Slashdot Mirror
Fair Use Threatens Innovation, Copyright Holders Warn (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader shares a TorrentFreak report: Various music and movie industry groups have warned that fair use exceptions are a threat. The groups were responding to proposals put forward in Australia by the Government's Productivity Commission. They claim that content creators will be severely disadvantaged if fair use is introduced Down Under
. Several rightsholder groups argue that strong copyright protections are essential for the survival of their businesses. This includes a long copyright term of 70 years, as well as the ability to block access to content based on the location of a consumer. In addition, many believe that fair use exceptions will do more harm than good. For example, music group IFPI warns that fair use will threaten innovation and create legal uncertainty. "Licensing, not exceptions to copyright, drives innovation. Innovation is best achieved through licensing agreements between content owners and users, including technological innovators," IFPI writes.
Why would it be called "fair" in the first place if it wasn't actually fair?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Obviously! Because fair use has so very much stifled the greatest content creation nation on earth, USA. /sarcasm
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They're so full of it. What about licensing brings about innovation? Are they claiming people will only make new things if there's money to be had? I thought we debunked that myth a long time ago. Money is not the only motivating factor of innovation. I'd say it's the least important one, in fact; many people pursue what they do because they enjoy it and/or believe in it. The money's a damn nice bonus, but ultimately the goal of innovation is to improve the work/art in the field. If laws are passed that allow people to borrow ideas and combine them in ways people didn't anticipate, that's the very definition of innovation. Nothing is created in a vacuum, and holding exclusive rights to something for X amount of time only prevents innovation, *not* foster it.
They're a bunch of artless, lying suits, as we've all come to expect from the recording industry.
...can we just disenfranchise these fucks and hunt them for sport?
If licenseing drives innovation, this is a simple problem to solve. Require all copyright holders to use a license that includes some prescribed fair use clause. Done. Next.
There are plenty of business that survive just fine without freeloading on content that was produced almost a century ago. If you are unable to do that, that's a problem with your business and you *deserve* to go under. In fact, we wish you would so that better businesses can be built upon your stinking rotting corpse.
Sincerely,
Everyone.
Copyright extension to 70 years encourages innovation, because of course the original creator expects to still be alive and deriving revenue from their work 70 years later, right? This get one thing straight: Copyright isn't encouraging innovation, it's guaranteeing a revenue stream for the corporation that commissions the work for hire or buys the copyright from the original creator. Oh, and ALL creative works are derivative to begin with, so don't even try to tell me copyright is protecting "original" work.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Follow the money. Are the people making this "fair use stifles innovation" argument the original artists creating new content, or is the argument being advanced by companies that have bought the rights from long dead artists?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I'm glad to know that innovation in movies and music didn't exist before licensing. Thank you for letting me know, licensing giants.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why would they have to protect themselves from large corporations that invoke fair use as a defense? Fair use, by definition does not adversely impact the value of the work in question. If the copyright holders are being harmed in some way by some particular usage, then fair use cannot be deemed to apply in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Various educational and parody groups have warned that copyright holders are a threat. The groups were responding to proposals put forward in Australia by the Government's Productivity Commission. They claim that fair use will be severely disadvantaged if draconian copyright enforcement is introduced Down Under . Several educational and parody groups argue that strong fair use exceptions are essential for the survival of human culture. This excludes a long copyright term of 70 years, as well as the ability to block access to content based on the location of a consumer. In addition, many believe that copyright holders will do more harm than good. For example, Creative Commons warns that copyright holders will threaten innovation and create legal uncertainty. "Remixing works, not licensing, drives innovation. Innovation is best achieved through letting people do more with the content you create, because everyone can enjoy the resulting remixes," Creative Commons writes.
Fair use is essential.
Corporations exist to disrupt society, not to create it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Weird Al! Since music was mentioned in OP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Want to increase innovation? shorten copyright significantly. One could put in a provision to copyright law to guarantee a percentage of future profit or minimum return for smaller scale 'inventors'.
Literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of everything in this story is true. These "rights holders" can go fuck themselves after they finish spinning this story.
If fair use is hindering their business, how would free use weigh in? Take open source, for example. Microsoft could easily argue Linux is making it difficult to sell their OS for server use. In fact, I'd imagine that if they somehow managed to eliminate fair use, free would be their next target: making it very difficult through restrictive legislation to produce something for free unrestricted distribution without some sort of monetary aspects attached. Essentially forcing all competition to play on the platform they fully control.
There's been some very worrying news coming out of Australia in a steady stream. The Big Brother is certainly on a roll there.
-SR
Thank goodness Shakespeare had copyright protection back in the day or we would still be waiting on those monkeys to write Hamlet.
Many will be happy to produce content with a balanced copyright law with fair use provisions. Those who would not can simply not produce. That will create room in the market for less greedy producers to fill.
John_Chalisque
that innovation threatens copyright holders.
How Orwellian of them to say so...
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
So, fair use threatens the survival of their businesses. In other news, the automobile threatened the survival of the buggy-whip manufacturers and the integrated-circuit chip threatened the survival of the makers of vacuum tubes.
"as well as the ability to block access to content based on the location of a consumer"
Well, the ability to block access to content based on location HAS forced innovation in the form of bringing VPNs to the masses.
Even the least tech savvy people I know now have VPNs to watch American Netfix.
The public domain drives innovation. A lot of creative works today are based on older works that are in the public domain. For example many of the Disney animated movies are based on older works that were in the public domain. The US Founding Fathers recognized that a limited monopoly for artistic and linguistic works was good for innovation. Copyright holders would like an unlimited monopoly, and at least in the US, that is very much unconstitutional. We need more works entering the public domain. If creative works enter the public domain sooner, within reason to allow creators to profit for awhile from their works, there will be more derivative works and more innovation.
full stop, it should be eliminated completely.
I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
-MPAA boss Jack Valenti
What fair use threatens is the income levels of the rights management industry. It may have some affect on the actual artists, but not to the extent that it will affect their desire to create.
And so was the video cassette tape and the DVD.
And a long list of others.
But in all cases as with this one they were dragged kicking and screaming to the money exactly what is happening now.
Sounds like a great idea!
Say every time I mention [brand name] on faceb**k.com or other [brand name] web site, i would get compensation. from [brand name]
Every time my comments about [brand name] are read, or I wear anything from [brand name] I would get compensation from [brand name].
If I go to a concert from [group name] and my photo is used, I would get compensated from [group name].
Every time I talked about [group name] , [group name] would compensate me.
Every time my fan page about [brand name] or [group name] is accessed, [group name] or [brand name] would compensate me.
Compensation makes the world go round. If I don't get compensation from [brand name] or [group name], then I will stop using [brand name] or listening to [group name], and recommend another [brand name] or [group name].
Since items from [group name] or [brand name] are licensed, I can get money back since I am no longer interested in being a licensee.
If say I take a picture using [brand name's] camera, since [brand name] is in the meta-data, I would get compensation for advertising for [brand name].
What bullshit. The established music industry has already completely killed innovation. They want a nice zero-risk predictable business model based on marketing not creativity, because anything creative is new and by definition unpredictable so a necessarily higher financial risk.
They've been following exactly the same old image-manufacturing process at least since Bill Haley/Elvis/The Beatles.
"Freedom is Slavery" -- Copyright industry
It's afraid of user generated content.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
RIGHT so fair use is such a detriment to innovation that we should retroactively apply our rules today to works by Shakespeare, Bach etc., etc. etc. because you know NOBODY uses their work in 'new & hopefully interesting ways' without paying them or 'wanting to' right? (you know if we could only find their descendent we'd pay them their pound of flesh (OOPS. Guess I have to send over a few pennies to Shakespeare for this unauthorized use).
You want to see innovation? Let's GUT the copyright rules, put them back to no more than 14 years from time of creation (not 'death of author/creator'), the shear amount of new material & ways to present it would absolutely explode even more so than today.
So here is the deal, I will trade you "fair use" for 4-year copyright limits.
However, you can't have 70 year copyright terms and no fair use. That is called unlimited MONOPOLY!
The purpose of Copyright was to give the person who created the work a limited monopoly to earn back their money, not money for their grandchildren.
Imagine if a plumber could charge you per flush for the next 70 years.
Imagine if an electrician could charge you every time you use a light switch for the next 70 years.
It is insane. We need FAIR USE!
Apparently this "threat" has existed for quite a while. How have we ever survived?
From: U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index
Fair use is a judge-created doctrine dating back to the nineteenth century and codified in the 1976 Copyright Act.
And: Fair use
The 1709 Statute of Anne, an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, created copyright law to replace a system of private ordering enforced by the Stationers' Company. The Statute of Anne did not provide for legal unauthorized use of material protected by copyright. In Gyles v Wilcox (1740) the Court of Chancery established the doctrine of "fair abridgement," which permitted unauthorized abridgement of copyrighted works under certain circumstances. Over time, this doctrine evolved into the modern concepts of fair use and fair dealing. Fair use was a common-law doctrine in the U.S. until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Licensing, not exceptions to copyright, drives innovation.
How true! Almost forgotten is the fact that it was only through a carefully structured licensing strategy that William Shakespeare managed to innovate so much.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Let's remember that copyright was originally intended to afford sufficient protection to allow an inventor or creator to make a reasonable and honest income from their works. The 70 year copyright is pure bullshit. If a work, of any kind, hasn't made the inventor/creator sufficient income in less than half that time then it's certainly not worthy of further protection.
the same thing as "innovators"
Copyrights and Patents worked so well in the US for so many decades and lead to the boom in innovation PRECISELY because the Constitution embedded them in the nation's most-basic law WITH LIMITED DURATION AND WITH THE WORKS BECOMING PUBLIC AT THE END OF THE PROTECTED TIME.
Giant corporations, run by boards of business executives and lawyers who have been hired by investors, NONE of whom are innovators or creators are the very sorts of people that copyright law and patent law were NOT created to benefit. These are the leeches of society who look to make themselves and endless fortune by rigging for decades on the back of the innovation of others, often rigging the financial deals so that THEY make far more money from each innovative thing than the actual innovator. Bill gates, for example, was certainly a coder, but HE and Ballmer made far more money from DOS than they guy he bought it from. Movies studios make far more from a movie than the director, writer, actors, etc. Record companies used to make far more from a record than the musicians.
It's true that corporate leeches enable innovation by investing in it, and that's fine, but it's wrong when they squeeze the actual innovators in order to make more money from the innovations than the actual innovators...... and then the leeches whine when they think they are missing out on "lost opportunity dollars". Nobody should listen to any complaint these jerks make as long as their cut of the cash from any innovation is bigger than the cut they grudgingly pass to the actual creative people. Their basic business model is more harmful to innovation than a basic aspect of IP law is.
We will be so RESTRICTED from artistic and technical INNOVATION that studios will be reduced to producing NOTHING MORE than endless REBOOTS of previously filmed efforts spun-off from ANCIENT COMIC BOOK franchises!
ALL COMMERCIAL MUSIC will be INDISTINGUISHABLE from style and content of hits released circa 2001!
DO YOU WANT TO KILL THIS VIBRANT CULTURE WITH FAIR ACCESS?!!!?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You misunderstand. In their language, "innovation" = "control of everything"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
The only thing threatening innovation is giant corporations forcing anti-competitive and draconian legislation. This feels like deja vu from the US RIAA and MPAA battles of old.
Copyright and patents actually stifle innovation. They exist for one reason and one reason only, to make money for the holder of the copyright or patent and protect them. That is all, no other reason, period. Short term limits are what are needed for these, 5-10 years max. If everything was available for anyone to use, then you'd see a massive amount of innovation from all kinds of different walks of life. Instead we have a system in place that locks people and companies out damn near indefinitely.
It seems to me that lots of really fine and innovative work was done prior to the imposition of patents and IP protections. I say drop all protection for everything and let the chips fall where they may. Good people with good ideas will do something with them. The leaches and ten-percenters that live off our currently AFU system will eat dirt and die.
Fair Use Threatens Innovation, Copyright Holders Warn...and slashdot immediately jumps to the chance of parroting that shit.
There will be much digital ink spilled over this, then you'll all mostly go vote for the same idiots over and over...
Until you start voting new people in, nothing will change...
And I don't mean one or two, I mean the majority, you need a new government, but you largely won't get one because "the OTHER guys suck, but MY representative is great"
Apples and oranges. Those works were seen and heard only by a limited number of people. There was no sound recording when those works were produced, no photographic reproduction. Dropping all IP protection makes as much sense now as imposing draconian anti-fair use rules and unlimited terms. A compromise is the best solution. A government that isn't corrupt would hear both sides and arrive at a conclusion that is best for society as a whole, neither fully satisfying nor fully oppressing either party.
It's still not far enough. Even if those go through I will not legally be allowed to
1) Copy my purchased DVDs/BluRays onto a personal media server
2) Copy my purchased DVDs/BluRays onto my iPad for travelling
More and more "digital copy" versions are becoming ultraviolet rather than the itunes/wmp versions that Universal used to do, and ultraviolet is rubbish.
*The* business however will survive just fine.
Fair Use Threatens Innovation, Copyright Holders Warn
Ummm, it's the lack of fair use that threatens innovation.
Funny how they got it exactly backward.
I'm just waiting for the day, when all musical instrument makers, all hardware makers and all software makers start only licensing the stuff and requiring payments for every keypress and shit. Then the media mafias start changing tune to how unfare it is.
For example, music group IFPI warns that fair use will threaten profits and rent seeking.
The solution is new DRM. I think it is called crypto locker or something like that. Put all your content in that.
CAPTCHA to submit post: submit
More free stuff. If its digitizable, I should be able to download it for free and we'll all come up with justifications ex post facto, that will be modded up +5, Insightful and +5, Informative.
That's how it works. Of course, anybody who hires me better be prepared to pay 6 figures USD and there better be free parking and a decent health care package along with it. Quality software doesn't come cheap.
- Slashdot basement dwellers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY
All this is, is about monopoly in the form of Copyright. They want the government to protect their failed business model, plain and simple.
“Our members rely on the fair use doctrine every day when producing their movies and television shows – especially those that involve parody and news and documentary programs,” the MPAA stated previously.
Even if it were true, so what? Fairness is more important than innovation. I'd rather live a fair slowly-changing society than in a rapidly evolving and unfair one.
We need a Dallas*10^9 just for these copyright stooges.
This is good news and I was worried that Australia was stitched up by TPP.
As an Australian and British citizen in an IP creating industry I want something that gives me reasonable protection for my IP (and 20-25 years is about right) but at the same time gives me protection against patent trolls.
I voted for Brexit on the grounds that the EU is sleepwalking into TPP and I don't want my intellectual property to be governed by East Texas.
Maybe I should move back to Aus?
Humorous signatures are over-rated.
America has fair use, and it certainly doesn't have a strong music and film industry...
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
mine mine mine mine MINE MINE MINE!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If the recent years have shown, fair use might be the only thing that could save innovation. How many new ideas have been thrown out by Hollywood et al? And in comparison, how many old ideas have been remade, rebooted, rehashed and regurgitated in other ways?
If anyone can regurgitate, i.e. what fair use entails because eventually all those "ideas" will become usable by anyone else again, those great innovative heads can concentrate on creating new and exciting wonders instead of being able to milk the same shit forever.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, yes it is. Please step on it to test it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The system is broken. It can be shown that even if as much as 30% of the people (which is ridiculously many, your chance of motivating any is closer to a high single digit), changed their voting behaviour, the outcome would not change. It might be the other puppet The Party offers, but it still wouldn't get you anywhere.
Forget voting. If you want to change anything, the ballot box fails. Use the next one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Aww, someone sees his money printing business threatened, how cute.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yeah, "legal uncertainty". What the fuck is "legal uncertainty" about when a licensing author has no clue whatsoever for how many years he is selling his right to be a part of forthcoming culture to some corporate bidder? Many authors got paid for the expectation of 25 years of rights and got robbed of more than triple that in the legal aftermath after their death. Now that's what I call legal uncertainty.
Become the Soylent Green of culture.
The system is broken. It can be shown that even if as much as 30% of the people (which is ridiculously many, your chance of motivating any is closer to a high single digit), changed their voting behaviour, the outcome would not change.
That sounds quite counter intuitive. Please show us this, or we will remain slaves for Democracy!
"Licensing, not exceptions to copyright, drives innovation. Innovation is best achieved through licensing agreements..."
:)
I do enjoy sometimes when they keep trying to re-interpret and re-explain what's what, but it does get boring after a while. And, of course, it's all bullcrap. But I wish they all would be transported to a universe where innovation is best achieved through licensing agreements and have fun over there
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
They are only trying to protect rent seeking schemes that almost exclusively benefit labels and studios and not actual creators. The goal is to maximize access and further creative while rewarding creators. Anything short of that is simply not good enough and introduces too many negatives including limiting how much benefit we can get from our technology and criminalizing everyone who may attempt to fully utilize the abilities of the technology.
Err... Bach composed one cantata a week. Mozart composed two symphonies a year of his productive life. Haendel composed four major works per year. Just to mention a few types of works of these composers who made a comfortable living with publishers copying their music without any restraint. Yet, with so many protections, no contemporary musician is nearly as productive - or, truly, as competent - as these few examples.
Thin out your consumption of copyrighted material! Your life isn't going to be that much different if you pass on the next summer blockbuster or yet another Simpsons episode. Copyrighted material ultimately has no value if _nobody's watching_; when it has no value, the copyright holders lose their power.
guns improve safety
"Several rightsholder groups argue that strong copyright protections are essential for the survival of their businesses."
What this means is they don't want to have to deal with someone else innovating and competing in their little corner of the economy. That's not good for business.
I'm not arguing for relinquishing the protections content producers have; "fair use" is narrowly defined for a reason: to ensure proper protections remain in place. What content producers don't want is to give legal protections to those operating within the bounds of fair use. That's just inherently wrong.
I don't get why people think that just because something is X today, that means there's excuse for it to be X tomorrow. There's no reason to expect, and less reason to demand, that.
Copyright holders want to eat more pie?
Let them eat and eat. Let them die.
sub: copy Rights -content protection as a means to Excell
Leading Edge, Sailing boat, trailing modes - onr can see the distinction to preserve Original Articles and need to protect content.
Scientific Edge on Culture through vedas and Interlinks looks at the Millenium records for inspiration and innovation through
Concentration-meditation and Dedicated Spirit.All humanily will be the beneficiary . there is a need to evolve societal frame structure to preseve the Spirit to excell.
I am an inventor and author.May cosmic intellect dawn upon Humanity to search and interlink Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony.your support is a positive contribution for Science -Philosophy Integration-Peaceful living Index.