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'
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.
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.
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.
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'
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
Copyright for a limited time encourages further creativity, since you can't count on revenue from previous work for the rest of your life.
Excessive copyright wastes time and resources on copyright fights that could be applied to better uses. If Mickey Mouse was now in the public domain, there'd more likely be more derivative products than there are today
Just look at Paramount squishing fan fiction videos that are no threat to the franchise (crappy story lines and excessive lens flair, on the other hand ...)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
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.
Which is what we had in the U.S. prior to 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect. I think the terms of the original Copyright Act of 1790 (14 years plus a 14 year extension) were adequate, and further extensions have been a cash grab by creators at the expense of society in general - a very real form of theft. Patents only receive 20 years of protection, so what's so frigging special about copyright? What we have now is an abomination that completely and totally defeats the purpose of the Copyright Clause in the U.S. Constitution, IMO. How exactly does extending protection for works after the creator's death encourage new works by that creator?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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. . . .