Slashdot Mirror
Rumors of a 'Whisper Campaign' Forming Against Fair Use
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica reports that a group of companies and organizations it calls 'big content' is currently engaged in a worldwide 'whisper campaign' against Fair Use. 'The counter-reformation in question takes the form of a "whispering campaign" in which ministries in different countries are told that plans to expand fair use rights might well run afoul of the Berne Convention's "three-step test." The Convention, which goes back to the late 1800s, was one of the earliest international copyright treaties and is now administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).'"
I wish they would just choke on their own corruption. But then the evil spirit might come out of them, and then we'd all be screwed.
I heard whispers of a rumor campaign- thanks, Slashdot for setting me straight!
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
Members shall confine limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder.
According to Wikipedia, the three steps are:
1) certain special cases
2) do not conflict with normal exploitation of the work
3) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder
I'm no lawyer, so I don't have the background to understand that kind of gobbledygook. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe laws written for the sake of the governed should be written in a language they understand.
The rich bastards who own the corporations really rule the world, but they're working hard to quell a counter-revolution. They are NOT patriots od any country, no matter what country they lay claim to. They only care about their own personal wealth and power and the rest of us can go to hell as far as they're concerned.
Fair use? How about "expanding" fair use in the US to what the founding fathers envisioned, and "limiting" the endless copyrights that would have appalled them?
I have decided that I will respect no copyright older than ten years old, period. I urge everyone else to join me. I think twenty is reasonable, but damn it THIS IS WAR.
Oh yeah- I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation. Only a writer or painter or other artist should hold a copyright. Disney can go to hell (actually he probably already did).
Yeah, I'm in a bad mood. So sue me.
-mcgrew
PS- I hold copyrights. I have two ISBNs that should have already passed into the public doimain. I'm not against copyright law, only the INSANE copyright laws that are in effect now.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Fixed that for ya. And it does not need to be a "group" to be doing that. They do it anyway as this is what their interests call for.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Oh yeah- I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
Bless!
Only a writer or painter or other artist should hold a copyright.
Think about how that might work with, say, an instruction manual.
An instruction manual with, say, 200 contributors (like the service manual for a Boeing 737).
Each of those 200 content creators would have a share of the copyright. To print a new copy of the manual, you'd need to get permission from each of them -- or their descendants.
Of course, you might say you were only referring to Art with a capital A. In that case, let's consider a movie like Event Horizon. I'd say about 50 people had major creative input into that. Perhaps the right to distribute the movie to a given theatre should be split between all 50?
But the practical problem is only really the *small* half of the stupidity contained in the post above. You're saying that artists should not be able to sell their copyrights. That they should only be able to make a living by distributing their own works -- that artist and publisher must be combined into one role. That nobody should be allowed to buy the rights to creative work on spec, thus nurturing and publicizing new talent.
I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
So 6 guys get together and form Little Green Man Entertainment Ltd and make a computer game and sell it. But not to *you*. No, *you* pirate it because you refuse to honor any copyright held by a corporation. To buy these guy's game would compromise your *principles*.
Maybe if they all shared the copyright, rather than giving it to their company, you'd shell out the 20 bucks. But not until then. Because *you* are making a *stand*.
I assume that if they sold the copyright to a larger, multinational company so they could get on with making the next game rather than publishing, then your rage and bafflement would tower *even higher*. The mind boggles.
I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
Rarr!
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Oh the horror, the evil illuminati and the tri-lateral commission are going to take away Fair Use all over the world! This is all America's Fault!!
Oh wait... just one tiny little problem with the usual Slashdot conspiracy theory. There is exactly 1 country in the world that has fair use: The US. In the history of the world there has been exactly 1 country that has EVER recognized fair use: The US. No country except for the US has ever recognized fair use as a legal theory. In some common-law countries like the UK and Australia there is a parallel concept of "fair dealing", but it tends to be given a much narrower interpretation than the broad equitable doctrine of Fair Use that is employed in the US. When it comes to common law countries like those in the EU, there are enumerated lists of exceptions from copyright protection that are extremely strict and inflexible compared to Fair Use rights. This is how it has been for well over 100 years, but it's fun to see Slashdot promote FUD and ignorance instead of any type of rational discussion (again).
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
So now any post using sarcasm is flamebait? We're all in trouble.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
See the recent Texas death penalty case and international law. Once the Copyright Laws are ruled unconstitutional on length of term and excessive fine grounds, the Berne Convention too will be in the target cross-hairs. And once the US is folded out of Berne, separate international movements will do vast damage to world-wide attempts at standards and control.
They already can't enforce the laws on the books, because they are PR disasters, that only constantly serve to diminish the credibility of the law. The big media content owners are starting to run scared, as well they should be. Look at the comments regarding yesterday's study that 95% of 18-24 year olds copy content illegally. Nothing but solid contempt for these insane copyright laws. The tide is shifting, and politicians voting to screw consumers will be assuming ever higher political liability for doing so.
This is all good. These people are the evil cousins to the ultimate evil international bankers without any country loyalty or concern for consumers who confiscated real money world-wide and instituted fiat paper money debt control. They finance wars, they could care less who is at war as long as there is war somewhere from which to profit through the issuance of debt and confiscation through bankruptcy. And ultimately, the war on copyright is just the warm up battle to the war on fiat paper money. They are just printing control and printing taxation at will, at the expense of disparate international citizens. It's nothing put pure theft of the wealth which is the property of culture, of all, just like free speech and free trade.
Perhaps other countries will now better understand American disdain for the United Nations when they see other international institutions like the IMF, WB, and now the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They are there to finance themselves by legalized theft against your rights.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
It's lobbying.
Politics does not select for politicians who are deep thinkers -- although possibly there may be a few odd examples. Politics favors the gregarious, the people pleasers, the networkers.
So, suppose you are such a person, who makes his way in the world by being popular. You aren't stupid by any means, and let's stipulate for the purposes of argument you are not corrupt, but well intentioned. Still it's a fair bet you probably aren't the kind of person who likes to hike to a lonely spot in the mountains, to spend a pleasant afternoon contemplating the role of the unrestricted flow of information in maintaining a vibrant and free society.
But this is exactly the most important kind of issue that comes in front of you as an elected official. And in all probably, you don't have a deep reservoir of accumulated thought to draw upon when this comes up. You have deeply held convictions but you haven't worked out how they all apply in cases like these.
So, being a gregarious person, you draw upon the thoughts of others who had the foresight to propose the connections in advance. Furthermore, being a people pleaser by nature, your first inclination when they did this was to receive their argument favorably. You certainly did not tear it down and throw it in their face as a load of rubbish.
Having received the argument favorably, and since the argument connects the question to some of your values, like "private enterprise", you're primed to take it up as your own.
That's why buying access is such a huge win for special interests and a huge loss for democracy. It's not that there isn't corruption, of course there is. But a politician doesn't have to be personally corrupt for you to corrupt his opinions.
It's an odd thing, but being the kind of person who likes to spend quiet afternoons contemplating big questions, I have found vigorous "men of action" remarkably easy to steer. They're always up to do something and they think of themselves as "far sighted", but that usually means they don't have a clear view of how the ground in front of their feet is connected to the goals they see on the horizon. And they tend to be completely unaware that they are acting without a road map, so when you slip one under their nose, they internalize it. You can see that this is just one of many possible alternatives, but they have a way of seeing it as the one true path that they have been following all along.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Funny, I don't recall any tests having to be passed when public fair use rights were massively cut down -- for example, as they were under the European Copyright Directive a few years back. (No fair use now in connection with any activity that can't count as non-commercial, for example.)
It would take an ingenious lawyer to argue that any of the fair use rights that coexisted happily with the Berne Convention for most of a century, are somehow in conflict with it now if there is any movement to revive or restate them.
-wb-
it is interesting to see ministers and legal wranglers reaching back this far in copyright history for a sense of stability and coherence in copyright law. it shows desperation, confusion, fear. however, what the internet has done to copyright is yet a more fundamental reordering of the landscape than even law going back to the 1800s
it is simply that at one time, the means of production and distribution of media was confined to a few players. this meant that agreeing on rules, and compliance and enforcement was relatively simple and straightforward. as recently as the 1980s, if someone was counterfeiting vhs tapes, for example, the operation was ponderous, slow, required a heavy initial investment, and was relatively easy to trace and shut down those few random players. this limited piracy to a few hardy organizations
but today, the power of global distribution that was once confined to the likes of bertelsman and sony is in the hands of every college kid. enforcement? ha! compliance and agreement on the rules? ha!
the assumptions about distribution that created copyright law as we know it is so fundamentally altered as to be so alien a landscape that copyright law is simply completely and utterly destroyed. for those of you doubting this, you are simply in denial. you can't make a law that is impossible to enforce. well, you can, legislative bodies do it every day. but it simply doesn't mean anything, it's hollow, it's a joke. that's what our copyright law has become
the last ten years has simply been a slow process of awakening the world to this fact. the next ten years will simply be more awakening to this fact, everyone getting on the same page: copyright law is broken. utterly
this is what they mean by disruptive technology. the internet destroyed copyright law by making every single individual in 2000 have the same distribution power that was confined in 1990 to sony and bertelsman
obviously, rights and morality and ownership in the realm of media are issues that are still valid. these issues still need to be addressed legally. but the legal and compliance framework around these issues will need to be built almost from scratch, and copyright law as we know it must be thrown out almost in its entirety: all the basic assumptions it is founded upon are completely reordered
personally, i think some form of copyleft a la "free" software will be the basis for our new legal framework about all media and distribution: music, books, movies, etc
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What kind of a test is "certain special cases"?
-Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
... when fair use is outlawed then the only use will be unfair use. Otherwise why publish?
...a game of Chinese Whispers instead! Next thing you know "Fair Use" will be said in the same sentence as "Supporting Organised Crime" or "Supporting Terrorists". Probably by the RIAA or the MPAA next time they go to Congress or a Court Case..
Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
Exactly, as prior international case law demonstrates that increasing the length of the copyright right term is legitimate under the provisions of the Berne Treaty, so to is therefore changing the length of the copyright term to ZERO legitimate. There is also precedent for differing terms for individual national rules under the Berne Convention. So this treaty is a hot air balloon just waiting to be poked by any and all national changes to copyright law.
And this Berne Convention International Copyright Treaty is itself *illegal* under United States law, as the length of copyright terms are unconstitutionally not contemporary limited. Maybe we don't even need an actual copyright infringement case to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, and can just directly attack Berne itself.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
As a Muslim, I'm interested to hear just what you think the "true nature of Islam" is, Mr AC.
I hate printers.
Oh wait... just one tiny little problem with the usual Slashdot conspiracy theory. There is exactly 1 country in the world that has fair use: The US. In the history of the world there has been exactly 1 country that has EVER recognized fair use: The US. No country except for the US has ever recognized fair use as a legal theory. In some common-law countries like the UK and Australia there is a parallel concept of "fair dealing", but it tends to be given a much narrower interpretation than the broad equitable doctrine of Fair Use that is employed in the US. When it comes to common law countries like those in the EU, there are enumerated lists of exceptions from copyright protection that are extremely strict and inflexible compared to Fair Use rights. This is how it has been for well over 100 years, but it's fun to see Slashdot promote FUD and ignorance instead of any type of rational discussion (again). In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
VS
six principal criteria for evaluating fair dealing.
1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights."
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required.
"These factors may be more or less relevant to assessing the fairness of a dealing depending on the factual context of the allegedly infringing dealing. In some contexts, there may be factors other than those listed here that may help a court decide whether the dealing was fair."
You can't take the sky from me...
I think the reference was supposed to go to the movement within the Roman Catholic church at the end of the 30 years war, around 1650, when they tried to counter the protestant movement. While I can see that the big studios try to counter any development in fair use (or any kind of movement that limits their power), what they do is closer to the reaction of the Hussite Wars and the Great Schism. No, even then the RC church reformed. Maybe it's closer to the Schism between the RC church and the Eastern Orthodox church.
What I mean is that the counter-reformation led to change within the Roman Catholic church. It led to less greed (or at least less display thereof), less concern with "worldly" matters and a refocus on their original purpose, the leading of a spiritual group.
I doubt this "counter-reformation" in the music biz will lead to a refocus on the original intent of the copyright.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you're asking me why *you* should become a Muslim then I don't have an answer for you, contrary to what you might think thanks to the media, Muslims believe that there is no compulsion in religion.
If you're asking me why *I* am a Muslim, I'll answer that it enriches my life in ways that I cannot explain using the blunt tool we call language.
I hate printers.
however, you are making some assumptions
#1: that current copyright law rewards content creators. it actually rewards content distributors
#2: that current copyright law is the maximum benefit for creators in terms of reward and protection. no copyright law at all provides equal benefit
how the heck can i think that?
say i give away a copyrighted song for free on the internet. under the old way of understanding, this is hurting the content creator. in actuality, this is giving the content creator free publicity. then how does the content creator cash in? radiohead simply put out a tip jar on the website that gave away its music for free. they made millions. they also made more than if they were working under the old copyright system, since they would only get fractional pennies while the distributors made dollars on every cd
yeah but radiohead was made by the conglomerates. yes, this is true. and radiohead was also owned by them. radiohead, prince, the beatles: after enough fame, you can cut yourself free, and make real money. all fo the one hit wonders form the 70s, the 80s, the 90s: they lived the high life of limos and big hotel rooms for a few months, all paid for by the conglomerates. when all is said and done, they were left with a few pennies. the very elite like michael jackson and the rolling stones cash in by retaining the rights to their songs. they get leverage on their name. but you are talking about the ultra-elite here, not the vast majority of artists
content creators will always make money from advertising and concerts. consider those nobodies featured in apple itune ads. that's how they cash in. they are paid by apple. not because some copyright law got them paid. they were unknown. its easy to enforce a check from apple
in the new world, their recordings are simply free advertising, not another revenue stream. the old copyright world will still exist, where content creators do deals with conglomerates that heavily promote them, reaping millions for the conglomerate, fame for the creator, and a contract that lets them see very little actual money. this is the way it has been for decades, and the way it will continue to be
meanwhile, the internet simply opens the chance for tiny niche players- the guy at the local bar, etc., to get their stuff out there, to get known. to self-distribute. the assumption is that by giving his music away free on the internet, he is losing out on cash. this assumes that anyone would actually pay him, or that he would actually make money via the conglomerates, then, or now. so copyright law doesn't serve him, nor would it ever. the idea is to give it away for free to make fame, which you then cash in on via concert venues and ad deals
now we have an open door to the possibility of the internet-made music sensation. who, by giving away their music for free, catapults to fame via word of mouth, and cashes in with concert venues and advertising
and then, if an artist gets lucky and enters the realm of the ultra-elite like jay z, concerts and ads will be his cash cow. yes, he won't make any money from recordings. and so what? that's just advertising for him now
it's a different paradigm, it works, it rewards artists, often better than the old system that rewarded the distributors. and it doesn't require copyright law. because copyright law assumes only a few distribtutors, its enforceable. with everyone a distributor on the internet, its unenforceable, and simply not part of the cash equation
its the television model: television is given away for free over the air. yet it makes billions: advertising
and concert venues
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, I think a blunt tool is exactly what you should use on him to help him understand the issues at hand.
Oh read the Bible before, it's totaly dispicable of course, but at least you have to get a few chapters in before the hate speech starts, but the Koran opens with a rant against unbelievers right at the start. Kind of sets the tone for the rest of the book. I could probably read the bible for half an hour before I get to some part promising death and pain for unbelievers, whereas the Koran, I get there in about 20 seconds.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Taxation? Yes. A clever ploy to give an incentive for conversion to the Dhimmis who don't really care about their religion and their offspring.
Oppression? If by that you mean legal historical social discrimination or segregation, sure but to a much lesser degree than black segregation in the U.S for instance and based on varying interpretations of hadiths, not the Koran. Shame on any muslim who is guilty of lack of love, tolerance and respect for human life, regardless of belief. Hell, shame on any human.
Enslavement? No. Specifically forbidden and a mortal sin.
The problem is that people amalgamate religion and fallible, temptable, potentially evil adherents. People are the problem with their pesky free will and weakness of character. If you expect a religion to just reprogram any self-proclaimed muslim into a saint, then feel free to bash Islam all you want because it clearly failed.