Slashdot Mirror
What is Fair Use in the Digital Age?
Hugh Pickens writes "General counsel for NBC Rick Cotton and Tim Wu, professor at Columbia Law school, continue their debate about copyright issues and technology on Saul Hansell's blog at the New York Times discussing Fair Use of commercial music and video as the raw materials for new creations. Cotton says that content protection on the broadband internet is really not a debate about fair use The fact that users can 'take three or four movies and splice together their favorite action scenes and post them online does not mean that these uses are fair. There needs to be something more — something that truly injects some degree of original contribution from the maker other than just the assembly of unchanged copies of different copyrighted works.' Wu's position is that 'it is time to recognize a simpler principle for fair use: work that adds to the value of the original, as opposed to substituting for the original, is fair use. This simple concept would bring much clarity to the problems of secondary authorship on the web.' This is a continuation of the previous discussion on copy protection."
If i've purchased a song, i should be able to use it anywhere,on anything and at anytime of my choosing for personal use, and i should be able to exchange my license to use this music with anyone else for a swap or money exactly like any other 2nd hand market.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
There is no difference in Fair Use rights in the "Digital Age". It's the same as it's always been. It's only because of the misinformation campaigns by the RIAA and MPAA that we have a society that's confused about the rights they have had for quite some time.
:(
Unfortunately, the sheep are easily swayed over time (the frog/boiling water deal I suppose). I'm not fooled and hopefully they won't be able to fool intelligent judges either. They might buy over Congress but someone needs to put their foot down and stick up for us.
I'm tired of stories like this
My personal view on fair use is much the same as my view on downloading - fine if you do it for yourself or with no intention of profiting from it, but bad if you attempt to sell it, whether through burnt DVDs in the market or using clips from films/pictures/music to bring people to your revenue generating website, and so on.
It's a yin and yang - downloading or fiddling around with videos or music may cost some sales, but it can also generate new fans, who will purchase when they otherwise wouldn't. So what if splicing 3 or 4 clips together doesn't have much artistic merit? That's a purely subjective call, and in this age, it seems that computer software is the popular artistic tool of choice.
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
I agree though that the digital age really makes no difference. The real change has been a shift is society's values. Me, me, me!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
And how would we measure that? Adding content != adding value. Conversely, a new blend of old content can change the contents "feel," message, and/or meaning. I would love to see the "value matrix of subjective content."
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
Someone didn't read the article :-) To quote Rick Cotton (the bad guy):
First of all, as Mr. Cotton duly notes, and as we often hear here on /., there is no such thing as a fair use "right." It's only a defense against infringement. To respond to your point, I'd argue that since the technology has changed so drastically, not only for enabling infringement, but also for enforcing copyright, the laws ought to be looked at again. What wasn't even on the map when fair use was being hashed out in various cases is now commonplace. It's time to reevaluate. Fair use should change as a result.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Anime Music Videos are perfect examples of fair use. You can take a speech from a comedy show, mix it with some scenes, and have a hilarious mix entitled "the flying car". A much more artistic example is "I must be dreaming", which not only adds clips, but some special effects as well. Or if you like violence, how about a little Mortal Kombat ?
:(
And last, but not least, AMV Hell 3: The Motion Picture and AMV Hell 4: The last one. Some of the clips there got me laughing for hours.
What would be of Entertainment and creativity online if all the music and anime producers sued the AMV makers for copyright infringement?
What about music that's written with the intent that it be used as a backdrop to something else, like a film score? The intended use of that music is to be incorporated into something else that adds a layer of creativity. If you say "any use that adds something to the work is fair use" then film scores effectively lose ALL protection. The original film, for which they are written, wouldn't have to pay royalties because it would be adding something and making "fair use" of it.
Same for stock photography and stock video providers -- their GOAL is to provide raw material as input into a larger work. They spend a lot of time and money shooting and editing stock. If you claim any use of their work is fair use (it's always incorporated into a larger whole, and often transformed along the way) then stock photographers and videographers can't get paid (all use is fair use--why pay for it) and might just stop producing stock material. It's a huge benefit to illustrators and designers to have stock photography and video available. (As an aside, some stock photographers create really good work)
How does he address the fact that some people design work with the hopes of being paid by producers who will assemble it into a larger whole, and that producers are glad to have designer's work available?
"What is Fair Use in the Digital Age?"
The same that applied in pre-digital, digital ages:
Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate. There. Now, transferring that age to this age, add: "Don't digitize or compress; decompression not guaranteed" the membership.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
How do the courts determine when an altered copy, of anything, represents "added value"?
If the courts can do that, how, then, can they decide how to apportion the revenue from the altered copy?
My fundamental problem with the notion of added value is that it is an "in the eye of the beholder", "he says, she says", kind of opinion. In practical terms, no one is likely to tell a court that his altered copy removes value.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
work that adds to the value of the original, as opposed to substituting for the original
And who gets to determine what "adds value"? Here's a random example I just came across today that rides the line: the full Steve Jobs Keynote vs. this 60 second recap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz1-cPx0cIk
That can both substitute for the original, and yet I think adds value. Not just by being short and informative, but by satirizing and commenting on the effects of 89 minutes of fluff marketing. Is it fair use?
Cheers.
Fair use is not all personal use. Some people argue that taking a sample of a song and using it in another song is fair use. Other people argue that putting videos on Youtube (which is a commercial, profit-making venture) can be fair use. Personal use is ONE part of fair use, but it's not ALL fair use.
You're not meant to keep them "in check". The point of a debate is to actually allow the other person to speak, and to engage in discussions about the merits (or otherwise) of those points. Although, based on what I've seen of the /. moderation system, maybe I'm wasting my breath...
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Here's the deal. You get to use publicly owned material like the English Language, classical music, out-of-copyright books and traditional stories (hello Disney), pictures of public places (including MY HOUSE damn it), regional accents etc. in return for some fair use rights and a limited (say 15 year max) copyright term. Sound fair?
Nothing that big media produces is entirely original. Apart from the fact that they use a public domain language (English) with slang and common metaphors not written by them, they of course are inspired by earlier work. Bands like Oasis wouldn't exist without The Beatles, yet they pay them no fees. The Matrix is just an updated version of Descart's "I think therefore I am" idea.
Either they give something back or they start paying.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC