So the FBI says that downloading something for free creates demand in the market, and makes it more likely that content creators will continue to produce content? At the same time that the RIAA says that downloading something for free reduces demand in the market, and makes it harder for content creators to continue to produce content?
Honestly, for once I can't figure out which one is lying.
Okay. Here you go. Personally, I think it's stupid to bring a videocamera into a movie theater, but on the other hand, it's obvious that what she did isn't worthy of felony charges.
It is pretty funny that you claim the IP proponents are overzealous. It seems to me that the overzealous ones are the ones making claims such as 'fair use is under attack'
Right. Because filming a birthday party is felony material, and arresting her and jailing her wasn't in the least overzealous. The police themselves say she got no more than 4 minutes of material. Any reasonable observer could see that her intent was not to pirate the movie, but then again, the people and organizations fighting fair use have no track record of being reasonable.
“I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.” - attributed to Mark Twain
Short version: You are wrong, and I disagree with you.
Long version:
Look, you are the one who said fair use is under constant attack. If you don't even know what it is, how can you say it is under attack?
My initial post refuted an obvious factual error by the previous poster, namely that fair use did not exist in copyright law.
The AC is entirely correct - it is not under attack, because there is nothing to attack.
It's amazing that you can't admit that both you an he are wrong. See above. Fair use is part of copyright law, both in case law and statutory law. I don't know how much plainer it can be said.
Your reply of "If you don't know what it is, how can you say it's under attack" is poor logic. The lack of clarity is due to how the law is written, and it is written that way because much of fair use is an ephemeral concept. Although there are gray areas, there are also clearly established areas where fair use is allowed. If you want a more nuanced or precise interpretation, go put a lawyer on retainer and have him/her look up the matter. In the immortal words of Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it."
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
So, to sum up:
a) Fair use is part of copyright law, and
b) it is generally described, but not always precisely defined, making it vulnerable to attack, as well as vulnerable to exploitation.
You go on to say:
Name ONE instance of fair use being under attack
If you are in need of specific instances, I would suggest looking into the large number of DMCA takedown notices the MPAA and RIAA issue without regard to legitimate fair use. For example, I recall reading (sorry, can't remember where) about a Youtube video of a child which was taken down because it contained a TV in the background, on which were shown a few seconds of some show. Or look here for a similarly ridiculous takedown.
However, rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll defer to legal experts. I hope that citing a law professor meets your expectations.
Recently, developments in the business, technology and legal fields have created situations where areas that used to be protected are now included in as part of an artist’s incentivized market. Through the technological advances in internet video and distribution, overstated legal threats and cost driven business decisions winning out over costly legal arguments, the uses that the Fair Use doctrine previously protected are being absorbed into potential markets or eliminated completely.
In other words, the balance between fair use and IP owners' rights has swung decidedly in favor of the IP owners. Groups like the RIAA are trying to restrict what used to be clearly fair use.
By linking to an article discussing backups, you try to insinuate that at some point it was considered fair use to make backups, and now i
There is not, and has never been, any concept of 'fair use' in US copyright law.
Citation proves otherwise. End of story.
I have already admitted that I am not a legal expert. I am not about to go earn a law degree in order to debate on Slashdot, and I am not trying to argue what entails fair use, or how it is implemented. I am simply attacking the erroneous claim that fair use does not exist in law. Misinformation like that is just what overzealous copyright and IP proponents would like the public to think, and it fits well with their long-established pattern of revising history to suit their own interests.
That might give some CSR or admin at HQ a temporary headache, but I'd bet it ends up being refilled with the same shitty starter cartridges and resold as refurbished in no time. They'll just make money twice.
You are either ignorant or lying. At least learn to Google something before being an ass.
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
IANAL, so I can't say how fair use factors into the DMCA. Plus, the concept of fair use is under constant attack here in the US by the same people who are lacing content with DRM. I also don't think that the legitimacy of fair use would stop them from trying to intimidate me into not removing their DRM.
All of that is beside the point for most people, however. Average mom & pop don't know how to remove DRM, or if doing so is legal. The result is that regardless of what is morally right and/or legally permissible, restricted content hurts consumers.
Writing man pages and writing how-to docs are two completely different tasks. A man page describes the syntax and functionality for a particular command. Combining that command with others to actually accomplish a task is left as an exercise for the reader. Writing how-to documentation almost requires being psychic, since you have to first imagine what the user wants to accomplish before you can explain how to do it.
All the shoplifter has is influence, not control. Also, since the store already deals with shoplifting, the cost is already being passed along in terms of security, corporate tax writeoffs for business losses, etc. In the same way, MS isn't going to raise its prices because of this. Even sizable licensing fees would be a drop in the bucket for them, and they are already paying their legal department for their services whether this troll shows up or someone else does.
If this patent troll is able to bully Microsoft, doesn’t that mean they have more control over the market, albeit indirectly, than Microsoft does?
That statement is kind of loaded. Given that MS is a monopoly, any statement that references "the market" without being more specific ("the market for software that only does what the troll patented") implies the OS and Office market(s) in which MS competes and over which it dominates, not just the market for this obscure chunk of code.
that particular slice of the market
I would argue that isn't even a market. A market implies many buyers and sellers.
They control the OS and Office markets because they a) have a vastly larger install base than any other competitor, (they win on numbers), and b) they make far more money in these markets than anyone else (they win on $$$). Since these other guys don't come close on any of those metrics, they don't control the market. At most they influence MS's decision to either a) license the code or buy the patent or the company, b) rewrite their own code to be non-infringing, or c) fight the troll and grind them out of business.
No. You can't compare a plaintiff challenging and/or winning in the legal arena with a company competing/winning in the marketplace. The legal system in intentionally devised to level the playing field, at least in theory. The marketplace allows monopolies to exist, theoretically within certain limits. I wouldn't even consider the plaintiffs here to be in the same market as MS. AFAIK, they don't own or sell a PC OS, or office software suite, or anything else that MS sells fully packaged to end users. They have a tiny slices of patented software, one of which appears to function like code MS has written.
Oblig. car analogy: Imagine a small auto parts company (ABC Auto Parts) no one had heard much about suing GM or Ford or Toyota because the rubber sheath on a new (GM/Ford/Toyota) spark plug wire suspiciously resembled one that ABC had patented, but never actually shipped. Does that mean that ABC Auto Parts has more control of the market than GM/Ford/Toyota?
They also mention it can detect very slight movement such as breathing, and the slight swaying of someone trying to stand still. It will work fine for finding hostages or fire victims who are still alive. I'm not saying it can't or won't be abused, just that the uses they give are legit.
The church has rules to instruct their followers to go out and assault, rob, torture and murder anyone who does anything close to what the DA would need to do. Not just the DA, but his friends and family.
And if they did, they would bring about own demise, but not by the vigilante means you describe. Their own actions would force the Federal government to treat them like a) a organized crime syndicate, or b) a terrorist organization. Either way, they could possibly lose their protected status as a "religion", and likely have all their communications intercepted, movements watched, and finances scrutinized. Eventually, their various compounds would be raided, revealing enough incriminating evidence to jail their leaders, seize their assets, and essentially disband them.
Yes, but in bringing the civil suit they might be able to make public a lot of damaging information about CoS, and the DA might be able to find evidence in there of criminal activity, which might support the execution of search warrants, which might unravel things further...
It looks like it's just a civil complaint, though. I'd love to see these guys brought up on criminal charges. If this suit makes any headway, I wonder if criminal charges will eventually follow? I can't imagine the DA would refuse to prosecute for slavery. It will be interesting to see what Scientology goodies come to light in the discovery process.
Slashdot Mirror
So the FBI says that downloading something for free creates demand in the market, and makes it more likely that content creators will continue to produce content? At the same time that the RIAA says that downloading something for free reduces demand in the market, and makes it harder for content creators to continue to produce content?
Honestly, for once I can't figure out which one is lying.
Name ONE instance of fair use being under attack.
Okay. Here you go. Personally, I think it's stupid to bring a videocamera into a movie theater, but on the other hand, it's obvious that what she did isn't worthy of felony charges.
It is pretty funny that you claim the IP proponents are overzealous. It seems to me that the overzealous ones are the ones making claims such as 'fair use is under attack'
Right. Because filming a birthday party is felony material, and arresting her and jailing her wasn't in the least overzealous. The police themselves say she got no more than 4 minutes of material. Any reasonable observer could see that her intent was not to pirate the movie, but then again, the people and organizations fighting fair use have no track record of being reasonable.
If only I could give you points for that. Brilliant.
Short version: You are wrong, and I disagree with you.
Long version:
Look, you are the one who said fair use is under constant attack. If you don't even know what it is, how can you say it is under attack?
My initial post refuted an obvious factual error by the previous poster, namely that fair use did not exist in copyright law.
The AC is entirely correct - it is not under attack, because there is nothing to attack.
It's amazing that you can't admit that both you an he are wrong. See above. Fair use is part of copyright law, both in case law and statutory law. I don't know how much plainer it can be said.
Your reply of "If you don't know what it is, how can you say it's under attack" is poor logic. The lack of clarity is due to how the law is written, and it is written that way because much of fair use is an ephemeral concept. Although there are gray areas, there are also clearly established areas where fair use is allowed. If you want a more nuanced or precise interpretation, go put a lawyer on retainer and have him/her look up the matter. In the immortal words of Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it."
Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission.
So, to sum up:
a) Fair use is part of copyright law, and
b) it is generally described, but not always precisely defined, making it vulnerable to attack, as well as vulnerable to exploitation.
You go on to say:
Name ONE instance of fair use being under attack
If you are in need of specific instances, I would suggest looking into the large number of DMCA takedown notices the MPAA and RIAA issue without regard to legitimate fair use. For example, I recall reading (sorry, can't remember where) about a Youtube video of a child which was taken down because it contained a TV in the background, on which were shown a few seconds of some show. Or look here for a similarly ridiculous takedown.
However, rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll defer to legal experts. I hope that citing a law professor meets your expectations.
Recently, developments in the business, technology and legal fields have created situations where areas that used to be protected are now included in as part of an artist’s incentivized market. Through the technological advances in internet video and distribution, overstated legal threats and cost driven business decisions winning out over costly legal arguments, the uses that the Fair Use doctrine previously protected are being absorbed into potential markets or eliminated completely.
In other words, the balance between fair use and IP owners' rights has swung decidedly in favor of the IP owners. Groups like the RIAA are trying to restrict what used to be clearly fair use.
By linking to an article discussing backups, you try to insinuate that at some point it was considered fair use to make backups, and now i
There is not, and has never been, any concept of 'fair use' in US copyright law.
Citation proves otherwise. End of story.
I have already admitted that I am not a legal expert. I am not about to go earn a law degree in order to debate on Slashdot, and I am not trying to argue what entails fair use, or how it is implemented. I am simply attacking the erroneous claim that fair use does not exist in law. Misinformation like that is just what overzealous copyright and IP proponents would like the public to think, and it fits well with their long-established pattern of revising history to suit their own interests.
Hmm. I wonder if self-grading their own work is how the researchers got their degrees.
That might give some CSR or admin at HQ a temporary headache, but I'd bet it ends up being refilled with the same shitty starter cartridges and resold as refurbished in no time. They'll just make money twice.
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Citation
IANAL, so I can't say how fair use factors into the DMCA. Plus, the concept of fair use is under constant attack here in the US by the same people who are lacing content with DRM. I also don't think that the legitimacy of fair use would stop them from trying to intimidate me into not removing their DRM.
All of that is beside the point for most people, however. Average mom & pop don't know how to remove DRM, or if doing so is legal. The result is that regardless of what is morally right and/or legally permissible, restricted content hurts consumers.
Writing man pages and writing how-to docs are two completely different tasks. A man page describes the syntax and functionality for a particular command. Combining that command with others to actually accomplish a task is left as an exercise for the reader. Writing how-to documentation almost requires being psychic, since you have to first imagine what the user wants to accomplish before you can explain how to do it.
All the shoplifter has is influence, not control. Also, since the store already deals with shoplifting, the cost is already being passed along in terms of security, corporate tax writeoffs for business losses, etc. In the same way, MS isn't going to raise its prices because of this. Even sizable licensing fees would be a drop in the bucket for them, and they are already paying their legal department for their services whether this troll shows up or someone else does.
Why would anyone want to live on one of those rocks?
Fewer ACs.
When the only viable solution to a legitimate problem is to become a criminal, there is something wrong with both the law and the original problem.
If this patent troll is able to bully Microsoft, doesn’t that mean they have more control over the market, albeit indirectly, than Microsoft does?
That statement is kind of loaded. Given that MS is a monopoly, any statement that references "the market" without being more specific ("the market for software that only does what the troll patented") implies the OS and Office market(s) in which MS competes and over which it dominates, not just the market for this obscure chunk of code.
that particular slice of the market
I would argue that isn't even a market. A market implies many buyers and sellers.
They control the OS and Office markets because they a) have a vastly larger install base than any other competitor, (they win on numbers), and b) they make far more money in these markets than anyone else (they win on $$$). Since these other guys don't come close on any of those metrics, they don't control the market. At most they influence MS's decision to either a) license the code or buy the patent or the company, b) rewrite their own code to be non-infringing, or c) fight the troll and grind them out of business.
No. You can't compare a plaintiff challenging and/or winning in the legal arena with a company competing/winning in the marketplace. The legal system in intentionally devised to level the playing field, at least in theory. The marketplace allows monopolies to exist, theoretically within certain limits. I wouldn't even consider the plaintiffs here to be in the same market as MS. AFAIK, they don't own or sell a PC OS, or office software suite, or anything else that MS sells fully packaged to end users. They have a tiny slices of patented software, one of which appears to function like code MS has written.
Oblig. car analogy: Imagine a small auto parts company (ABC Auto Parts) no one had heard much about suing GM or Ford or Toyota because the rubber sheath on a new (GM/Ford/Toyota) spark plug wire suspiciously resembled one that ABC had patented, but never actually shipped. Does that mean that ABC Auto Parts has more control of the market than GM/Ford/Toyota?
They also mention it can detect very slight movement such as breathing, and the slight swaying of someone trying to stand still. It will work fine for finding hostages or fire victims who are still alive. I'm not saying it can't or won't be abused, just that the uses they give are legit.
Married women shouldn't be ****able.
Many don't, after you marry them.
Ahem ... you insensitive clod.
The church has rules to instruct their followers to go out and assault, rob, torture and murder anyone who does anything close to what the DA would need to do. Not just the DA, but his friends and family.
And if they did, they would bring about own demise, but not by the vigilante means you describe. Their own actions would force the Federal government to treat them like a) a organized crime syndicate, or b) a terrorist organization. Either way, they could possibly lose their protected status as a "religion", and likely have all their communications intercepted, movements watched, and finances scrutinized. Eventually, their various compounds would be raided, revealing enough incriminating evidence to jail their leaders, seize their assets, and essentially disband them.
Yes, but in bringing the civil suit they might be able to make public a lot of damaging information about CoS, and the DA might be able to find evidence in there of criminal activity, which might support the execution of search warrants, which might unravel things further ...
Hey, it could happen.
It looks like it's just a civil complaint, though. I'd love to see these guys brought up on criminal charges. If this suit makes any headway, I wonder if criminal charges will eventually follow? I can't imagine the DA would refuse to prosecute for slavery. It will be interesting to see what Scientology goodies come to light in the discovery process.
Well, black makes things look slimmer, sleeker, sexier. Windows needs all the help it can get to resemble any of that.
Until Linux can do simple things like dim my damn screen, I'll stick with Windows...
Sure, sticking with Windows makes sense ... if you want it dimmed all the way to black. ;)
A real carpenter would recompile his chisel from source. ;)
It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools. ;)