Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Law's Nesson Says P2P Is "Fair Use"
eldavojohn writes "Ars has been covering the story of Charlie Nesson (alias 'Billion Dollar Charlie') of Harvard Law who's tangoing with the RIAA in court. His approach has been revealed in e-mails on his blog and has confused everyone from Lawrence Lessig to the EFF. His argument is simple: file-sharing is legal as it is protected by fair use. I dare say that even the most avid file-sharers among us would be a bit skeptical of this line of reasoning."
As much as I'd like to agree with him, I think someone's reaching just a little too far...
The plaintiffs in cases like these usually involves throwing as many claims as possible into the fan, hoping that at least a few stick to the defendant.
This is also a favorite tactic of prosecutors in criminal cases these days: pull someone over for speeding, and charge them with possession, molesting a teenager, carrying a concealed weapon, and reckless driving. Shock the defendant into pleading guilty to the reckless driving charge in exchange for dropping the rest, when in reality he deserved no more than a $200 ticket for speeding.
So in this case, why not claim "fair use"? Why stop at just one claim? Why not raise a thousand doubts about the legitimacy of the claims? It's certainly no worse (nor less truthful) than the RIAA claiming a million dollars in damages for putting 10 files up on an FTP site.
John
It's reasonable for an artist to expect to be able to profit from their work for a period of time. Protecting that right encourages others to spend the time to create similar work.
The problem is that now that "period of time" is effectively forever, which is bullshit. Those works become a part of the collective culture of a society and it's not right for corporations to continue to hold an intellectual monopoly on those works, long after the original artists have died.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
The enormous benefit to who? Creators gotta get paid. Creators that never get paid stop creating, or at least stop doing very much creating because they are too busy doing some other job in order to pay the bills. Copyright, the idea that creators can exert limited legal control over who can copy their work, is a fairly successful real-world solution to this problem. And, on the whole, it's worked fairly well. Yes, things have started breaking down a little over the last couple decades and there are some problems that need to be addressed. A more limited term and more lenient fair-use and modification would go a long way. But content can NOT be free. It has to be paid for. The eventual viewer may not pay directly and instead pay through advertising or some such, but it's the same thing.
If copyright disappeared tomorrow, and I mean really disappeared overnight, the only new stuff showing up on the file sharing networks a week from now would be Linux builds. If, as a society, we decide that copyright is no longer working for us, we had better put an alternative in place before we pull the plug.
Honestly, this just sounds like he's torturing the concept of "fair use" until it suits his purposes. If I look cross-eyed at the tax code for long enough, I wonder if I'll find a way to have the government give me millions of dollars.
Only if you're running a major bank or large manufacturing corporation into the ground.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Eh, he's got a shot. Remember, judges are usually lawyers, too. Old ones that may have a hard time understanding technology...something the MAFIAA has capitalized on so far...maybe it can work both ways.
I don't know how happy I would be if it gets decided in his favor, really. This would set an ugly precedent...electroncally shared media would be 'Fair Use'. While the media industry is in major need of reform, I don't feel we should be able to have anything we want for free. It does cost someone money to produce this stuff, after all.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
(didn't read tfa, but here's why I think we should be sharing information:)
Because we can!
Nevermind if it's fair use or illegal. We can enrich the lives of all mankind with a press of a button. Welcome to the 21:st century.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Based on the traditional four point analysis of fair use, the typical "file-sharing" /.ers are used to doesn't seem to fair too well:
1. The purpose and character - file-sharing is hardly transformative or derivative. You could argue transformation much better with things like mashups, etc. But torrents of movies and music?
2. Nature of the copied work. If it's factual, the infringer is on better ground - e.g., if you're a chemist who photocopies a journal article so that you can take the copy into the lab with you, rather than the entire journal. There are of course fair uses of creative works, too. This would of course depend on the individual work, not "file-sharing" as a whole, though probably the vast majority of file-sharing is in creative works, rather than scientific/factual.
3. Amount/Substantiality - well, most people I know torrent the whole film, not just 5 minutes of it, so...
4. Effect upon economic exploitation of the work - would seem to go against file-sharers. Obviously they aren't buying it! And by sharing it, they may be hurting the owner's ability to sell it, etc.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
It does, however, highlight the unfairness of a law that makes do distinction between commercial and non-commercial breaches of copyright.
The damages (as they are) to the rightful copyright holder are identical whether the violator made a profit off the violation or not.
If every other lawyer in existence is telling him he's nuts, does he really have a solid chance with a judge?
I doubt it. She may listen to his ramblings, she may even humor him a bit. But unless he starts convincing people real quick-like, the judge isn't going to buy it any more than his peers.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This line of thinking confuses the creative genius with the entrepreneur.
The entrepreneur anticipates consumer need and employs capital in production to satisfy that need. He does so for the sake of profit. The creative genius, on the other hand, is rewarded through the process of creating itself.
To dispense with economic theory, I fall into both categories. I run a business, but I'm also a musician and an artist. I've written, recorded, and released an album. I've written stories and painted pictures etc. First of all, I have never met a single musician who writes music with any kind of expectation of profit. Profit is never the motive. I've met and jammed with lots of people who perform for profit, or teach for profit etc. In these cases they see the value of their product or service and will exchange that product or service. However, when they sit down to write a song, they never consider exchange. They write for the sake of writing.
If you ask any of them, myself included, if copyright has ever aided them financially they will think for a moment and then, reluctantly, answer "no". However, that is not to say that they are against copyright. Usually, they like the idea of copyright because morally they dislike the idea of some "greedy capitalist" being able to copy / redistribute and make money using their creation. However, I then ask them whether their status as a musician, and consequently further prospects as a musician and song-writer, would be aided or hindered if others distributed their work for them ?
Then they pause and think.
As a song-writer our biggest challenge is distribution. Getting radio play is nearly impossible for an independent artist. The Internet has helped tremendously, but we still have to labour really hard to get our songs up on all of the music sharing sites. Even then, few people bother to listen to us because there's so much out there that people put up their filters and wait for their friends to recommend new stuff etc.
To go back to the economic argument, if radio stations and Internet start-ups did not have to worry about copyright then web-sites, and DJs and radio stations would play and share much more music than they do now. People probably wouldn't share much more, since most people share copyrighted music in spite of the law, but in theory artists would get much more exposure while having to do less. As a result, the better musicians could conceivably get a fan-base much more easily, doors would open for them and their prospects as a professional musician would widen.
In conclusion, the only people who actually benefit from copyright are the distributors. Musicians are not distributors. It's a hard business to distribute music, and it's much harder thanks to copyright. That's it's whole point. To keep competition out. Disturbingly, competition in the mainstream music industry almost always includes the artists themselves.
If the violator made profit, that could have went to the copyright holder. So there is a potential loss.
On the other hand, if there was no profit, it is not missing from the copyright holder either.
If I were on that jury, most of his argument wouldn't sway me. But there's just one thing: the penalty. The penalty for copyright infringement is $150000?! If so, then copyright infringement must be a very serious crime, right up there with rape and murder. But p2p copying, which I would have assumed is infringement (because it seems like infringement in every way I can think of), obviously isn't anywhere nearly as serious as other crimes for which the penalty is $150k. Ergo, p2p copying must not be copyright infringement. If it's not infringement, then it must be Fair Use.
It's sort of the opposite of "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." If the penalty doesn't fit the act, then the act must not have been a crime. Or maybe I'd borrow from a certain princess: The more you tighten your grip and increase the penalty, the fewer situations the penalty must apply. Somewhere behind the law, somewhere in its dark origins, is a motivation: fairness. If you defy the motivation for the law, then there is no law. When they set the penalty for infringement to $150k, they created new criteria for Fair Use.
That's why one can say that people wouldn't buy the media if it weren't available as an unauthorized copy.
You don't even need to use that ridiculous $150k per mp3 the RIAA insists upon, just add the retail price of every work in a typical teen's computer and you'll see there's no way he or she could have bought it.
At $0.99 for a 3MB file that's typical of mp3 songs, every 100GB of media has a $30000 worth, if the retail price is used. How much do teens get as allowance? $100/week or so? Is it realistic to assume a kid would spend six years of his allowance on music, if he couldn't download it as P2P?
"Fair use" or not, the fact is that P2P harms no one. It doesn't take anything away from the legitimate owner, and there's no lost profit either.
First of all, I have never met a single musician who writes music with any kind of expectation of profit. Profit is never the motive.
I had to assume you're only working with small-time musicians, then. Copyright doesn't really help musicians until they start to gain a little bit of fame. And I've definitely heard musicians - small enough that you've never heard of them, but large enough that they're recording music - defend copyright vigorously.
As a song-writer our biggest challenge is distribution. Getting radio play is nearly impossible for an independent artist. The Internet has helped tremendously, but we still have to labour really hard to get our songs up on all of the music sharing sites. Even then, few people bother to listen to us because there's so much out there that people put up their filters and wait for their friends to recommend new stuff etc.
To go back to the economic argument, if radio stations and Internet start-ups did not have to worry about copyright then web-sites, and DJs and radio stations would play and share much more music than they do now. People probably wouldn't share much more, since most people share copyrighted music in spite of the law, but in theory artists would get much more exposure while having to do less. As a result, the better musicians could conceivably get a fan-base much more easily, doors would open for them and their prospects as a professional musician would widen
Copyright is not forced on you. You have the right to opt-out of copyright. You can go creative commons. You can declare that your work is public domain. There are even some publishers trying to make this system work (i.e. the musicians give-away their music for free; you can pay if you want, companies cannot use it for free - which is a creative commons licence). You can't use "musicians would be helped with no copyright" as an argument against copyright - because musicians *choose* whether or not they want their work under copyright.
In conclusion, the only people who actually benefit from copyright are the distributors. Musicians are not distributors. It's a hard business to distribute music, and it's much harder thanks to copyright. That's it's whole point. To keep competition out. Disturbingly, competition in the mainstream music industry almost always includes the artists themselves.
I think a lot of people would disagree with you. Maybe you're argument was only meant to apply to musicians, but as a software developer, there's not much sense in continuing to write software if I'm not protected with copyright.
That's wrong. Lessig wants to make filesharing legal. He's doing a lot more than trying to shorten copyright lengths back to "the original length".
I don't think that is necessarily true. If we assume most people have a fairly constant "entertainment budget," it stands to reason that a "pirate" that makes money from piracy has a greater negative effect on the media industry than a casual non-profit "pirate." In fact, in some case, "non-profit piracy" can actually help rights holders (for example, many people will pay money for something after they've tried it - if they did not have an opportunity to try it, they never would have paid). However, if someone has paid for a pirated copy, they're unlikely to want to pay again for a legitimate copy. While these circumstances many not always be true, the fact that they are sometimes true means that the damages are NOT the same.
With software the "performance" is the creation of the source code.
On the other hand, distributing compiled code is not performance.
Its been realized by the leading edge for many years, that software needs to operate as a service's industry, unlike hardware which is a manufacturing industry.
I think the law is beside the point. Not for him of course, but in general. The law isn't in sync with reality. Millions of people can copy and share trillions of bits quickly, and there is no practical way for any authority to know about it. What isn't known can't be stopped, counted, recorded, monitored, regulated, taxed, or otherwise controlled. Sharing is like sex, but with even less evidence. Sharing certainly can't be outlawed with any reasonable expectation of effectiveness, same as with trying to outlaw specifics kinds of sexual acts. Even ludicrously drastic measures such as shutting down the Internet or DRM crippling every PC and consumer electronics device ever made couldn't stop the sharing.
Even if it was possible to monitor sharing, the sheer quantity might well overwhelm any such monitoring. The Stasi grappled with that problem. It was simply not possible to hire enough secret police to monitor everything they wished they could. I mean, taking screen shots of IP addresses is ridiculous on so many levels. Might as well patrol the beaches, trying to stop the ocean from "stealing" sand. And then there's encryption. Just try to figure out which grains of sand the ocean can have, and which ones it can't, when they can't be told apart. By far the most effective deterrent has been appeals to morality and people's better natures. That still exists but it's wearing thin thanks in no little part to the totally unfair Mafia-like terror and extortion campaign so called "champions" of copyright are waging.
The law needs to get with the program. Copyright must go, and eventually I think it will. I wonder if he could get somewhere in court with arguments along these lines. IANAL but I believe there's a principle about equal applicability, that is, you can't have a law that is applied utterly arbitrarily to a vanishingly small fraction of those who are allegedly guilty. He's just the unlucky sod who gets to be the martyr of the moment dragged in for Inquisition style questioning and ultimately sacrifice on the altar of the copyright fanatics, who however much they rage, froth, foam at the mouth and torture victims, can't impose their religion, which in any case isn't even logically consistent. And it seems they kind of know the futility of their goals, but they keep working at it for the extortion money and because they secretly enjoy torturing people. Spoils the appearance of legitimacy when the Inquisition can be bought off. Utter hypocrisy. When the judge in the Napster case exclaimed "you have created a monster!", she merely showed just how far the law needs to go to come to grips with reality. I wish him luck, but I think we're stuck with copyright for the immediate future.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I expect you'll get modded up further, but this is dead on. Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement. The method used to infringe the copyright is largely irrelevant.
The real questions in the RIAA trials are always: was a copy made? If so, was it an authorized copy? And, of course, the RIAA evidence gathering techniques raise plenty of questions on their own.
I expect Nesson's point is being transcribed poorly. I say this because, even though he's at Harvard, I expect a professor to get at least that much nuance in the law. Even if it's only his research assistants helping set him straight.
I should also point out that $150,000 per infringement is a statutory amount. That is, the copyright law gives that amount as the damages for infringement (or actual damages, whichever is more). That's both the incentive to register your copyright (it's good to stick a verifiable date on them) and disincentive to infringe. As a matter of personal opinion, it seems ridiculously high, and perhaps there should be more discriminating infringement penalties ($100 per copied song, for example), but I don't think a statutory minimum is a bad idea in the abstract. I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think copyrights should be entirely abolished. Made sane, sure. Completely removed, no.
--
IAAL, but not YOUR lawyer. This is my opinion, not advice.
While I freely admit that this is way out of left field, this isn't as far fetched as it may seem.
May I present for your enjoyment: The Betamax decision. It is the decision that allowed us to own a VCR, and it hinged on whether making a recording of live tv for personal use was "fair use".
Let's put it up agains those 4 rules:
1. Amount of work used: fail. Users recorded the whole program.
2. Impact on sales: fail. A strong argument exists that it reduces demand for sales of that video to people who may have already recorded it.
3. Transformative: Fail. Total fail.
4. Type of work: Fail. TV programs aren't dictionaries or encyclopedeas. Most TV programs are fictional dramas.
So, under the four rules, there is no way recording live tv could be fair use. But the court decided that it was. So personal use recording was called fair use, the VCR was allowed, the copyright owners lost. Incedentally, it meant that the VCR became widespread, and the copyright owners made squillions selling videos, but that's beside the point (or highly relevant!)
So, a court deciding against all 'reason' that what everybody does is fair has a precedent - so his suggestion is not as strange as it may seem!
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Is it possible our sense of what is 'real' or 'fair' has been pushed so far to the 'right' by the outrageous tactics of the RIAA and idea of creation of "Intellectual/Virtual" Property, that we are perhaps buying into some idea of "fairness" as defined in an unreasonable system?
I.e. -- It's generally human to try to be reasonable (in a non emotional/non rant state). A tactic of Republicans during Clinton's term was to present such outrageous demands, that in order to seem "moderate", he had to stand to the right of the line that would conventionally divide Republicans from Democrats.
In a similar way, if the media companies present some outrageous version of reality that what is imaginary
or that which is 'thought' is now something that can be protected, then bought and sold -- that thoughts can be bought and sold, but they package it artfully enough, they might get people to buy into their version of reality and start creating a legal system to defend it. We might start thinking along the lines about what is fair and not fair within that 'created' system -- without seriously or critically thinking about the validity, or, invalidity, of the system created.
When a system starts needing such strong laws to protect it and massive threats of retaliation far out of proportion to the damage done or any sense of 'justice', one needs to look at why such harsh penalties are necessary to engender 'law abiding' behavior in a 'just and fair' society/system. Such outrageous penalties may be put in place out of fear of losing control -- because someone is trying to "legislate" something that is being artificially applied to society that goes contrary to human nature or contary to what is considered "innately" fair in that society.
It could easily be these problems arise because the new, 'created', 'imposed' is being seen as 'unfair' or not just by a significant percent of the population -- it's being forced upon the masses by those who can manipulate the media and legal system so that the average citizen unquestioningly accepts the premise and starts reasoning about 'fairness' within the newly created framework.
Perhaps someone with more advanced insight into the law and social-shaping by creating new "crimes" for new "virtual property" might have a view worth listening to?