Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fair Use Worth More Than Copyright To Economy

Posted by samzenpus on from the make-more-money dept.

Dotnaught writes "The Computer and Communications Industry Association — a trade group representing Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, among others — has issued a report (PDF) that finds fair use exceptions add more than $4.5 trillion in revenue to the U.S. economy and add more value to the U.S. economy than copyright industries contribute. "Recent studies indicate that the value added to the U.S. economy by copyright industries amounts to $1.3 trillion.", said CCIA President and CEO Ed Black. The value added to the U.S. economy by the fair use amounts to $2.2 trillion."

6 of 274 comments (clear)

  1. The difference by nate+nice · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fair use generates some money to a lot of people.

    Copyright generates a lot of money to some people.

    So the real question is what does our society value? Many people getting a slice of the the pie, or a few people getting all the pie?

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  2. Re:Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan t by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unless you only use the CC-BY license (only 60 albums exist in that license), you can't "sync" audio and video legally for free for your own projects. And that's for the CC music we are talking about

    This isn't really a comment on your thesis here, but you got me thinking ... is there a CC license that basically says, "NO, you cannot distribute my work ... you may only distribute derivative works?" In other words, sure, sync my music with your video, put it up on YouTube... make a remix of it... but if folks just want an MP3 of it, they need to download it from me. Might be kinda interesting.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  3. Re:Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan t by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not that I know of. It would indeed create a new kind of business model... which is "advertise my work by using it any way you want in your derivative works, but to download the original you gotta pay me". Although there is a danger with this idea: that a derivative is better than the original. :D

  4. Trillions, so where's the taxes? by scruge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If these soft-products, art, music, video are as valuable as the owners say they are, then why aren't they paying the approriate property taxes on them. I think if RIAA members were been taxed on true value of their product then a lot of this crap would be released to public domain in order to minimize tax expense. This BS with life time rights, when others just as creative are confined 12-15 year patient laws, has got to go. Heck you can't even own a home unless you pay property taxes. Its like renting house from the government. So why are artist exempted ??? I'll bet Micheal Jackson didn't pay shit for property taxes on Beetle music ownership, yet he made millions selling licenses.

  5. It most certainly is by SideshowBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Making a backup copy of a DVD that *I own* is very much Fair Use.

    Being able to use the music that *I bought* on whatever playback device I choose is also very much Fair Use.

  6. Compromise by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We'll share the technical and scientific literature and leave all the Britteny Spears garbage as the exclusive domain of the RIAA.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.