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...
...going to Harvard is not a guarantee of sanity. Just looking at this guy's blog seems to confirm that suspicion. Of course, I wish him the best of luck! If he somehow manages to successfully argue his case, I will be very happy for him. Shocked, but happy.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I would like to say that Chebacca is a Wookie. Wookie are not from Endor, they're from Kashyyyk.
This does not make sense. What are Wookies doing on Endor? Why would an eight foot tall Wookie want to live with two foot tall Ewoks?
What does this have to do with digital piracy? Nothing. If this does not make sense then you must aquit.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
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.
While lauded on Slashdot, Lessig only wants to restore copyright to the original length instead of abolishing it completely
Well now, that's just crazy talk. Restoring copyright to a reasonable term? Madness, I say. It's not far down that slippery slope before we get to the point where we give Congress the right to promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting time-limited monopolies to authors and inventors. How far we have fallen from the purity of our true common law roots! We must re-enthrone the true constitutional principle, embodied in the 32nd Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to keep and bear w4r3z w00t!"
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
To you law students and young lawyers out there; please don't think you can learn anything from this case. Just ignore everything you are seeing from both sides. I have seen more bizarre filings from both sides' lawyers than I would imagine possible.
Sounds like this new exchange won't do anything to alter his opinion...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Although I have raised fair use as an affirmative defense in several cases, I haven't litigated any fair use defense scenarios yet, so I'm not going to be able to comment in depth, and I'm not going to get into any dialogue about it. Unlike Prof. Nesson, I can see no advantage flowing to my clients and future clients from my tipping my hand to the RIAA. When I have an argument to make, my adversaries can read about it in my court papers; and then we can chat about it on Slashdot until the cows come home.
But I will say this much for the benefit of my friends here:
1. Prof. Nesson and all of his assembled, learned advisors and cyberlaw scholars do the subject an injustice by overly simplifying the term "file sharing".
2. There are many different factual scenarios within the penumbra of "file sharing".
3. Some of those factual scenarios would clearly be entitled to a "fair use" defense; some clearly would not; some fall in a gray area. Contrary to what the 'content cartel' lackies would have you believe, and contrary to what Prof. Nesson's friends seem to think, we are at the beginning -- not the end -- of mapping out the boundaries of "fair use" in this area.
I will also interject, from a procedural standpoint, that I find it unusual and inexplicable that a conversation between an attorney and prospective expert witnesses would be posted on the internet; one would have to wonder whose side the attorney is on.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
It does, however, highlight the unfairness of a law that makes do distinction between commercial and non-commercial breaches of copyright.
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
The only alternative to copyright is... nothing. You can't copyright a concert. You can't copyright movie theater seats. Yet you can still sell those. If copyright disappeared overnight there would be plenty of things still being shared.
Stop think of P2P as the enemy... try thinking about it as "free publicity"
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
(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.
Unlike Prof. Nesson, I can see no advantage flowing to my clients and future clients from my tipping my hand to the RIAA.
Which makes me wonder if Charlie Nesson might be leading the opposition down the garden path, attempting to bury any real leaks out of his student brain trust under a barrage of unrelated sideshow acts?
(I'm reminded of an alleged CIA tactic called "the second cover": You wrap the secret in TWO cover stories. The first is plausible, even if potentially easily detected as bogus. The second is the kind of stuff you read about in tabloids and certain late-night talk shows (some of which may be the fossils of old second cover stories). When somebody penetrates the first cover they find the second cover. At that point any of several things may happen, including: A) They believe the second cover. Hilarity ensues. B) They "recoil" back to the first cover. C) They become suspicious of any other reports on what is actually under the covers.)
(Then again, maybe Charlie's mind has finally gone. B-( )
As with NYCL's adversaries, we'll know what the Billion Dollar Charlie team's arguments REALLY are when we read them in the court papers. B-)
Meanwhile, if this is what is going on, I hope my speculation (if it has any effect) adds to the confusion rather than blowing the cover.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
Every single good or service that has ever been invented has been done to satisfy some kind of need or desire.
When you buy something, you are acting to relieve some form of uneasiness. Maybe it's just boredom or to be part of a fad (the pet rock comes to mind), or maybe it's for survival (food, clothing, shelter etc.). But every single product or service has only existed because people, at the time they were consuming that product, felt that it made their lives better.
So if people are staying home to watch movies, then either the need that going to the theater once satisfied is being better satisfied by other means, or the cost of going to the theater is no longer in line with their subjective valuations regarding what doing so is worth to them, or the need has vanished all together.
Assuming the need is being filled by something better (or cheaper or both), we now have some new invention that replaces the utility of a movie theater. If movie theaters all go out of business then those entrepreneurs, capitalists and employees will go into production that fills more urgent needs.
This process always involves a restructuring and people will be temporarily unemployed. But any attempt to force conditions to remain the same will be futile in the long run, and will only prolong the restructuring process. It's thus better for everyone if the movie theaters either go out of business or shrink to satisfy a smaller market.
I'm sure NYCL or someone else who knows all the ins and outs can correct or expand upon this.
Don't be so sure.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I will also interject, from a procedural standpoint, that I find it unusual and inexplicable that a conversation between an attorney and prospective expert witnesses would be posted on the internet; one would have to wonder whose side the attorney is on.
The side of openness of information?
So if you hired a lawyer to represent you in a litigation, you would want that lawyer to be more concerned with the "openness of information" about your case than with protecting your interests?
You are a most unusual and wonderful person; I would like to meet you sometime.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
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?