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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.