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
You're absolutely right. As much as people may hate it, the companies can use all sorts of means to prevent you from accessing their copyrighted material in any unapproved manner, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Well, there is one thing: don't purchase it. As enraged as people seem to get about these things, though, nobody actually stops buying.
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.
Actually that's precisely the imbalance we now see in copyright law: their "rights" have been enshrined in new laws (DMCA) whereas our "rights" have not.
Previously, there was some sort of tenuous balance, though it wasn't specified by law: people could use copyrighted materials in certain ways (fair use), and companies were pretty much guaranteed that widespread infringement would be easy to deal with (since printing presses were big and expensive). In the modern age, the companies see their previous comfortable position being eroded (by copying and distribution becoming trivially easy). So they get new laws to give them back the comfort they previously had. They claim that this is their "right" and so now we have the DMCA, granting them these "rights."
The people, meanwhile, are seeing fair use eroding more every day (DRM, etc.). However, fair use has not been protected by any new laws. So companies can use technical measures to prevent fair use, and there's nothing we can (legally) do. The balance is gone.
Personally, I think the means of restoring the balance would be to repeal the DMCA and even scale back copyright law, rather than creating yet more laws.
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.
Actually, it's the precise reason I haven't bought a CD or DVD since the RIAA and MPAA, respectively, started this little anti-fair-use jihad of theirs.
Here's an example: I subscribe to HBO. HBO shows, say, "Superman Returns." I can watch it legally on HBO. I can record it and rewatch it. The MPAA is arguing that I can't "context shift" that material so that I can watch it when I'm stuck on call at work. (Doctor. Lots of down time in the middle of the night.) What has the MPAA lost? Nothing. What has HBO lost? Nothing, because I already subscribe to that channel.
Now, I can see the MPAA's argument if I don't subscribe to any of the "premium" channels and am doing this, but regardless of HOW I get the material, I'm paying to view it. Frankly, the more the MPAA argues these points, the greater the chance that people like me are just going to stop subscribing to the "premium" channels in the first place. They've already done great strides for this with CableCard. (i.e., I'd love to record my favorite programs to my PC, then load them on my laptop and watch them during down time. Unfortunately, idiotic encrypted QAM prevents that.)
The same goes for the RIAA. If it's "fair use" that I record a song off the radio, then how is it any different if I obtain said recording through a different means? Sure, I *could* go set up a recording rig and hook it to an FM receiver. I have the equipment to do it. In that case, I have the content, and it's "fair use." So if I obtain it through different means, it's the same data. How is that not "fair use?"
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.
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.
Sorry, but your car analogy (on Slashdot?! Who'd'a thunk it...) is completely wrong. If you *sell* me your car, I can do as I damn well please with it and there's not a damn thing you can say or do about it. If you *license* me the car, then you have control. And when your licensing terms suck, I'll go elsewhere.
Thanks for confusing the issue, though (and somehow getting moderated insightful...sigh).
This is part of what's crap with the current system. I walk into a store, find a CD I like, give the clerk money, and take it home. This, by definition, is a sale. That CD is mine to do what I want with. At no point in time during this transaction was it brought to my attention that I was actually agreeing to a license. Since you brought up cars...Imagine what would happen if I "bought" a brand new Ford and Ford then told me that I couldn't give rides to my family, friends, co-workers, etc. because I didn't have a multi-passenger license. Of course, they'd quickly offer me the "opportunity" to upgrade my license (for a fee) to allow this, as well as charging any person who wants a ride in my car a license as well. Don't like the car analogy? What if it were a house and the builder put these limitations on it? What a brain-dead system, all because "artists" think they're special (read: Better than everyone else).
But let's say it is actually a license. That makes it a freaking contract. That means that everything, all privileges, limitations and responsibilities, needs to be written down. Then all parties have to show what they're giving up in order to get something. Then all parties have to show they understand the terms. Then all parties have to sign it. And it needs to be kept on record. I need a copy and the manufacturer/producer (eg, Sony BMG, Universal, etc.) needs to keep a copy. That way, when I lose the physical medium of the work that I licensed, they can quickly provide me with a new copy for almost free (material cost and S&H).
I won't go so far as to say that copyright needs to be abolished, but these companies need to be reminded that it's a privilege, not a right, that they're granted. And as for duration, it needs to be shortened, not lengthened. (Financial and technical) Limitations from 200+ years ago justified 14-year terms. But in this nice modern world of ours where everyone has a computer with a word processor, an internet connection and access to Print On Demand technology, it's easier and easier for the artists to make their money back and then some, meaning the duration of government protection via fiat monopoly ought to be decreased.
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.
Even if you don't accept the terms of the licence, the Law of the Land (Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended) gives you the right to use the software for its intended purpose. And a contract cannot take away a statutory right.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!