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."

Comments

Fair use is very simple

[timmarhy]

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.

Re:Fair use is very simple

[timmarhy]

oh and sampling for parody or amature non profit use should be allowed as well.

Re:Fair use is very simple

[MasterC]

...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.

Don't confuse fair-use with first-sale.

First-sale is really quite natural. Copyrights are placed on a non-scarce resource to make them scarce. It would be absolutely ludicrous to purchase a shovel and not be able to sell it for whatever someone else is willing to pay for it. If copyright wants to push IP to equal footing (no pun intended) of shovels then you should be able to sell your iTune or CD for whatever anyone is willing to pay.

The illusion that you can't/shouldn't/must not resell it is Big Media (TM) overencroaching on your rights. Fair use is but only one victim of DRM and first-sale is another.

I could make a similar argument against software that can be licensed only once (Steam: I'm looking at you!). MS products are another example of this.

I'm not confused but the headline is!

[garcia]

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 :(

Re:I'm not confused but the headline is!

[curunir]

One thing I found interesting about the article is that the entertainment lawyer makes one good point while trying to make a point that is almost the opposite.

From the article:

But, as a technical legal matter, fair use is not a "right," a misconception and misstatement frequently made these days.

While his point is that fair use is more of a privilege than a right, I think there's a much different interpretation of what he's saying that is important to consider.

He's absolutely correct that fair use isn't a right, it's an exception. But it's an exception to the rights of the copyright holder. And this distinction is important because it underscores how entertainment companies misrepresent copyright. Rather than copyright defining the few excepted uses allowed to people/entities who don't hold the copyright, it actually defines the few rights granted exclusively to the copyright holder.

And this is an important observation about the intent of copyright. Namely, that anything not explicitly granted to the copyright holder is permissible rather than forbidden. The big content producers would like copyright to be a limited set of things that we (those not producing the content) are allowed to do with their content, which they believe they own. But when defending our rights, it's important to remember that copyright is actually a limited set of things that we're not allowed to do and that content cannot be owned, only protected. And this is the principle that should be applied whenever something falls outside of what is explicitly stated in the Copyright Act...that everything not covered is allowed rather than forbidden.