Actually, yes -- I was just thinking the other day that it should be a requirement in order to receive the protections of copyright that the creator provide the Library of Congress one complete, fully-reproducable source copy, preferably in a digital format. In addition to facilitating the situation you described, this has another even more important advantage:
I've actually been proposing this for a few years.
Really that's just a facet of something broader: That deposit should be manditory and should include such materials as are necessary, are required by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, or are commonly preferred in order to materially make use of, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivatives, etc. Thus for software, not only would this likely include source, but that it would have to be well commented, and describe the methods of compilation, the platform it runs on, etc.
But if something else appears where there are similar needs, simple administrative procedures can quickly and effectively adapt.
There are some other ideas I've had as well that tie into this a bit.
But this still doesn't ensure access. Oh, I suppose you could go to the Library of Congress (these materials should be open -- if copyright is exclusive of trade secrets on the same materials, then so be it) but that's different than an enforcible right of fair use.
check the copyright clause in the Constitution about this -- it's the "derivative works" part
Oh, please, please quote this exactly. I'd like to see it.
For example, suppose I want to quote from a book in order to write a review. And that this is, for purposes of discussion, indisputably a fair use. Can I demand that the copyright holder provide me with access to the book so that I can select passages to quote, without having to pay for that access? Aren't you saying then that if I can put together such a thing, that I have an enforcable right to get the book for free from someone who doesn't want to lend it, if only temporarily?
I think that a lot of the 'fair use should be a right' crowd haven't thought about it fully enough. Some limits to copyright, and some limited causes of action against copyright holders might be viable, but that's still a long way from fair use as a right.
Then please cite one statute or case stating that in such a manner that it is helpful to you. Because remember, your point appears to be that neither government nor private entities can interfere with fair use or throw impediments in the way of such uses.
I'd love to see someone authoritative saying that. I don't care about people on/. saying that, since lots of people here say lots of stupid crap with no grounding in reality.
It is copyright itself that is a privilage!
I am perfectly aware that copyright is a positive right, and I often point this out to others. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Please stop defending the copyright holders
I'm not. But I do try to make sure that when people make a mistake as to what the law is NOW, that it is cleared up. Confusion about the current state of the law won't help anyone.
Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.
I disagree. From the opinion:
Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.
In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting.
(emphasis mine). The Court did not say that in every case, home time shifting was a fair use. Only that it was insofar as it was looked at in the Sony case. Now, I grant that plaintiffs are going to have a godawful hard time, but the possibility is still open.
This is entirely within the framework of fair use, which is a rule of equity that hinges entirely on an examination of the facts of each case to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to establish a thorough test.
However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law.
Meh. Fair use is unlike the other exemptions in that in practice it isn't like rebutting the prima face case. But yes, it is in the 107-122 range.
Re: prior art, well, fair use doesn't invalidate a copyright. It's not only highly personal, but it's circumstance limited. Again, it seems most similar to self defense in a criminal case.
As for the DMCA, however, there is disagreement. 1201 et al deal with causes of action for circumvention and such, not infringement, and fair use is traditionally only relevant for infringement. And the DMCA says that it doesn't enlarge fair use, so if circumvention is outside the scope of infringement, then fair use doesn't apply.
In order for fair use to apply to the DMCA, those sections will need to be under the copyright power, and fair use will need to be a constitutionally required doctrine applying to anything under the copyright power. Both issues remain to be seen.
Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.
The only cases I've heard that seem useful for that are Martignon, the similar bootlegging case out on the west coast, IIRC, the Trade-Mark cases, etc.
Still not a very solid claim. Though I do agree, personally (and that fair use applies constitutionally to all copyright power exercises). But the courts don't often listen to me.
If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge
Justice, not judge, unless you're talking about the district or circuit opinions, which are rarely read.
You bet. But I assure you, they aren't concerned with that. The movie studios are conservative. They would've liked to ban TV when it first appeared. But this isn't really relevant.
The problem is:
1) What powers of Congress does the FCC have power under?
2) Do any of those powers permit the broadcast flag?
We don't yet even know if we're looking at a copyright issue here. And even if we get that far, it isn't known whether fair use is a constitutional requirement or if Congress can ignore it at will.
As to what is 'legal' consider for example a library. If the library has a photocopier and I take a book and photocopy it. It is quite obvious that I and not the library has violated the copyright.
That is because libraries have a special exemption, only for them, under 17 USC 108(f)(1). P2P file sharing isn't covered.
First, you misread the case. There has never been a case that established that an entire species of use, such as time shifting, was inevitably fair use. Rather, each individual use claimed to be a fair use must be judged on its own circumstances. Time shifting by one person might be a fair use, but that doesn't mean that time shifting by another person is. Sony merely recognized that a substantial amount of the time shifting going on, or that _might_ go on, was fair.
Second, I don't recall any case that claims that people are entitled to fair uses. Only that it isn't infringement to make a fair use. Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy. This is because fair use is not a right. It is merely a defense to infringement actions.
Plus of course, it remains to be seen whether the broadcast flag falls under the copyright power at all, and is therefore subject to a fair use argument.
Re: (3), so what? Computers are predominantly digital, and becoming even more so as we move to digital video and sound interfaces. At any rate, the point is that if it has a digital recording function, it has to be primarily designed/marketed for digital audio copying, basically. I think that computers' functions are primarily designed/marketed for other or broader purposes.
Whole CDs and HDs probably aren't DA medium. But the individual bits on a HD pretty much have to be
A bit is not a medium. A bit is a piece of information stored on a medium. Data CDRs and computer hard disks are media, just not the right kind to fall within the definition in the AHRA.
Audio CDRs, however, ARE digital audio media, and can be used within the AHRA safe harbor. This leads to some interesting ideas for lawfully reproducing music without having to pay for it. Though I caution that you'd want to be very careful as doing so would still make you look like a bad guy to a court and any misstep would likely prove fatal to your defense.
Actually, hosting the torrents is illegal (in the US at least) as a matter of contributory infringement. This is how Napster was brought down -- they didn't share music themselves, but they provided the listings so that others could, and they knew what was happening, and they could have stopped being involved.
Right now about the only thing that could save them is a lack of contributory liability wherever it is that they're located. If they were in the US, they would've been nuked from orbit by now.
The loophole here may be that you could claim ignorance.
Aside from that you will not be believed, this does not get you off the hook. If you infringe, you are liable. If you did so by mistake, it only means that the maximum amount you can get sued for is a mere $30,000. The minimum is $200, down from $700.
The court decides how much to award.
You're basically screwed, and you're gonna get held liable because the judicial system basically hates copyright infringers, and people who think they can outsmart the system.
Like I said, computers and computer hard drives etc aren't covered.
17 USC 1001(3) requires that a digital audio recording device have as its primary function by design or marketing, digital recordings. Computers et al have broader primary functions.
17 USC 1001(4)(B)(ii) excludes from the definition of a digital audio recording medium, devices "primarily marketed and most commonly used by consumers... for the purpose of making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer programs or data bases." Again, computers et al are primarily marketed and most commonly used for purposes such as these if not others totally unrelated to music. Think about how many people make copies of text files and such.
And 17 USC 1001(5)(B)(ii) excludes from the definition of digital music recordings, physical objects "in which computer programs are fixed" for the most part.
Plus, you should read RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia where the 9th Cir. goes through the statute and the legislative history very clearly and finds that the AHRA doesn't cover computers, and also typical mp3 players.
The source you cited is basically 'some guy.' It's not authoritative in any way at all.
What's authoritative is the statute, 17 USC 107, and the case law interpreting the statute. Not the legislative history either, to any particular degree in this case.
And while "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is ONE of the issues in deteriming fair use, it's not the only one, and it's not likely to be determinative by itself. And it isn't a hard and fast number -- it depends, and will vary in each case.
Plus of course, what matters is how much of the work you have -- not where it came from. If you d/l an entire movie, it doesn't matter if you got it from one place, one hundred places, or one million places. The outcome is always the same -- welcome to infringement town. Population: you.
Basically, you suffer from the same flaw I see a lot around here. You think you're smarter than the lawyers that might sue you, and the courts that might hold against you. With regards to legal issues, I guarantee that you are not. You are making the kind of loser arguments commonly heard from idiots that think they don't have to pay taxes because of the color of the fringe on the flag in the courtroom. These are loser arguments for a reason. The people who make them invariably lose.
Ah, see, this is what happens when you read a statute and forget to read the applicable definitions of the terms in that statute. The important definitions here are in 17 USC 101 and 1001.
Basically, and the Diamond case came to this conclusion, computers are not digital audio recording devices or media, and therefore do not qualify for the 1008 exemption. (which also means that they don't have to have the SCMS DRM measures mandated by the AHRA, nor pay royalties to the record industry)
Since when can someone go to prison for copyright violation?
Since 1897. There have been criminal penalties for at least some copyright infringement for over a century in the US. It's not a new thing by any means.
There's a small amount of information on this here.
Regarding your.sig, I'd say yes. A right to privacy and equal rights both belong in the constitution.
They may have side effects you don't like, but this is no different from side effects of other parts of the constitution that other people don't like, such as Nazis being allowed to parade.
If you really believe in civil liberties then you're stuck having to believe in them even for people you hate, and causes you despise. They're not one sided.
In cases where no direct infringement occurs, there is no other liability.
But frankly, the situations you propose where no infringement would occur are pretty rare. And you're trying to defeat the knowledge prong of the test.
First, vicarious liability doesn't require knowledge. So it doesn't matter.
Second, while contributory liability does require knowledge, once the downloader is actually aware of the infringing file, he has actual knowledge and liability will stand unless he immediately deletes it. And if he tends to get infringing files, we can probably impute constructive knowledge.
Legal, with explicit permission from Roddenbery's estate.
That only works if the estate has the copyrights to grant permission, and isn't otherwise prevented from doing so. I would be very surprised to see that their permission is actually sufficient.
Legal, under parody laws.
There is no parody law. There is fair use, but that doesn't protect ALL parody, only those parodies (or non-parodies) which are fair uses. There's an analysis used, but I don't want to get into it here, other than to point out that it is not correct to say that parody is necessarily noninfringing.
Other videos such as "Starship Exeter" and "Hidden Frontier" are of questionable nature for the producers (their copyright), but legal for you to download.
No, if it is infringing, then it is infringing of the underlying, infringed upon copyright, to download them.
Remember, the people you are getting it from have a copyright of their own, which they may exercise.
1) That is often not true, actually. Check out 17 USC 103(a) with regards to derivative works unlawfully based upon dominant works.
2) It doesn't matter. A copyright is a right to prevent people from doing something. Not a right to permit people to do something. For example, if I write a book which is libelous, although I have a right to prevent other people from reproducing that book, via my copyright, I cannot publish it legally.
So if you create a work and hold a copyright on it, and someone else has a copyright on some portion of it, and this isn't a joint copyright situation, then only where ALL the copyright holders agree, can it be released. Otherwise any one has a veto over the others.
The same thing holds true in the patent realm. You can patent an invention which is an improvement to someone else's patented invention. They can't use your invention, but you cannot use it either while they hold their patent and withhold their permission.
As for the Presidential Debates, there are several places where you can get them with the full permission of the copyright holder.
Which doesn't mean you can redistribute them via BT, however.
My list generally assumes that the copyright holders are the ones distributing the work.
But this is not always true, so it is a dangerous assumption.
In short, there are plenty of legal uses for BitTorrent. Legal issues still exist, but no more so than any other downloadable content.
I agree, and I would add that there are also plenty of substantial potential legal uses as well.
But since damages in this arena can be difficult to compute, and one can make valid arguments as to what damages consist of (see the radical change in patent damages in the last few decades), I don't think this is where reform can be particularly effective.
I favor expanding exemptions so as to reduce scope, more than reducing damages which would be shifted more upon commercial entities anyway if incurred.
It's not a grey area. It's totally illegal unless they're actually given permission.
The fact that the copyright holders have been willing to turn a blind eye to it doesn't change that. Fansubbers are like the little birds that fly into the mouths of crocodiles. They might be tolerated, but can easily become a tasty meat snack at any time.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't much care for that last one as voters who are not members of a party cannot reliably expect to be able to vote in party primaries.
Actually, yes -- I was just thinking the other day that it should be a requirement in order to receive the protections of copyright that the creator provide the Library of Congress one complete, fully-reproducable source copy, preferably in a digital format. In addition to facilitating the situation you described, this has another even more important advantage:
I've actually been proposing this for a few years.
Really that's just a facet of something broader: That deposit should be manditory and should include such materials as are necessary, are required by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, or are commonly preferred in order to materially make use of, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivatives, etc. Thus for software, not only would this likely include source, but that it would have to be well commented, and describe the methods of compilation, the platform it runs on, etc.
But if something else appears where there are similar needs, simple administrative procedures can quickly and effectively adapt.
There are some other ideas I've had as well that tie into this a bit.
But this still doesn't ensure access. Oh, I suppose you could go to the Library of Congress (these materials should be open -- if copyright is exclusive of trade secrets on the same materials, then so be it) but that's different than an enforcible right of fair use.
check the copyright clause in the Constitution about this -- it's the "derivative works" part
Oh, please, please quote this exactly. I'd like to see it.
So how would that work?
Remember, any use is potentially a fair use.
For example, suppose I want to quote from a book in order to write a review. And that this is, for purposes of discussion, indisputably a fair use. Can I demand that the copyright holder provide me with access to the book so that I can select passages to quote, without having to pay for that access? Aren't you saying then that if I can put together such a thing, that I have an enforcable right to get the book for free from someone who doesn't want to lend it, if only temporarily?
I think that a lot of the 'fair use should be a right' crowd haven't thought about it fully enough. Some limits to copyright, and some limited causes of action against copyright holders might be viable, but that's still a long way from fair use as a right.
Fair Use is a right.
/. saying that, since lots of people here say lots of stupid crap with no grounding in reality.
Then please cite one statute or case stating that in such a manner that it is helpful to you. Because remember, your point appears to be that neither government nor private entities can interfere with fair use or throw impediments in the way of such uses.
I'd love to see someone authoritative saying that. I don't care about people on
It is copyright itself that is a privilage!
I am perfectly aware that copyright is a positive right, and I often point this out to others. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Please stop defending the copyright holders
I'm not. But I do try to make sure that when people make a mistake as to what the law is NOW, that it is cleared up. Confusion about the current state of the law won't help anyone.
I disagree. From the opinion:
(emphasis mine). The Court did not say that in every case, home time shifting was a fair use. Only that it was insofar as it was looked at in the Sony case. Now, I grant that plaintiffs are going to have a godawful hard time, but the possibility is still open.
This is entirely within the framework of fair use, which is a rule of equity that hinges entirely on an examination of the facts of each case to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to establish a thorough test.
However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law.
Meh. Fair use is unlike the other exemptions in that in practice it isn't like rebutting the prima face case. But yes, it is in the 107-122 range.
Re: prior art, well, fair use doesn't invalidate a copyright. It's not only highly personal, but it's circumstance limited. Again, it seems most similar to self defense in a criminal case.
As for the DMCA, however, there is disagreement. 1201 et al deal with causes of action for circumvention and such, not infringement, and fair use is traditionally only relevant for infringement. And the DMCA says that it doesn't enlarge fair use, so if circumvention is outside the scope of infringement, then fair use doesn't apply.
In order for fair use to apply to the DMCA, those sections will need to be under the copyright power, and fair use will need to be a constitutionally required doctrine applying to anything under the copyright power. Both issues remain to be seen.
Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.
The only cases I've heard that seem useful for that are Martignon, the similar bootlegging case out on the west coast, IIRC, the Trade-Mark cases, etc.
Still not a very solid claim. Though I do agree, personally (and that fair use applies constitutionally to all copyright power exercises). But the courts don't often listen to me.
If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge
Justice, not judge, unless you're talking about the district or circuit opinions, which are rarely read.
You bet. But I assure you, they aren't concerned with that. The movie studios are conservative. They would've liked to ban TV when it first appeared. But this isn't really relevant.
The problem is:
1) What powers of Congress does the FCC have power under?
2) Do any of those powers permit the broadcast flag?
We don't yet even know if we're looking at a copyright issue here. And even if we get that far, it isn't known whether fair use is a constitutional requirement or if Congress can ignore it at will.
As to what is 'legal' consider for example a library. If the library has a photocopier and I take a book and photocopy it. It is quite obvious that I and not the library has violated the copyright.
That is because libraries have a special exemption, only for them, under 17 USC 108(f)(1). P2P file sharing isn't covered.
First, you misread the case. There has never been a case that established that an entire species of use, such as time shifting, was inevitably fair use. Rather, each individual use claimed to be a fair use must be judged on its own circumstances. Time shifting by one person might be a fair use, but that doesn't mean that time shifting by another person is. Sony merely recognized that a substantial amount of the time shifting going on, or that _might_ go on, was fair.
Second, I don't recall any case that claims that people are entitled to fair uses. Only that it isn't infringement to make a fair use. Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy. This is because fair use is not a right. It is merely a defense to infringement actions.
Plus of course, it remains to be seen whether the broadcast flag falls under the copyright power at all, and is therefore subject to a fair use argument.
Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.
I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts. Of course, if it does, the appropriate measure is to go to court and challenge it.
Re: (3), so what? Computers are predominantly digital, and becoming even more so as we move to digital video and sound interfaces. At any rate, the point is that if it has a digital recording function, it has to be primarily designed/marketed for digital audio copying, basically. I think that computers' functions are primarily designed/marketed for other or broader purposes.
Whole CDs and HDs probably aren't DA medium. But the individual bits on a HD pretty much have to be
A bit is not a medium. A bit is a piece of information stored on a medium. Data CDRs and computer hard disks are media, just not the right kind to fall within the definition in the AHRA.
Audio CDRs, however, ARE digital audio media, and can be used within the AHRA safe harbor. This leads to some interesting ideas for lawfully reproducing music without having to pay for it. Though I caution that you'd want to be very careful as doing so would still make you look like a bad guy to a court and any misstep would likely prove fatal to your defense.
Actually, hosting the torrents is illegal (in the US at least) as a matter of contributory infringement. This is how Napster was brought down -- they didn't share music themselves, but they provided the listings so that others could, and they knew what was happening, and they could have stopped being involved.
Right now about the only thing that could save them is a lack of contributory liability wherever it is that they're located. If they were in the US, they would've been nuked from orbit by now.
The loophole here may be that you could claim ignorance.
Aside from that you will not be believed, this does not get you off the hook. If you infringe, you are liable. If you did so by mistake, it only means that the maximum amount you can get sued for is a mere $30,000. The minimum is $200, down from $700.
The court decides how much to award.
You're basically screwed, and you're gonna get held liable because the judicial system basically hates copyright infringers, and people who think they can outsmart the system.
Like I said, computers and computer hard drives etc aren't covered.
... for the purpose of making copies of nonmusical literary works, including computer programs or data bases." Again, computers et al are primarily marketed and most commonly used for purposes such as these if not others totally unrelated to music. Think about how many people make copies of text files and such.
17 USC 1001(3) requires that a digital audio recording device have as its primary function by design or marketing, digital recordings. Computers et al have broader primary functions.
17 USC 1001(4)(B)(ii) excludes from the definition of a digital audio recording medium, devices "primarily marketed and most commonly used by consumers
And 17 USC 1001(5)(B)(ii) excludes from the definition of digital music recordings, physical objects "in which computer programs are fixed" for the most part.
Plus, you should read RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia where the 9th Cir. goes through the statute and the legislative history very clearly and finds that the AHRA doesn't cover computers, and also typical mp3 players.
Sadly, no.
The source you cited is basically 'some guy.' It's not authoritative in any way at all.
What's authoritative is the statute, 17 USC 107, and the case law interpreting the statute. Not the legislative history either, to any particular degree in this case.
And while "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is ONE of the issues in deteriming fair use, it's not the only one, and it's not likely to be determinative by itself. And it isn't a hard and fast number -- it depends, and will vary in each case.
Plus of course, what matters is how much of the work you have -- not where it came from. If you d/l an entire movie, it doesn't matter if you got it from one place, one hundred places, or one million places. The outcome is always the same -- welcome to infringement town. Population: you.
Basically, you suffer from the same flaw I see a lot around here. You think you're smarter than the lawyers that might sue you, and the courts that might hold against you. With regards to legal issues, I guarantee that you are not. You are making the kind of loser arguments commonly heard from idiots that think they don't have to pay taxes because of the color of the fringe on the flag in the courtroom. These are loser arguments for a reason. The people who make them invariably lose.
Don't be a loser.
I was talking about Liberman.
No. That's just being clever, and it won't work. Even a tiny amount of a work used can be enough to infringe. Plus the download is itself infringing.
Ah, see, this is what happens when you read a statute and forget to read the applicable definitions of the terms in that statute. The important definitions here are in 17 USC 101 and 1001.
Basically, and the Diamond case came to this conclusion, computers are not digital audio recording devices or media, and therefore do not qualify for the 1008 exemption. (which also means that they don't have to have the SCMS DRM measures mandated by the AHRA, nor pay royalties to the record industry)
Since when can someone go to prison for copyright violation?
Since 1897. There have been criminal penalties for at least some copyright infringement for over a century in the US. It's not a new thing by any means.
There's a small amount of information on this here.
Regarding your .sig, I'd say yes. A right to privacy and equal rights both belong in the constitution.
They may have side effects you don't like, but this is no different from side effects of other parts of the constitution that other people don't like, such as Nazis being allowed to parade.
If you really believe in civil liberties then you're stuck having to believe in them even for people you hate, and causes you despise. They're not one sided.
Why? He's not liberal.
In cases where no direct infringement occurs, there is no other liability.
But frankly, the situations you propose where no infringement would occur are pretty rare. And you're trying to defeat the knowledge prong of the test.
First, vicarious liability doesn't require knowledge. So it doesn't matter.
Second, while contributory liability does require knowledge, once the downloader is actually aware of the infringing file, he has actual knowledge and liability will stand unless he immediately deletes it. And if he tends to get infringing files, we can probably impute constructive knowledge.
I think he's still liable.
Without further details or reflection, I'd say that the direct infringer is the uploader in _that_ rather unusual situation.
And then I'd also say that the person with the wishlist is a contributory and vicarious infringer based upon the direct infringement of the uploader.
So they're both liable for copyright infringement.
Legal, with explicit permission from Roddenbery's estate.
That only works if the estate has the copyrights to grant permission, and isn't otherwise prevented from doing so. I would be very surprised to see that their permission is actually sufficient.
Legal, under parody laws.
There is no parody law. There is fair use, but that doesn't protect ALL parody, only those parodies (or non-parodies) which are fair uses. There's an analysis used, but I don't want to get into it here, other than to point out that it is not correct to say that parody is necessarily noninfringing.
Other videos such as "Starship Exeter" and "Hidden Frontier" are of questionable nature for the producers (their copyright), but legal for you to download.
No, if it is infringing, then it is infringing of the underlying, infringed upon copyright, to download them.
Remember, the people you are getting it from have a copyright of their own, which they may exercise.
1) That is often not true, actually. Check out 17 USC 103(a) with regards to derivative works unlawfully based upon dominant works.
2) It doesn't matter. A copyright is a right to prevent people from doing something. Not a right to permit people to do something. For example, if I write a book which is libelous, although I have a right to prevent other people from reproducing that book, via my copyright, I cannot publish it legally.
So if you create a work and hold a copyright on it, and someone else has a copyright on some portion of it, and this isn't a joint copyright situation, then only where ALL the copyright holders agree, can it be released. Otherwise any one has a veto over the others.
The same thing holds true in the patent realm. You can patent an invention which is an improvement to someone else's patented invention. They can't use your invention, but you cannot use it either while they hold their patent and withhold their permission.
As for the Presidential Debates, there are several places where you can get them with the full permission of the copyright holder.
Which doesn't mean you can redistribute them via BT, however.
My list generally assumes that the copyright holders are the ones distributing the work.
But this is not always true, so it is a dangerous assumption.
In short, there are plenty of legal uses for BitTorrent. Legal issues still exist, but no more so than any other downloadable content.
I agree, and I would add that there are also plenty of substantial potential legal uses as well.
But since damages in this arena can be difficult to compute, and one can make valid arguments as to what damages consist of (see the radical change in patent damages in the last few decades), I don't think this is where reform can be particularly effective.
I favor expanding exemptions so as to reduce scope, more than reducing damages which would be shifted more upon commercial entities anyway if incurred.
It's not a grey area. It's totally illegal unless they're actually given permission.
The fact that the copyright holders have been willing to turn a blind eye to it doesn't change that. Fansubbers are like the little birds that fly into the mouths of crocodiles. They might be tolerated, but can easily become a tasty meat snack at any time.