
Personally, I think planned obsolescence is a more worisome trend. There is always at least one little part that's only purpose is to fail. The cd and dvd formats are a good example. They scratch or get dirty and then stop working. Cripes, couldn't they have but 5 cents worth of plastic around these things like 3.5 inch floppies had. But then they would last forever (or at least as long as a cassete tape).
Southern Confederation says slavery does not violate human rights.
Read radical news here
Well, there is one thing: don't purchase it. As enraged as people seem to get about these things, though, nobody actually stops buying.
So show me a brand of bananas, gasoline, toilet paper, toothpaste, or automobiles, which is not advertised by corporations who purchase advertising that contains popular music and thereby give money to the RIAA and associated companies.
Every modern consumer product costs a little more that it otherwise would, because there is a built-in tax paid to the advertising industry and the music Mafia. The global corporate profit machine has its tentacles wrapped around all our necks, and is no longer realistically subject to boycott.
You can refuse to buy music from Sony or Universal or BMG, but the minute you buy a sandwich at McDonald's or a shirt from Target, a fraction of a cent of the price flows into their bank accounts anyway.
We're all already pwned.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
17 years is a long time for video games, and music tastes now. The world is growing so fast, long term copyrights dont match the modern tastes.
Until enough people start making noise about it to lawmakers that it counteracts the noise of those high-paid lobbyists the RIAA is paying to keep the lawmakers in their pockets. Politicians are going to have to start losing jobs because of it. And though I don't see it happening anytime soon, I do think that it will happen. And I think these shenanigans by the RIAA and the MPAA is already starting to raise public awareness on the issue. Currently a lot of people think they're defenseless against this crap (if they think about it at all) but sooner or later they're going to start getting politically motivated about it. I'm hoping this will happen sooner rather than later because it's going to be really fun to watch whenever it rolls around.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You still don't understand it. "License" only applies if you want to copy those tracks or otherwise commercially use that IP. You know, Copyright.
Since copyright actually comes from the days of books and newspapers, get this: you never "licensed" a book, except if you wanted to republish it yourself. Otherwise, if you walk into a book store and buy one, that's it: you bought that book. (Or rather, a copy thereof.)
The "license" bullshit comes from software, and was based on the following weasel reasoning: to use a program, you have to make a copy to RAM. Since you're making a copy, you need a license from the copyright holder. You need their permission to make copies. You know, Copyright.
Re-read that paragraph, because that reasoning was the sole and only reason for software "end-user licenses". And, again, it never existed for anything else before: you don't get an end-user license on a book. And it's especially funny since, AFAIK:
A) Even in the US copyright law, that loophole has already been closed. So, regardless of what MS tries to tell you, you _bought_ a copy of their software, you have the same rights as if you had bought a book.
You _would_ need a license, if you wanted to press your own Vista CDs and sell them, or maybe make some derivative works based on it. Dunno, pack it together with your own crapware or themese and sell it. You don't need a license as Joe Average who just bought a packaged copy and installs it on his own home computer.
It's already a disturbing trend that a corporation can try to snow you over several pages that they can override your consumer rights... and people actually believe it. So then, it's no surprise that:
B) I now see them trying to expand this to stuff which didn't have even that bullshit excuse in the first place. To play a CD, you never needed to make a copy in any form or shape. A typical CD player never reads more than maybe a second or two ahead, at any given time.
And, oh, since you seem obsessed by that car sale:
C) Copyright never applied to stuff like cars, since you seem obsessed by that car sale. Consumer rights, however, did. There _have_ been manufacturers who tried stipulating that you don't have this or that right (e.g., that you're a criminal if you repair it yourself), and it's already been ruled even in the USA that they can't do that. You _are_ legally allowed to repair your own car, whether the manufacturer likes it or not.
You may still void the warranty if you take your engine apart. You may get extra conditions if you have to give that car back, i.e., it's a lease or rental. But a sale? A sale is final. It's yours now. It's your legal right to do whatever you damn please with it, as far as the manufacturer is concerned.
Even for rentals or leasing, it has already been ruled even in the USA that certain clauses don't belong there. Stipulating that you can't wreck it is OK. Most other stuff is not. Even if it's a contract, stuff that a reasonable person wouldn't expect in there, or wouldn't see a reason why it would be needed in there, is legally null and void even in the USA. E.g., if I had a rent-a-car shop and snuck in the fine print "I just adopted your firstborn", that clause would get thrown out of court if I tried to enforce it. It's not the kind of payment a reasonable person would expect in a contract to rent a car.
Also, a contract doesn't override the laws in any part of the world. E.g., I can't put in a contract that you're now my slave, because slavery has been outlawed a long time ago. Well, the same applies to copyright law (which _does_ include that fair use clause) and consumer rights laws. _Regardless_ of what a contract says, it can't take away your legal rights.
Also, the idea of a contract is, or at least used to be, something that has been explicitly agreed upon and signed in advance. It's (or used to be) also expected that if any point is even borderline controversial, then it would have been explicitly brought up and dis
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law#_note-2
My backup chemistry thesis stored on Data Storing Bacteria mutated; granting me a degree in forensic anthropology. v4sw7
IANAL and I didn't even read the whole article, I just wanted to see their justification for the headline. Which is basically playing with words. Like previous posters said, this logic also implies that their is no producer right to protect works. The bit that got my attention was:
"In one example of fair use, CNET is free to report and comment on newsworthy events and to offer informative consumer reviews of new products"
In what way has this anything to do with fair use? Or copyright? It's only fair use in the small minority of cases where they quote (small sections of) copyrighted material (including sometimes photos, but most news photos are going to be licensed). These articles always read like not only is the writer spreading FUD, but also hasn't got a clue in the first place.
sam brightman
I think that the media companies should stop pushing their luck. The copyright has been kidnapped by the mediacompanies and that it is time to review it. The idea with copyright is to protect the right of the creator, not the rights of multinational companies.
"It is not some "inalienable" God Given right like free speech or freedom of religion."
Actually, I think the "inalienable" rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Those are pretty broad, but a reasonable person would conclude that that copyrights don't fall into that realm. So if we're talking philosophically (and we are, since probably neither of us is a lawyer), then if fair use can be argued away so casually, so can copyright.
I think the corporations being pretty shortsighted, but corporations tend to do that. They would stab themselves in the eye if it made next quarter's results look better, never mind that it would put them out of business in 5 years. So perhaps it is time to codify fair use as part of copyright to help these guys help themselves.
I mean, to me, if I tape a game off the air, it's a reasonable thing to loan the tape to my buddy at work. But I'm sure some company would claim I was stealing from them. But then again, you can probably find companies that would claim anything you do as stealing from them. I've heard an RIAA representative claim in front of congress that if a person gives a copy of a CD to their spouse that it's stealing. Orin Hatch disagreed with him, but it does give you a good feeling that the RIAA thinks anything you do that doesn't result in direct money to them should be illegal. That's why it's hard to take the record companies seriously. I'm listening to free streamed music as I write this. The RIAA thinks that's illegal and is doing their best (as I type this) to shut it down.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The article is obviously the direction that the copyrights groups are about to take. That is, to try and weaken fair use. They will have to take several approaches. The first is legislature. Not likely to work at this time. So they will have to go via the courts. Once this appears in courts, I think that they will likely strengthen the fair use part of this. Now, the real question is, how do we get back to "limited time" for copyrights?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Here is a list of "consumer's employees"* that get the money from these people of RIAA and MPAA. Political Money Line.
So you can do the math as you see employees from the republicans and employees* from the democrats are both taking money from the entertainment industry, so that your right to vote is basically screw up. You can choose right or left, you're probably gonna choose someone paid by them.
Copyright legislation is no longer current with modern society? Agreeable. Election and Lobbying systems are no longer effective to defend the people? PROVEN.
*Employees = Deputies, Senators, the President: you elect them and pay their wages, why do they get money from a industry that makes a profit out of you?
Many of these considerations come from the Blog of Peppe Grillo a italian comedian disgusted by politics
I wish.
You obviously never had to share a workspace with an asshat like the one I have to share with (hi Dave, you dinosaur motherfucker). I swear, his brain just stopped in 1979. I have to listen to fucking Journey, Boston, etc. OVER AND OVER EVERY FUCKING DAY!!!
.A house divided against itself cannot stand.
In other news:
Consumers say "screw you, Copyright Alliance, we take our money elsewhere than to you selfish bastards"
next weeks news:
CD and DVD sales dropping again - Copyright Alliance says "Piracy has increased"
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I'm never paying for music or movies ever again, and I'm the local dealer in such things for everyone I know, so they don't pay either.
Personally, I love it. All these entertainment industry guys, who thought they were god's gift to the universe and that they were curing cancer and bringing about world peace, are all in a hissy fit as they see their precioussssssss business model eaten alive by technology in the hands of the people. No more Ferraris for you guys, you crack addled, misogynist sacks of pig shit. Ha ha ha ha! Bend over and take it hard, boys! The strap-on of ever increasing technology is coming for you! The future is a butch dominatrix with PMS.
... that to read a book you have to make an image of the page on your retina. You know, a COPY.
If this "IP" is to be treated like "RP" then treat it like such. Taxes, squatters rights, abandonment laws, inheritance tax the whole schmeer.
See The Lunar Men: Five Friends Whose Curiosity Changed the World by Jenny Uglow ISBN 0374194408
What's convenient to businesses only.
You little revenue trickles shut up, pull out your wallets, empty your purses, then return to your wage slavery until we want you again.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
You've just rewritten the news. MS did not laugh; indeed they were the first to report that one of their employees had gone out of bounds with email promises. Literally within hours they contacted the two partners who had been sent the improper emails, saying basically 'disregared that, it's wrong'. If the Evil MS Borg had these companies so completely enthralled as some have suggested, it would have ended there and no one would be the wiser. But no ... it was Microsoft who contacted the Swedish Institute of Standards to explain that an impropriety had occurred. SIS then abstained from the vote.
Through MS's own, conscious actions, they ended up losing Sweden's vote. Hardly something to laugh openly about.
So far they've hidden behind manipulative language, scare tactics and relying on consumer ignorance when it comes to differentiate between copyright infringement and fair use. At least now they're they're saying it loud and clear. The battle lines have finally been declared. Bring it on, bitches!
"can't run, can't hide...oh well, return 0"
... I don't purchase much media these days.
If you're going to treat me like a crook, then I won't buy from you.
As soon as all TV is no longer "free" then I'll also stop with that media too.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
I'd love to know the legal distinction between a right and an affirmative defense. The author of the CNET article might be making a legally accurate point, much to our collective consternation.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Just a big pile of legal mumbo jumbo.
It means that Microsoft has gotten so big that it is starting to run out of other groups to battle so it is starting to battle itself!
The phrase is 'eat your cake and still have it'
but so many people insist on saying it wrong that hardly anyone realises this is the right way.
Consumer right? No. But it is a human right. It is a requirement so that we can maintain freedom from content producers. And it is a legal right, for now. The fact that this slob refers to human beings as consumers says it all in regards to what he thinks of them.
The word "consumer" was originally a marketing slur used to describe their customers and potential customers. It helps marketers to screw people over if they can de-humanize them. Much the same way a con man will refer to people as "marks." As words often do, this slur spread, and eventually, even people sometimes refer to themselves as such. It is very sad.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
Fair use is not a consumer right. It is a statutory and Constitutional right of US citizens.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
It's alright. I'll give them that fair use isn't a consumer right.
I'll just say my wallet isn't a producer right. Go watch steamboat willy in all it's glory. Keep him all to yourself. See how shareholders love you for it.
I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
If there is an alliance,then that means they get together and meet somewhere.
Wouldn't it be nice if some heroic soul knew where!
All the industry morons in charge of copyright mafiosi in one room.
What if you could have gotten Hitler,Stalin,Mussolini and Tojo in the same place before WWII happened?
I think where you imagination can take you goes without further comment.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Free speech is not a citizen right.
Reproduction is not a human right.
Etc. Etc.
can you possibly tell the difference between economic middlemen and actual artists?
i can, why can't you?
i think music existed in the 1800s, the 1700s, the 1600s... i didn't know that bertelsmann ag had to exist in order for music to exist
fascinating things you learn on teh intarweb
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
they get a job, or make music because they love music
welcome to the here and now
sorry that you think music = money. that says a lot about your love of the art form
i think music existed in the 1800s, the 1700s, the 1600s... i didn't know that bertelsmann ag had to exist in order for music to exist
fascinating things you learn on teh intarweb
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
notice that fair use is not a "consumer" right. but vh1 can put your video on the air with no notice or compensation, and that is fair use.
Copyright is an exclusive right granted to content creators by law, with certain conditions. One of them is the public's right to fair use as a defense against claims of infringement, until such time as the copyright expires and the material falls into the public domain anyway.
... 'User rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation."
It isn't a "right" in the same sense as human rights, but it is in the same sense as the respective rights provided under a contract between two parties, in this case between the content creator and the rest of the public via copyright law.
Although it isn't the same thing, the concept of "fair dealing" in Canada parallels "fair use", and, here, the supreme court in a 2004 ruling said (quoted from Wikipedia page on "fair dealing"):
"It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.
So, in some countries, the user does indeed have rights under copyright law.
Sorry, you can't have part of copyright law (the copyright holder's rights) without accepting the other half (the user's rights). That being said, in no way is fair use or fair dealing a blank cheque for users to do anything they like. There are specific conditions.
... OK, fair use is not a right then. Take it away. One right they can't take though is if I choose to purchase their movies and music. Which, if they do this, I won't. I will choose to steal them or simply refrain from purchase and viewing entirely. If everyone does this, it will solve the problem entirely.
because consumer don't have any obligation to buy MPAA, RIAA, Disney,.. crap
Actually, the original setup was 14 years plus a 14 year optional extension. The copyright holder had to apply for that and be granted.
My proposition (let's call it the Copyright And Public Domain Salvation Act) would be that all works produced from the passing of CAPDSA on would be copyrighted for 14 years plus an additional 14 years if they apply (and pay a nominal fee). After that they become public domain. For the large amount of works currently under copyright, there would be two coprimises.
1: Anything 14 years or younger would be assumed to be automatically renewed for the full 28 year span.
2: For works over 14 years old, a phase in period would be established. After a one year grace period, every year would see 5 years of copyrighted material fall into the Public Domain, starting with 1923 (the earliest year that copyright is still in force) until we were all caught up. So CAPDSA Year Two would free up 1923 - 1928. Year Three would release 1928 - 1933. Year Four would free up 1933 - 1938. And so on. If the law were passed in 2008, then we would only need 15 years to catch up.
Companies would complain, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that business would actually improve. Abandonware would no longer become an issue because companies that vanish into thin air wouldn't be around to renew after 14 years. Other companies would sprout up to take advantage of the newly enlarged public domain. Yes, people would be able to download those works for free, but a lot of people would pay $1-2 for a pressed DVD of some of them. About the only industry it would devastate would be the "Nostalgia Industry." (The folks that make money selling things that are really old to people who like hearing that stuff.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Government and corporate actions may bother you now, but they have been far worse throughout US history. Corporations would make and break politicians, work people to death, employ children, use slaves, fire people for organizing unions, create and abuse monopolies with impunity, manipulate stock prices, sell dangerous products, etc, and all of that used to be legal.
We've made a lot of progress already finding a better balance between the needs of the public and the benefit to the public from corporations, but there's doubtlessly still lots of room for improvement. And although the case of corporations screwing the public is the more common one and needs to be fixed, in some specific cases, bureaucracy and regulations are indeed unnecessarily burdensome and should be lessened.
Just say it. That's what you want us to be reduced to. Democracy will just become a minor interruption as we spend our days in economic servitude. Admit it, guys!
When you have to use an affermative defense, you have to go to the expense of going through the courts. When it's codified as a right, it can't be sued over to begin with. In many cases, you can 'win' at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars - and just not have to pay more. You don't actually get any money back from the people suing you to cover your lawyer. Yeah! that was a wonderful win now wasn't it.
In the hospital ICU with Gregory House grouching his way through entire cases of flip pads to try and figure out whats wrong (oh and DR house is pissed off a bit and is getting low on Vicoden) But No TSCOG is not dead yet.
Oh and the current status (see the Site Which Can Not Be Named for details) is
1 TSCOG is trying to get a jury in Novell
2 The IBM case may have been mooted
3 BSF is down to using interns for filings (the reality checks started bouncing a while back)
4 The PSJ rulings in IBM are still pending
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
According to some of these companies there is NO profit in the game. The accounting methods of the Media giants is only slighly better(legal?) than that used by the Mafia. Per the Jackson's audit over LOTR(1), New Line understated the profits by between 10 & 20%.
It's an open secret in the music industry that the numbers aren't right, never have been, and probably never will be. There are people out there who've had top 10 records who've never seen a penny of royalty because the record still isn't in the black according to the publisher.
On the other hand, perhaps we should go by profit with an govt auditor going over all the books. Might see a bit of change in the way the accounting is done :)
...consumers rightfully declare the copyright holders should 'Get F***ED!'. That is all.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
The *consumer* public is less and less keeping keeping this end of the "deal" anymore, as copyright infringement occurs more often (i.e. "piracy") and there is an increasingly prevalent belief (rightly or wrongly) that music, for example, should be free.
This is in no small part due to the ridiculous copyright laws and increasingly draconian methods of enforcing them.
Here, however, I think the goal is not scalping the "consumer public" but rather smaller "consumer businesses" and "consumer institutions", like, for example, schools.
Don't think for a single moment the courts necessarily give a rats behind about the principle of any sort of "deal" existing between the public and content creators with respect to the concept of intellectual property and copyright law.
There is a battle being waged by between mega-corporations and their front-men/institutions against the general public to redefine the issue solely as one of property, since we all know stealing is wrong. SCOTUS has already ruled that insanely long copyright laws are stupid but nonetheless legal. This kind of ridiculous proposition by the copyright axis of evil, as I see it, amounts to a further example of a battle we are losing (on the legal front) every day. Our only hope of success is to let the economy sort it out or a fundamental see change in how intellectual property is defined and defended.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
copyrights are not tangible. How does getting the copyright to your fathers' work make more work available? It doesn't, so there's no utility.
You're taxed on the value of work passed down from your family (inheritance tax) but "IP" value isn't taxed (so it should be taxed 40%, yes?) and if it is extended, then you've just had a windfall (and tax that at 60% for windfall tax).
What you want is "IP" to be treated like property so you can inherit it but like an intangible so that you aren't taxed on it.
Pick one.
I think it's worth noting that the most particularly virulent and aggressive manifestation of the "corporation" appears to be peculiar to the US. I've lived in Japan for many a year, and although there are problems with corporations here too, it works out differently, and generally speaking corporations in Japan are much less likely to so obviously fuck somebody over. I therefore have come to think that some of the "stench" I referred to previously is peculiar to the US.
To put it another way, there's an old quote: Don't shit where you eat. I don't think US corporations (and perhaps more importantly MBA programs) have figured that one out yet.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
No issue there, I fully agree that things have been worse further back. Speaking more recently, the corporate world seemed to be getting better. There was a lot of embarrassing bitching and moaning and begging from the car industry in the 1980s, and all the corporate raiding and downsizing, and then the overall picture appeared to even out a bit. But like many things, bullshit appears to be a cyclical market, and we're back into an upswing in terms of production volume.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Frankly I don't care if fair use is a right or an affirmative defense (whatever that is).
the problem is that IP attorneys frequently insert boilerplate warnings that have little legal validity except to convince the uninformed that they don't in fact have fair use rights. It's a deceptive trade practice in my opinion.
Hey I'd concede the point if the guy if copyright law allowed people to use copyrighted material if the owner failed to respond to a request to use it.
I've been trying to arrange a public performance of Happy Birthday for the last three years. Each year I write Warner Chappell and ASCAP for permission to sing the song. And I never receive a reply.
This apparently is standard practice.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
Using your logic, digital media shouldn't be covered by law since it isn't mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. From what I can discern, interpretation of past judicial findings on new innovations (here new technology) is to look at the new innovation as equivilant to older usages. For example, government has argued that your thoughs contained in e-mails did not meet the qualification of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as applied to mail; therefore, they could intercept your e-amil without a warrant. The courts have turned against this.
The men who wrote the U.S. Constitution were very broad in their words to provide for change. They tried not to be overly specific. As said earlier some people what to eat their cake and have it too.
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
Fair Use might not be a right. But it is still the law.
These sound like battle lines being drawn. The *AAs have always resented having fair use forced upon them, looks like we are going to have to fight if we want to keep our fair use.
"Copyright Alliance Says Fair Use Not a Consumer Right " that's the best comment ive ever heard. big business seems to have everyone hypnotized into thinking that they can do anything and there's nothing we can do about it. the fucking apathy in today's society sickens me, people used to boycott companies, today they just shrug bend over and take it up the ass. the copyright alliance needs to realize that selling to the public is not there right, its a privilege. people think that its impossible to topple these giants. no no no! people i tell you that if you simply stop buying there products, they will begin to hurt. you might say oh but my favorite artist/product/actor/publication comes from there. guess what when the company becomes unprofitable, the artists, actors, product development teams will go elsewhere. no one man can do anything untill he realizes that he can, and gets others to the cause. i want to see an article that says RIAA brought upon criminal charges for misconduct, and harassment. on that day things will take a turn for the better, i promise you. people need to get there shit together and realize that if you all stand against these companies which might number in the thousands of employees, we are millions, we wield the power of the almighty dollar! and these corporate whores will do whatever it takes to get that buck, they only abuse us because we allowed things to get this way. so please let this rant get through to one person, and let them begin to rant and get through to one person, and so on. its time that we united and told these companies that they don't control the world, that they are not doing us a favor by selling us these products, it is in fact quite the opposite! and anyone who refuses to take action needs to realize that they have just lost there right to complain. Personally i stopped buying DVD's and CD's 2 years ago. and if you think my rant is bullshit, just do some research and look a company called napster, last time i checked the music industry now sells MP3's, and some companies have begun to sell DRM free MP3's. -ashrond
I must say, I love the fear-mongering that happens here. Right down to the title of the article. "Copyright Alliance Says Fair Use Not a Consumer Right" - that should be used in writing classes to show how perception of content can be skewed.
Patrick Ross is absolutely correct - he's describing the law and how a copyright notice works. And the fact is that fair use is not a legal right - it is a defense that mitigates the charge of copyright infringement if it ever gets to court. Better put, it is a limitation on copyright law to allow for uses that violate the letter of the law but not the spirit of it.
Furthermore, at no point does Patrick Ross actually say that fair use is wrong or shouldn't exist. He is specifying the law, not morality. And, it is very true that misunderstanding the law can get you into trouble. Understanding what the law is, the intentions of the law, and how it works is very important when you're copying something. If you assume that you have a right to do something you can't, then you can find yourself suffering consequences you wouldn't otherwise if you had done your research.
Unfortunately, a lot of Slashdot posters aren't actually interested in research. And, they want to claim that fair use is free speech, and that it should be a consumer right. Let's look at both in turn.
1. Fair use is not free speech. Free speech, which is a guaranteed right in the United States, Canada (excluding hate speech), and I believe Great Britain, among others, permits you to voice your opinion or thoughts without fear of censorship from the government. It permits you to voice an opinion agreeing with somebody else - but in YOUR OWN WORDS. It is protection from government censorship of your OWN words, not license to copy somebody else's words for your own purposes. The fair use limitation allows you to quote somebody else word-for-word in a limited fashion, but it does not give you carte blanche to simply take somebody else's work and put your own name on it, or redistribute the work of somebody else without their permission. Nor should it - because it isn't YOUR work.
2. Why should fair use be a consumer right? People are willing to assert this, but so far I haven't actually seen a single informed defense of it. Unlike the right to self-defense, which has implication across a wide variety of laws in the criminal code, and is actually used by people, fair use is only applicable in regards to copyright law. And, for that matter, it only becomes an issue when an infringement case appears in court, and it only appears on the side of the defense.
For that matter, who actually uses fair use? Well, in order to use fair use, you have to be a creative artist of some sort, or a publisher, or a performer. Downloading songs onto a computer has nothing to do with fair use, unless you then use a sound clip for another work that you are creating or distributing. Which means, in short, that the people who are using it are NOT the consumers. The only people who need fair use in the first place are people who are reproducing sections of work for their own work, and by definition, this puts them into the ranks of the creative artists, distributors, or performers themselves.
So, no, fair use should not be a consumer right. Consumers do have rights, but if you are going to give a consumer a right, it has to be something that is relevant to them. Giving everybody the legal right to hover five feet off the ground using the power of the mind alone is pointless, because nobody can do that in the first place.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
total and complete $ilence.
I stopped buying CDs from RIAA backed artists year ago. I use the PMN (Podsafe Music Network) to put together my shows and to listen to music.
I stopped seeing movies from MPAA backed studios years ago. (What is beginning to happen is that CONSUMERS are beginning to ask for stuff from a producer and its actually getting made, slowly but surely.)
I KEEP my $ and I don't have to put up with ANY of their crap.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It looks like what he's really arguing is that the "copyright notice" would become impractically long, if it listed all the possible Fair Uses.
The problem I have with that, is that it's already impractically wrong by dishonestly listing prohibited uses.
Replace the copyright notice with "Copyright 2007 Major League Baseball." Maybe even say "All rights reserved" if you want to make a point about how you won't take shit from anyone.
But if you're going to play legislator+judge and actually try to explain copyright law inside the copyright notice, then you have to accept the consequences when people bitch that you're explaining it incorrectly.
I think CCIA is really just making a point through absurdity (perhaps unintentionally), and it has subconsciously gotten through to this guy but he still doesn't quite get it. Yes, you can't really change the copyright notices to explain Fair Use. Alas, you also can't really have the copyright notice accurately explain all the restrictions. To do it right, the notice is going to include many many hours of case law. So just leave out the details, say "copyright" and leave it to the consumer to research what that really means, if they want to. I know what Patrick Ross is thinking: the consumer doesn't want to. Well, that's too bad. Your desire to explain it to the consumer against against the consumer's will, doesn't give you the right to lie.
Vagueness (or deferment) is preferable to fraud.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
The crux of this flake's argument is that people are required to defend their "copyright" in a court of law; failure to do so makes the theft legitimate.
I say bull.
I favor the Rumble Defense. Whomever brings the most big guys with clubs and stones to the parking lot behind the malt shop after midnight on Saturday, and inflicts the most pain on the other side before the Pigs show up and bust us all, wins.
Well, perhaps somewhat more seriously, Copyright should extend to Ten years beyond fabrication of the work, and that's it. Ownership of the Copyright should be assigned to an actual person, no incorporeal entities (i.e. "God" or "Corporation X" allowed). Too many people contributed? Pick one. Theft of Copyright = forfeiture of all assets to infringed party. Trade and service marks should not be copyrightable or registerable, except for emblems - no words or multi-word phrases. Patents extended only to physical objects and not monkeys/typewriters concoctions such as algorithms (my mother's recipe for chess pie, or the source code for PhotoShop). Shrinkwrap licenses should be invalid, as well.
But it's your game; play it how you will.
Usus is what you get when you 'buy' a CD or DVD under THEIR rules...
:-)
Abusus and usufruct remain with the company that 'sold' you that CD or DVD.
The confusion is that for most other goods, the three things are usually combined.
But imagine is they WERE'NT.
You'd have to pay the car company extra for using (USUFRUCT') their car as a taxi.
You couldn't just drive your POS car until it died, and then just call your friends to come with a screwdriver [to take off the plates] and pick you up.(ABUSUS) (My sister did that more than once with her ancient $50 clunkers.
What should be made CLEAR when you 'buy' ANYTHING is WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY BUYING!
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"Public opinion is pretty much against them..."
You know, I don't see Joe Averageguy saying, "I'm not gonna take this !@#$ from Hollywood anymore, I'm going indie." The public opinion on places like Slashdot is certainly against them, but we're not exactly a majority of the American public.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Don't think for a single moment the courts necessarily give a rats behind about the principle of any sort of "deal" existing between the public and content creators with respect to the concept of intellectual property and copyright law.
I'm curious why you believe this. For one thing, the courts are not uniform. Look at 9th Circuit decisions then look at 2nd Circuit decisions, and you'll see what I mean. Second, in many of the cases I've read, particularly USSC decisions, the Court has given ample evidence that it understands there is a balance of interests between holders of copyright and the public at large. The record of the courts is mixed on copyright issues. While the Copyright Cartel is flexing its powers in court, it is losing as often as it is winning. But the mere presence of all of this legal activity has the general public thinking that the courts are in the pocket of the Copyright Cartel.
If anything, blame needs to be laid at the feet of Congress, for extending the duration of copyright. Their definition of "for limited times" is obviously out of whack, but the Court can't simply overturn Congressional extensions of the copyright duration. The standard of review on cases involving Congressional action having to do with the Intellectual Property Clause is quite rigorous.
We need to turn our wrath at Congress. We need to push our Congresscritters to do what they're supposed to do, rather than relying on miraculous intervention by the courts. Our only hope is NOT letting the economy sort out the problem. Our hope is in exercising our franchise, and forcing our elected representatives to act in the interests of the public.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I have seen many of these dumb analogies that you cannot copyright concrete items like an automobile or a computer. Well here is my own dumb analogy.
You paid cash for those things. Every item, no exception, you paid money and money is copyrighted. I can steal your car and computer by violating money copyrights. Money is cheap paper or even cheaper electronic entry. I could make counterfeit money for 10,000 times more cars and computers. The price of your concrete stuff shoots up. I effectively stole it.
You have no right to steal what by contract you don't own. Childish cathecting. Otherwise I could steal all your concrete stuff by violating the right to copy money.
Your only alternative is holding only concrete gold coins because all contract equity is vulnerable. So go hide in your cave or join the real world. Seriously, many of you sound like immature children who cannot have their way in the big world.
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
Unlike the baloney being spun by this character, I have, on my blog, a link to the actual FTC complaint, which accurately describes the law, here and a link to an excellent article by Maura Corbett on C/Net News, which is also much more accurate than the propaganda emanating from the know-nothings in the content cartel, here.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The only reason why people buy hollywood movies, RIAA music, and commercial software is that its better than the free alternatives. But that's changing rapidly. We've already seen Linux destroy Unix in the server market. The Linux desktop is getting better much faster than the the Windows desktop (which, with Visa, may actually be going backwards). And it's getting cheaper and easier for artists to produce and distribute their own movies and music with better and better quality. Give it a few decades and technology will allow us to give our dollars (or maybe yuan by that point) directly to artists and creative types for their innovations instead of spending so much of the cost of information products on the mundane details of bringing it to market.
So let them take away fair use. It will just mean they have to be that much better than the free alternatives.
The source article and the current debate being waged by the MPAA are just smoke and mirrors to distract us from the real issue: freedom of personal use.
As Moraelin is saying, copyright law should only apply when I reproduce someone else's work for gain. It should not apply at all when a legally purchased work is used for personal use, even if that personal use differs from what the original manufacturer/distributer thinks it should be. The only reason it does apply now is the ill advised piece of legislation called the DMCA, and even the DMCA doesn't technically limit our personal use, just our ability to remove the copy protection schemes.
The elephant in the room here is that copy protection schemes on CDs, DVDs and software are having little to no impact on piracy, but are limiting the freedom of personal use of law abiding consumers. Why, as a consumer, should I have to re-buy the same music/movies/software in order to use them in different ways, as long as I'm using them for personal use in each case? I'm willing to bet that Apple already has an update lined up for iTunes that would allow ripping of Movies, but they're sitting on it until copyright law changes before they release it to consumers to avoid getting sued for circumventing the already cracked CSS encryption.
See the EFF for a better resource on the DMCA: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA
Another good resource: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
Notice how copyright holders only retain the exclusive right to public performances.
It IS law ;-)
So, any sarcasm distinguishable from offtopic is not sufficiently advanced?
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
Note that I happily acknowledge that there are problems with Japanese companies. Note too that the problem with Sony's media arm and the whole DRM rootkit fiasco seems to stem from non-Japanese managers -- an important distinction. Generally speaking, though, Japanese companies -- when run by Japanese people -- tend to be less aggressive in their fucking-over.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Incidentally, Wikipedia's liberalism I really don't care what Wikipedia thinks about its definition of liberalism. Really, unless its technical in nature, I tend not to trust any supposedly authoritative source.
Hmm... interestingly put. But it seems you're using doublespeak to redefine the opposition, while in your GP post claiming that your own personal ideology is somehow *different* and thus exempt from commonsense criticism we might levy against 'conservatives'
It's very simple and your argument is very simple. In one corner, you have freedom, and on the other corner, you have all of the liberal pet issues such as the environment, desegregation, ending the individual right to own guns, redistribution of wealth and so forth. Every single liberal pet cause requires government intervention, and is a reduction in freedom. It just is. When you say that you are in favor of bussing, gun control, progressive taxation, environmental legislation, you have to have more taxes and more police, and therefor, less freedom. Freedom is more than a buzzword. We conservatives choose our policies not because we particularly hate the planet, but because we simply value freedom more. None of your causes are worth the dent to our freedom, plain and simple, no matter how good they are or how much convince yourselves that you are saints.
today's conservatives are really corporatists, which is just an opaque way of saying fascist, and thus, they do not value freedom very much at all, no matter how much they claim they do
Again, no. First off, your redefinition of fascism is completely wrong. Yeah, there are reconstructionist liberal historians you can cite that are trying to paint the economics of the 1930s Italy and Germany into something that they weren't, but you would completely miss the point.
But even if your definition were valid, your application of it simply isn't true and it is very easy to empirically prove. Republicans merely say that if you form a company, you should be allowed to keep what you make, and in general, be able to operate without government interference. Whether you win or you lose in business, there is no government interference.
Democrats, on the other hand, routinely work in the context of government to lock in corporations, increase social stability, basically, to create a sort of the fascist regime you speak of. They want to pick economic winners and "harness" corporations for their own state goals.
The easiest way to see this is who is the first to bail out big corporations in the USA when they get into trouble, in exchange for some corporate concession. Generally speaking, its the Democrats.
It wasn't Ronald Reagan that bailed out Chrysler, that was Jimmy Carter.
When GM posted its enormous losses last year, George Bush said that they should build better cars, but Barrack Obama offered them a multibillion dollar aid package, if they would build the kind of cars he liked.
And so on.
This is my sig.
The first 10 amendments, or rather, 10 of the first 12 proposed amendments, were ratified simultaneously. It's unclear how the courts would rule if any of these were found to be in conflict with each other, just as it is unclear how the courts would rule if the original constitution was self-conflicting or any subsequent amendment was self-conflicting.
The amendments ratified after the Bill of Rights would logically trump anything that came before them in the event of a conflict.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
why bother with this? he's already been modded down in to default -1 land.
You're famous now!