I've seen DVD rippers that ripped the subtitles by displaying one bitmapped character at a time, asking a human to identify them (this shape is an 'a,' this shape is a 'b,' etc.) until it knew what every character used in the subtitles was. It was trivial to OCR them, since it was just looking at a perfect-quality bitmapped image.
With an ebook reader, a digital camera, a computer, and some trivial soldering to let a homemade ripper trigger the next page button, I don't see why something similar would be difficult. And having been done once, the ripped book can be put online and everyone other than the initial person can copy it in a simpler fashion.
You're partially right about why we don't have more DRM now, but you have forgotten that DRM can never work.
It is also important to note that, before copyright, there were far, far fewer books written then their are today.
That is true. But how much of that is attributable to copyright, and how much of that is attributable to things like the past having lower literacy rates, more time-consuming and expensive means of duplication, less leisure time for people to spend reading, rarer and more expensive means of artificial light, more state censorship of creative works, etc.?
If we abolish that then literature will eventually go back to being a performance piece, and the really good writing will dry up or be converted to $60 a seat plays and TV shows.
I don't think that abolishing copyright is the best choice (though it is a legitimate option) as compared to more modest reforms, such as abolishing it only for certain classes of work, drastically reducing the duration of copyright, requiring registration in order to get copyrights, allowing natural persons acting non-commercially to do anything without it being infringing, making the use of DRM and copyright mutually exclusive, etc. While some authors might take their ball and go home, this is perfectly acceptable if we have been giving them too much copyright in comparison to how much their work benefits the public; while I'd like to have their works out there, if they come at too high a price, we are better off without them.
the spirit of copyright, which is to reward authors for contributing to our culture while at the same time getting that literature out to as many people as possible.
The purpose of copyright is to serve the public interest. Whether authors happen to benefit from this or not is utterly irrelevant, save for how this factors into the overall public interest. It isn't a reward; it's more like a bribe. And like any bribe, it should be the least amount that gets the job done, where the value received by giving the bribe is greater than the cost of paying it out.
Well, that's not a great idea, of course. Zip codes merely relate to postal delivery areas, and are subject to change as the Post Office sees fit for its own purposes. The borders of different zip codes do not relate to the borders of areas with different amounts of taxes, or different authorities collecting them.
Street addresses seem like a better system, provided that the various bodies collecting their taxes have a list of addresses that fall within their jurisdiction. Otherwise, I see a lot of tedious work with maps being needed, especially if someone has land that straddles a relevant border.
For example, my parents live in an unincorporated area of the county, but one of our neighbors (with the same zip code) had his property annexed into the city. Down in the southern part of the county, there is a second incorporated city, which shares a zip code with part of the much larger city in the county, as well as with some unincorporated land in between them.
Well, I don't know how the Canadians handle it, but I can tell you that the Berne Convention is not of any use in an American court. No one has rights in the US pursuant to Berne; rather, copyrights here are entirely governed by our domestic law, which only extends as far as our borders.
I think there is a slight difference. Let's switch to the dairy example.
A dairy farmer has some cows, and is in business for the money. Whatever farming practices cause him to earn the most net profits (i.e. gross revenue minus costs), those are the ones he'll adopt. This might mean letting the cows largely take care of themselves, so as to minimize his costs. This might mean treating the cows like royalty, with gold cowbells, and velvet cushions to sit on in the barn, which has very high costs. Or it might mean being abusive to the cows, giving them electric shocks and drugs.
The farmer doesn't care about the cows for their own sake, he only cares about money, and therefore only values the cows insofar as they can make milk for him. A magical cow that didn't need food, water, shelter, veterinary services, etc. and kept on producing milk would be his ideal.
While I'm not advocating that we abuse authors, or force them to do anything, I do say that good copyright policy is concerned only with the public interest, i.e. books. How well authors make out is of no concern whatsoever, except to the extent that it factors into maximizing the public interest, and authors happen to be a necessary evil when getting more books.
It's pretty obvious really. The whole point of copyright was to enable the creator to benefit commercially from their artwork for a limited period so that they would have an income and be able to continue producing works that enrich/entertain society.
No, the whole point of copyright is to benefit society by encouraging the creation and publication of works which otherwise would not be created or published, while restricting the public's use of those works to the least extent possible, in both duration and scope.
It isn't meant to support an author no matter what (a flop is a flop, regardless of copyright), and frankly, who cares? It isn't the authors we care about; it is their output. And even then, we still want to be frugal, and provide authors with the bare minimum incentive that gets them to actually keep creating and publishing more of the works that we want.
But what the majority wants still isn't reason enough to allow any kind of behaviour.
I agree. It isn't good enough to live in a democracy; not only must the democracy be moderated, so that it doesn't devolve into mob rule, but there must also be protection for minorities, particularly unpopular minorities. Thus the example of the government finally living up to its obligations to protect the civil rights of black people, over the objections of many in the white majority.
Let's face the truth, what the majority wants is very commonly driven by selfish motives
Yes. For example, the majority selfishly wants more creative works to be written and published, and to be as unrestricted as possible, as soon as possible, with regard to what they can do with those works. That is the one and only reason to justify copyright; majority selfishness. Copyright isn't a civil liberty or anything, remember, it is an utterly utilitarian system for helping the public appease their greed for unrestricted works. Indeed, copyright runs directly counter to some of our most important civil liberties, and would be totally intolerable if it not only was state-sponsored censorship (which it is) but was also a bad deal (which it may be, but probably doesn't necessarily have to be).
We do need copyrights of some kind, as everyone should be rewarded when his work is used in any way.
No, we don't need copyrights; the best you can say about them is that we may be better off with copyrights, than without them. Nor should everyone "be rewarded when his work is used in any way." That's not a justification for copyright.
Again, copyrights not a right, they are utilitarian; they should only be granted, when and to the extent that, it benefits the public to do so. If the public is better off granting a copyright to an author, then let's do so. And if the public is better off not granting a copyright to an author, then let's do that. Likewise, the precise duration and amount of protection should be determined by what's best for the public, not what's best for, or desired by the author.
Global fundings of different types have been proposed many times, but were systematically rejected by the right wing, who argued it wouldn't be fair, and we couldn't measure in a realistic and effective way who should get what, and that those who don't use digital media would pay for nothing.
If you mean for everything, generally, I agree with the right wingers on this one (to my surprise). The genius of copyright is that authors who create popular works will get greater rewards than authors who create lousy works; the government doesn't have to directly put in a penny from the public coffers. Copyright isn't a reward, so much as it is a lens or funnel, which directs more of the money that can be made from the work to the copyright holder than he would get otherwise. Although do note that it imposes a transactional cost that can reduce the amount of money being made from a work as well. E.g. 'It's a Wonderful Life' only became popular once it was out of copyright, precisely because it was out of copyright, and thus cheap to air. Even the cost of getting permission, were it granted for free, would've been too much.
I don't mind the government running public museums. I don't mind the government providing some aid to the arts community, if only to keep certain art forms from practically dying out (opera is not a big profit center), or to keep artists employed at something they're good at (e.g. in the 30's, the WPA ran theaters to keep actors working, writing projects to keep authors working, etc.), or hiring artists to beautify public buildings and monuments (Beaux-Arts is nice, but pretty much everything since WW2 is total crap). But beyond this, I don't want the government getting involved in artistic decisions. And providing money without making artistic decisions is even worse, since it lets artists engage in fraud or at least misuse of funds, very easily.
What do you mean with saying that speed limits are broken as a law? Please clarify.
You may be misunderstanding me. I'm saying that while people generally acknowledge that speed limits are a good idea, and should be enforced, they also speed and hope not to get caught at it.
DMCA safe harbor protects providers from the unlawful acts of others. Google is copying material without authorization on their own accord.
Mea culpa. Thanks for the catch.
''Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers.... "Science" is not limited to fields of modern scientific inquiry, but to all knowledge, including philosophy and literature.''
Looks like you're one of the confused modern readers.
No, the material you quoted supports what I was saying. In the copyrights and patents clause of the Constitution, the word 'science' refers to the subject matter of copyright (i.e. creative works), while the words 'useful arts' refer to the subject matter of patents (i.e. technology). Copyright is meant to promote the progress of Science. It's just an oddity of the English language and the clause that we now associate the arts with copyright (except when we don't, e.g. prior art, or state of the art technology), and science with patents.
This is also evident from just reading the clause, which is always structured in copyright/patent order: The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science [copyrights] and useful arts [patents], by securing for limited times to authors [copyrights] and inventors [patents] the exclusive right to their respective writings [copyrights] and discoveries [patents];
Moving on....
Second sale doesn't involve copies.
Since copies are tangible objects in which works are fixed, I'd say it does. Perhaps you meant to say that it does not involve copying.
But again, so what? It can be lawful to make copies without infringing on copyright, e.g. when a for-profit business purchases copies of software, and then makes backups of it pursuant to section 117, in order to save on the cost of purchasing replacement copies if the first set of copies go bad somehow....by helping authors.
To the minimum extent necessary to help the public to the maximum extent possible. You are confusing the means with the ends.
This is circular logic, arguing whether copyright exists to help authors or whether authors exist because copyright helps them.
Well I didn't start that. Authors do not exist because copyright helps them. Authors exist independently of copyright. Copyright is one incentive for them to create, but it is not the only one, nor is it always the most important one. I used ot be a professional artist, making a comfortable living, and I never made a penny by exploiting my copyrights, whether directly or indirectly. I didn't need to.
Fame, art for art's sake, money that can be made without exploiting copyrights, etc. are all very strong, even today, and would be in a tomorrow without copyright.
Well, you're talking web sites, rather than books, but there's a couple of problems with your post.
First, a typical search engine doesn't have to rely upon fair use; the DMCA safe harbor is more accomodating.
Second, your analysis is wrong and incomplete in the fourth factor. Web sites do not, as a rule, suffer financially by being indexed without authorization. There is no market for selling rights to index a site. And it's trivially easy for any site to have itself removed from the Google index, if it does think it can sell that right. And considering the burdens involved, it is easier for an unusual web site copyright holder to opt out than it is for Google to contact every one of them so that they can opt in.
Remember, fair use is not intended to help copyright holders; it is intended to prevent mindless adherence to the rest of copyright law from acting contrary to the expressly stated constitutional purpose of copyright law: to promote the progress of science. Search engines for the web are good for society; a lack of them is not good. The ability for copyright holders to opt in, rather than to opt out, does not outweigh this. Ergo, search engines are apt to be a fair use.
And that's a good thing, since I'm sensing a lot of mindlessness emanating from your post.
Copyright shouldn't guarantee you profits, but what it should do is prevent other from profiting on your work without your permission
Copyright has never guaranteed profits for copyright holders; whether they profit or not depends on the market. Copyright merely concentrates profits toward them, however much they might be. But copyright has never even tried to completely concentrate profits toward copyright holders. See, e.g. First Sale.
Remember, copyright isn't intended to help authors. It is intended to help the public. It helps the public by encouraging the creation and publication of works, and by minimizing the length and scope of copyright so that the public is as free as possible to actually use those works as it sees fit (which includes being able to get works for free).
We only temporarily grant copyrights of limited scope in order to encourage creation and publication. It is only good sense to grant the least amount of copyright necessary for a work to be created and published. Any larger of a grant than that would be wasted, in much the same way that if someone will sell you a gallon of gas for $3, you'd be a fool to buy it for $5.
If an author will create and publish with others able to profit in some way from the work, then that's perfectly appropriate. If another author will not, then perhaps we ought to give that author more. But we should remember that some authors may want so much more that the ultimate benefit to the public is less than the cost in terms of what we surrender. In that case, we are literally better off not giving the author what he wants, even if this means we don't get the work created and published. Some things just come at too high a price.
While I find Google to be dangerous from a privacy perspective, I think that their search engine (and those of their competitors) being comprehensive is far and away more important than respecting the wishes of mere authors with regard to search engines.
This is especially true given that copyright holders can opt out now, but virtually none care to do so, which strongly indicates that your claims have no basis in fact. If the copyright holders did care, why do they not take even trivial steps to make it clear?
Democracy doesn't always produce the right answer, and not all laws are worthy of respect, or even legitimate.
Compare speed limits (respected but usually broken), Prohibition (not respected, usually broken), and Civil Rights laws (initially not respected, initially usually broken).
I'd say that usually the government should enact laws that conform with the stated wishes and actual behavior of its people. Sometimes it is good for the government to get in a fight with the people, such as the federal government forcing the South to desegregate, but more usually it is not a good idea, partially because the stakes are so much lower, such as when they banned alcohol.
Overall, I'd say that copyright is more like Prohibition than Civil Rights. While Prohibition was widely considered to be a good idea at the time, it was immediately ignored by pretty much everyone. The lawlessness that this engendered quickly spread, and soon the fact that people ignored the laws about drinking meant that there was a huge upswing in official corruption, in violence, and in organized crime.
If people want to do things which currently would be copyright infringement, I think we would be best off in legalizing this, rather than fighting it. Fighting it hasn't worked so far, and probably never will. But the collateral damage done by the disrespect people have for one law will spread into disrespect for other laws, and the damage done in combating it will be worse than the offenses committed (e.g. three strikes). This issue just isn't important enough for the government to defend; better to yield.
Plus, of course, there's simply no evidence whatsoever that any current copyright law is democratic in nature. For over a century, special interests have dominated the field, and Congress has passed whatever they've been told to pass. More recently, international treaties have been used to completely circumvent domestic political debate, so that ever-worsening laws can be presented as a fait accompli. See e.g. the ACTA treaty, the details of which are being kept secret, which will certainly be non-negotiable once the public and our democratic representatives have a chance to see it, and which will be tied to other important issues so that it is dragged into law not because it is popularly wanted, but because it is inseparable from things we do want (although I'd find that part doubtful too, really).
So don't blather on about democracy; it is absent here, and is likely to malfunction even if we did consult it.
It isn't good to break laws, since this can destabilize society, and it isn't good for society to have bad laws on the books. But which course of action we should take -- breaking it, or suffering from it -- depends on which would be better. Here's another example: The Fugitive Slave Act. I would not have hesitated to break that one; a society that has a law like that is in need of destabilization. We're not at that point with copyright, by any means, but it does remind us that just because something is a law, that doesn't mean we ought to obey it.
I like the idea of copyright, and I think we certainly ought to have copyright laws. But I hate our current copyright laws, and they're getting worse. Depending on who breaks them, and how, I may not have a problem with it, personally.
So? Traditionally (and in a good copyright system anyway) there are many ways for a work to enter the public domain. There's nothing bad about the others, or especially good about the term expiring.
Well, we already have a law that grants copyrights on public domain works. It is 17 USC 104A. Feel free to challenge it, and let us know how that goes.
however, you do not have the right to read a copyrighted book, unless the copyright holder has granted you permission to do so
Well that's just plain wrong.
The person who owns a copy of a book can restrict access to it, and refuse to let other people handle it unless and until they pay for it. However, that person may or may not be the copyright holder. Nor is it necessary that the books are even copyrighted.
The copyright holder, meanwhile, has no rights as to a work or copies that the work is fixed within, except for the very specific rights set forth in the law, which themselves are full of exceptions.
The copyright holder has the right to prohibit other people from making copies of the work, and has the right to prohibit other people from distributing copies of the work (both subject to many exceptions, e.g. the distribution right doesn't apply to people reselling lawfully made copies), but he does not have a right to prohibit other people reading books for which he holds the copyright. That right is just not in the law.
So yes, Virginia, so long as you lawfully have physical access to a book -- something that the copyright holder cannot control once he has initially distributed it -- you have a right to read that book.
After all, someone had to do go through a number of hoops to eventually release the book in a format you could read, and they deserve to be compensated for doing so.
People do not always deserve to be compensated for things that they do. I once saved the princess in Super Mario Bros. but no one paid me for that. In fact, with regard to copyright policy, the smart thing is to not grant authors copyrights unless it was absolutely necessary in order to get them to create and publish their work. That's simple frugality, right there. Why pay if the author is willing to do it for free? Or at least for non-copyright related benefits, such as fame.
You always have the choice to either pay for the book, or not buy it at all. Any other claim that you're 'entitled to X' is just bullshit.
And in a country with a government that is legitimate because it is consented to by the people, who have a say in such matters, we also have the choice to rewrite copyright law to better suit our purposes. At which point authors always have the choice to either keep being an author under the new, better-for-the-public laws, or to not write at all. Any claim that they're 'entitled to copyrights, particularly copyrights as they'd like them to be' is just bullshit.
No, plagiarism and infringement are two very different things. For example, if you copied someone's ideas for a paper and took credit for them yourself, that would be plagiarism but not infringement; if you copied the paper itself but gave credit, that would not be plagiarism but would be infringement.
Plagiarism is about who gets credit for things, not copying, while infringement is the other way around.
The real question is whether or not making a copy of a CD (an approved device) to an MP3 player (also almost certainly an approved device) by using a PC (a non-approved device) for the ripping/transfer is still covered. Based on past legal cases and statements agreed to by the RIAA during Senate hearings on the matter, this should be legitimate -- but it has never been ruled on directly in court.
Diamond v. RIAA got into this, and found that computers break the chain of AHRA-compliance. Thus MP3 player manufacturers don't have to pay the AHRA royalties, respect SCMS, etc. so long as they require a computer in order to basically do anything.
The interesting thing about the 1992 AHRA, is that, while it is still illegal to do so, there is no legal PENALTY for making copies of an copyrighted audio CD using a standalone audio-CD recorder -- even if you are making dozens of copies and giving them to all your friends and family members. If I wanted to make 1000 copies of an audio CD and then hand them out on the street corner for the heck of it, the strongest thing they can do to you legally is ask you to cease and desist. This only applies to non-copyprotected audio CD's -- if they have copy protection on them then the DMCA comes into effect (which is an entirely different mess).
Nice try, but no dice.
The AHRA is very unusually, very specifically, and very cunningly worded. It doesn't make the reproduction of certain sound recordings non-infringing. It merely makes it non-actionable; i.e. you cannot be sued for this unlawful behavior.
Since the copies made are unlawfully made, they are not eligible for first sale. Therefore, making a copy of a sound recording under the AHRA and then giving that copy to someone else would infringe the distribution right.
No, the best argument is one that they apparently failed to raise - the jury was presented with an instruction, number 110, that willful infringement requires only knowledge or reckless disregard of the copyright, and thus damages up to $150k per work are available, thus leading the jury to pick the $18,000 figure. The RIAA briefed in support of this instruction, and I can't find a copy of the opposition brief or the ruling, but the final jury instruction was exactly what the RIAA wanted. I believe it's incorrect as a matter of law, because their interpretation expressly removes the $750-30k range of damages from ever being able to be applied. Instead, it would be $200, or $150k, but that's not what Congress said. They're misreading and misapplying both the case law and the statute.
The defense had made an argument regarding the requirement for willful infringement, but the judge rejected it, since, predictably, it went way beyond the statute.
There's also one other argument the defense could make with regard to the jury instructions. The suggested instruction by the plaintiff was that statutory damages should be calculated per infringement, and the judge accepted this. However, the statute requires that the damages be calculated per work, regardless of the number of infringements. I predicted at the time that this could result in the jury multiplying the damages by the number of times they estimated the works were infringed by the defendant. And the number that they came up with is suspiciously $750 (minimum damages per work) x $30 (number of works at issue) x $30. It is possible that they meant to award the minimum damages but multiplied them by 30 for whatever reason.
This does happen sometimes, but they call them commodities, not creative works.
Well, you'll find that copies of creative works are commodities. One copy of Romeo and Juliet is as good as another, and so publishers wind up competing against one another, and the public benefits from cheap, widely available copies.
You have to realize that without Copyright, Patents and other methods of control distribution of Creativity are the only way to encourage Creativity.
This is demonstrably false. Copyright as a means to 'encourage creativity' was first enacted in 1710, and then only in England. It took some more time for it to spread. And many types of works, such as paintings, were not covered for quite some time either.
Yet many creative works predate copyright law. If copyright was "the only way to encourage creativity," they couldn't exist.
The most you can say for copyright law is that it may encourage the creation and publication of works that otherwise would not be created or published otherwise. But of course, the amount of encouragement that copyright provides will vary depending on circumstances. And you ought not to assume that more copyright is always better in terms of how much encouragement it provides; very broad, long-lasting copyright can permit copyright holders to discourage new authors from creating, since the former group sees competition as undesirable.
Who to say a better performer can't steal your well written song?
This already happens. Musicians are allowed to cover the songs of other musicians, and sometimes do a better job, e.g. Jimi Hendrix did a better version of 'All Along the Watchtower' than Bob Dylan. While there is a fee to be paid for doing covers, it is set in the statute and is fairly small, so most of the rewards would tend to go to the better performer, rather than the songwriter.
What's to stop another band from imitating your sound and throwing a tour that happens to play in every city you do and the same time, but at 1/4 the price for admission?
Again, there's nothing stopping that now. Since you think it would be the end of the world if we allowed this, and we do and always have allowed it, please feel free to point to signs of the imminent collapse of art as a direct consequence of this.
If you don't agree with their system, don't participate in it.
Why not participate in it with the aim of fixing it or abolishing it? Like it or leave it has always been a false choice.
On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations.
That's not desirable at all.
Each nation should pursue the copyright policy, and enact the copyright laws, that serve its own people best. This could be no copyright, or minimal copyright, or broad copyright, depending on the circumstances of each particular country. The only international cooperation on copyright matters ought to be that various countries will work to ensure that whatever copyright laws, if any, each has, they are not mutually incompatible such that an author might have to choose between a copyright in Canada, or a copyright in China, being unable to get both due to some sort of technical issue.
In the US, we should only enact copyright laws when doing so will promote the progress of science more than if we did not enact them, and then only to the extent that we enjoy the greatest public benefit for Americans. This can include granting copyrights on works created by foreigners without concern for reciprocity by their country, since one of our goals is to encourage authors to create and publish works, wherever they're from, and wherever they are working.
There's no reason for laws to be uniform, and in any event, it has helped get copyright laws in the fucked up state they are in now, and the various international agreements on the matter are significant obstacles to reforming the laws so that they can best serve the public interest.
Other than some fetish for it, I just don't see why anyone would want uniformity anyway.
As for the treaty, the reason major copyright legislation is conducted by means of treaty, rather than in national legislatures, is so that there is no public debate. The representatives of the people never have an opportunity to work out the details of the treaty according to the interests of their constituents. Instead, executive branches agree to the treaty and either bind their countries to it directly, bypassing legislative bodies, or present it to the legislature as a fait accompli which cannot be altered and which has too much riding on it to be rejected.
It is profoundly anti-democratic, and should not be tolerated under any circumstance. Treaties negotiated and agreed too without being worked on publicly, and without the direct involvement of both executive and legislative branches of government should be routinely trashed as a matter of principle. There is no issue so important that the underhanded methods being used here would ever be acceptable.
Name ONE instance of fair use being under attack.... And please, don't say the DMCA. All that did was say it is OK for copyright holders to enforce their existing rights through technological means.
I'd say the DMCA.
After all, it goes far beyond merely permitting copyright holders to enforce their existing rights through technological means. First, it permits copyright holders to enforce rights they do not have through technological means. Since it is an exercise of free speech rights to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted material (e.g. through fair use), they are, in fact, trying to impair the rights of others every time they use a DRM system that is overly restrictive, which is to say, every time they use a DRM system, period.
Second, if copyright holders merely want to enforce their existing rights, they don't need technological means; courts work fine (and don't let the copyright holders go too far, as already pointed out). But even if the copyright holder does want to use technological means, he still doesn't need the DMCA. The DMCA is notable not because it permits the use of DRM -- which could already be used -- but because it grants a new right to prevent people from interfering with the technological means even when it does not infringe a copyright. Why do copyright holders need to protect something other than their copyright, when their copyright isn't even threatened?
The fact is, there has never been anything in copyright law that says 'it is OK to make backups'.
17 USC 117(a)(2). It doesn't apply to everything, but for what it does cover, it says it is OK to make backups.
Plus, of course, any use is potentially a fair use, depending on the circumstances involved, so some backups may be made pursuant to fair use. Libraries can make copies of copyrighted works without permission under some circumstances. And it is non-actionable to make copies of certain sound recordings, using approved media or devices, again, under the right circumstances, which could easily include making backups.
If you don't even know what copyright law is, how can you say what it doesn't include?
There has never been anything in copyright law that says 'it is OK to make a copy on a different medium for your own use'.
See above.
All there has ever been is a rule that says the copyright owner is the only one allowed to make copies or allow others to do so, and that there are a few exemptions to this rule which as decided on a case by case basis.
No.
The rule is that the copyright holder has the right to prohibit other people from making copies. Copyright doesn't grant the copyright holder the right to actually do anything; he inherently has that right, which is protected as free speech and press. In fact, we all have that right, but copyright temporarily and to a limited extent, interferes with it. That copyright is an exclusive right (i.e. a right to exclude others) is why an author who makes child pornography, for example, may have a perfectly valid copyright in it, and can sue if someone else copies it, but cannot make copies of it himself either.
There are then very many exceptions to that right, most of which apply automatically whenever the circumstances are right. For example, if a copy of a work is lawfully made under US copyright law, it can be resold by the owner without the permission of the copyright holder. This always applies; it isn't to be determined on a case by case basis. Fair use is unusual in that it is decided on a case by case basis, but absolutely any otherwise infringing use can potentially be a fair use, so what it lacks in certainty, it makes up in breadth; fair use is the last-resort catch-all exception to copyright.
Except for length of copyright, name ONE change to copyright law that gives anything new to copyright holders, or takes away a right consumers already had.
17 USC 104A. This takes works that are in the public domain in the United States and places them under copyright.
I could name some more changes, if you like, but it's a pretty significant one.
it is never in the public interest to tolerate authors throwing obstacles into the path of people wishing to engage in fair uses. All DRM schemes fail in this respect for exactly the reasons you note -- DRM schemes fail to allow those otherwise infringing actions which, if fully adjudicated, would be determined to be fair uses
What sense does it make to bar copyright holders from preventing infringement so that infringements can later be tried in court?
If that were all that they were doing, we could discuss the (lack of) merits of self-help in our society. But the very part of my post that you quoted and emboldened points out that the copyright holders are preventing uses that, if a court ruled on them, would be found to not have been infringements at all. It makes a great deal of sense to promote uses of copyrighted works against the wishes of the author where it is good for society, and to make those uses lawful. And they have done this, in fact; that's what fair use is, just to name one example.
If there were a DRM scheme that perfectly judged every use as if it had run the gauntlet of the courts, and allowed or disallowed them depending on whether they were lawful or not, DRM would not be nearly so objectionable. However, no DRM scheme does that -- instead they are inevitably over-inclusive -- and no DRM scheme ever possibly could, so it is pointless to try to improve them. Better to abandon the entire thing as having been a bad idea in the first place, badly implemented.
All the arguments against things like the DMCA, that I've heard, are from the consumer's point of view entirely, not being able to do this or do that.
Consumers, as you call them, are more important in copyright policy than authors or publishers (who are both also consumers, after all). It sounds to me like you've been hearing a lot of good arguments, and been ignoring them like some sort of moron.
they are allowed to actively prevent infringement (why on Earth shouldn't they?)
Because they're very, very bad at it. First, they prevent things that aren't infringement, and second, in practice, they don't prevent actual infringement, because the pirates are inevitably more clever, more motivated, have more time on their hands, etc.
The movie studios could just murder everyone in their beds, and this would also prevent a lot of infringement. But I'd be opposed to that too. There are more important things than preventing infringement, even when looking at copyright policy.
When you say 'public' that includes both consumers AND producers AND everything in between. It's in the public's interest to keep generating quality work, and keep spending money on it.
That is only half of the public interest, and the slightly less important half actually. Also, quality is not a factor -- the copyright system is only interested in quantity, and in any case, no one wants the government making artistic decisions about what is a quality work and what isn't.
The slightly more important half of the public interest is in providing the minimum amount of copyright, for the least amount of time, necessary in order to incentivize the creation of works. This is simple prudence: getting the most works created for the least cost to the public in terms of rights granted. The works should enter the public domain as rapidly as possible, and be as near to the public domain as possible before then, so that the works are more valuable to the public (for example, a movie I can't resell is not very valuable to me, while a movie I can copy and give away however I please is more valuable to me; a movie I can't make my own sequel to is not very valuable to me, while a movie I can use as the basis for a derivative work is valuable to me; etc.).
I recall that NASA did a study many years ago regarding how long their data remained readable. After all, it just wouldn't do to spend lots of money firing monkeys into the moon if the data wasn't kept over the long term.
They tried putting the data onto punch cards, paper tape, and hardcopy printouts, those being the standard storage systems of the era. After a rather short span of time, they found that they had lost the ability to easily read the first two formats, but they could still understand the printouts and make use of them.
I don't think paper books, and the need to have large collections of paper books, are going anywhere anytime soon. The convenience of ebooks is a nice supplement for regular books, but no substitute.
DRM also allows Libraries to lend e-books, soemthing they could not legally do without it.
It seems easier and better to me to simply change the law to permit them to do so without DRM, then.
(from your later post:) It's a stupid argument because [publishing ebooks without DRM] will never happen (except on a select, book by book basis), and if we have a ubiquitous technology for managing legal copies, like ePub is fast becoming, it will only be a problem for people who wish to copy the material illegaly.
The music industry said they would never publish music without DRM, and now they do. Didn't even take very long for them to see the error of their ways.
But you're almost right. Eliminating DRM will never happen so long as quislings like yourself have that sort of self-harming defeatist attitude.
Further, DRM is a problem for people who wish to use DRM-encumbered works in any way that the copyright holder doesn't like, regardless of legality. It is legal to sell used books, but if the copyright holder decides that he doesn't like that, since he doesn't make money from it, he can effectively stop the used book trade in ebooks by making them non-functional.
This is intolerable.
I'm sitting on my couch, across from a massive bookcase occupying an entire wall up to the 12' high ceiling, which is full of books. And it isn't even the only bookcase I've got. I love reading, I love books, I frequently buy books, and check out books from the library, and borrow them from friends.
And I will never get one of these idiotic ebook readers, or buy an ebook until I can do so without having to suffer through yet another inane DRM system. This is not to say that I am against the concept of ebooks. I'm seriously considering getting a slate-format laptop and using it as a reader that I have significantly more control over (and which would have a bigger, better screen; there are too many books that a crude device like a Kindle can't even begin to display properly). I'll supply the books myself, whether via a homebuilt camera-based scanner that doesn't damage books, or other means.
It is impossible for a copyright holder to permit fair use. A use can only be a fair use when it would otherwise be copyright infringement, and actions taken with the permission of the copyright holder are never infringing.
This having been said, the only legitimate concern when crafting copyright law is the public interest, and it is never in the public interest to tolerate authors throwing obstacles into the path of people wishing to engage in fair uses. All DRM schemes fail in this respect for exactly the reasons you note -- DRM schemes fail to allow those otherwise infringing actions which, if fully adjudicated, would be determined to be fair uses. DRM schemes also tend to prohibit actions which are not even infringing at all, which is also against the public interest.
When authors, publishers, and copyright holders engage in such behavior it is completely appropriate to speak out against it, and rewrite the laws to prohibit it, or discourage it, as appropriate.
For example, I would like to see copyright law modified such that if a copyright holder or a person acting under his authority applies DRM to a published work, that work is immediately placed in the public domain. Copyright holders would have a choice to either trust in the legal protection of copyright, or the technical protection of DRM, but not both. This is similar to how we currently handle inventions; an invention can be patented, which requires disclosure, or can be a trade secret, but not both. DRM would be legal, which I think is a consequence of the First Amendment, but people using it would not receive the encouragement of copyright, which they are not entitled to automatically anyway.
Of course, it would be in the public interest to crack the DRM on the public domain works, so the US Copyright Office could work in conjunction with private parties to break the DRM schemes and distribute copies of the works to everyone for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen DVD rippers that ripped the subtitles by displaying one bitmapped character at a time, asking a human to identify them (this shape is an 'a,' this shape is a 'b,' etc.) until it knew what every character used in the subtitles was. It was trivial to OCR them, since it was just looking at a perfect-quality bitmapped image.
With an ebook reader, a digital camera, a computer, and some trivial soldering to let a homemade ripper trigger the next page button, I don't see why something similar would be difficult. And having been done once, the ripped book can be put online and everyone other than the initial person can copy it in a simpler fashion.
You're partially right about why we don't have more DRM now, but you have forgotten that DRM can never work.
It is also important to note that, before copyright, there were far, far fewer books written then their are today.
That is true. But how much of that is attributable to copyright, and how much of that is attributable to things like the past having lower literacy rates, more time-consuming and expensive means of duplication, less leisure time for people to spend reading, rarer and more expensive means of artificial light, more state censorship of creative works, etc.?
If we abolish that then literature will eventually go back to being a performance piece, and the really good writing will dry up or be converted to $60 a seat plays and TV shows.
I don't think that abolishing copyright is the best choice (though it is a legitimate option) as compared to more modest reforms, such as abolishing it only for certain classes of work, drastically reducing the duration of copyright, requiring registration in order to get copyrights, allowing natural persons acting non-commercially to do anything without it being infringing, making the use of DRM and copyright mutually exclusive, etc. While some authors might take their ball and go home, this is perfectly acceptable if we have been giving them too much copyright in comparison to how much their work benefits the public; while I'd like to have their works out there, if they come at too high a price, we are better off without them.
the spirit of copyright, which is to reward authors for contributing to our culture while at the same time getting that literature out to as many people as possible.
The purpose of copyright is to serve the public interest. Whether authors happen to benefit from this or not is utterly irrelevant, save for how this factors into the overall public interest. It isn't a reward; it's more like a bribe. And like any bribe, it should be the least amount that gets the job done, where the value received by giving the bribe is greater than the cost of paying it out.
zip-code based tax collection systems
Well, that's not a great idea, of course. Zip codes merely relate to postal delivery areas, and are subject to change as the Post Office sees fit for its own purposes. The borders of different zip codes do not relate to the borders of areas with different amounts of taxes, or different authorities collecting them.
Street addresses seem like a better system, provided that the various bodies collecting their taxes have a list of addresses that fall within their jurisdiction. Otherwise, I see a lot of tedious work with maps being needed, especially if someone has land that straddles a relevant border.
For example, my parents live in an unincorporated area of the county, but one of our neighbors (with the same zip code) had his property annexed into the city. Down in the southern part of the county, there is a second incorporated city, which shares a zip code with part of the much larger city in the county, as well as with some unincorporated land in between them.
Well, I don't know how the Canadians handle it, but I can tell you that the Berne Convention is not of any use in an American court. No one has rights in the US pursuant to Berne; rather, copyrights here are entirely governed by our domestic law, which only extends as far as our borders.
I think there is a slight difference. Let's switch to the dairy example.
A dairy farmer has some cows, and is in business for the money. Whatever farming practices cause him to earn the most net profits (i.e. gross revenue minus costs), those are the ones he'll adopt. This might mean letting the cows largely take care of themselves, so as to minimize his costs. This might mean treating the cows like royalty, with gold cowbells, and velvet cushions to sit on in the barn, which has very high costs. Or it might mean being abusive to the cows, giving them electric shocks and drugs.
The farmer doesn't care about the cows for their own sake, he only cares about money, and therefore only values the cows insofar as they can make milk for him. A magical cow that didn't need food, water, shelter, veterinary services, etc. and kept on producing milk would be his ideal.
While I'm not advocating that we abuse authors, or force them to do anything, I do say that good copyright policy is concerned only with the public interest, i.e. books. How well authors make out is of no concern whatsoever, except to the extent that it factors into maximizing the public interest, and authors happen to be a necessary evil when getting more books.
It's pretty obvious really. The whole point of copyright was to enable the creator to benefit commercially from their artwork for a limited period so that they would have an income and be able to continue producing works that enrich/entertain society.
No, the whole point of copyright is to benefit society by encouraging the creation and publication of works which otherwise would not be created or published, while restricting the public's use of those works to the least extent possible, in both duration and scope.
It isn't meant to support an author no matter what (a flop is a flop, regardless of copyright), and frankly, who cares? It isn't the authors we care about; it is their output. And even then, we still want to be frugal, and provide authors with the bare minimum incentive that gets them to actually keep creating and publishing more of the works that we want.
But what the majority wants still isn't reason enough to allow any kind of behaviour.
I agree. It isn't good enough to live in a democracy; not only must the democracy be moderated, so that it doesn't devolve into mob rule, but there must also be protection for minorities, particularly unpopular minorities. Thus the example of the government finally living up to its obligations to protect the civil rights of black people, over the objections of many in the white majority.
Let's face the truth, what the majority wants is very commonly driven by selfish motives
Yes. For example, the majority selfishly wants more creative works to be written and published, and to be as unrestricted as possible, as soon as possible, with regard to what they can do with those works. That is the one and only reason to justify copyright; majority selfishness. Copyright isn't a civil liberty or anything, remember, it is an utterly utilitarian system for helping the public appease their greed for unrestricted works. Indeed, copyright runs directly counter to some of our most important civil liberties, and would be totally intolerable if it not only was state-sponsored censorship (which it is) but was also a bad deal (which it may be, but probably doesn't necessarily have to be).
We do need copyrights of some kind, as everyone should be rewarded when his work is used in any way.
No, we don't need copyrights; the best you can say about them is that we may be better off with copyrights, than without them. Nor should everyone "be rewarded when his work is used in any way." That's not a justification for copyright.
Again, copyrights not a right, they are utilitarian; they should only be granted, when and to the extent that, it benefits the public to do so. If the public is better off granting a copyright to an author, then let's do so. And if the public is better off not granting a copyright to an author, then let's do that. Likewise, the precise duration and amount of protection should be determined by what's best for the public, not what's best for, or desired by the author.
Global fundings of different types have been proposed many times, but were systematically rejected by the right wing, who argued it wouldn't be fair, and we couldn't measure in a realistic and effective way who should get what, and that those who don't use digital media would pay for nothing.
If you mean for everything, generally, I agree with the right wingers on this one (to my surprise). The genius of copyright is that authors who create popular works will get greater rewards than authors who create lousy works; the government doesn't have to directly put in a penny from the public coffers. Copyright isn't a reward, so much as it is a lens or funnel, which directs more of the money that can be made from the work to the copyright holder than he would get otherwise. Although do note that it imposes a transactional cost that can reduce the amount of money being made from a work as well. E.g. 'It's a Wonderful Life' only became popular once it was out of copyright, precisely because it was out of copyright, and thus cheap to air. Even the cost of getting permission, were it granted for free, would've been too much.
I don't mind the government running public museums. I don't mind the government providing some aid to the arts community, if only to keep certain art forms from practically dying out (opera is not a big profit center), or to keep artists employed at something they're good at (e.g. in the 30's, the WPA ran theaters to keep actors working, writing projects to keep authors working, etc.), or hiring artists to beautify public buildings and monuments (Beaux-Arts is nice, but pretty much everything since WW2 is total crap). But beyond this, I don't want the government getting involved in artistic decisions. And providing money without making artistic decisions is even worse, since it lets artists engage in fraud or at least misuse of funds, very easily.
Better to keep the government m
What do you mean with saying that speed limits are broken as a law? Please clarify.
You may be misunderstanding me. I'm saying that while people generally acknowledge that speed limits are a good idea, and should be enforced, they also speed and hope not to get caught at it.
DMCA safe harbor protects providers from the unlawful acts of others. Google is copying material without authorization on their own accord.
Mea culpa. Thanks for the catch.
''Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers. ... "Science" is not limited to fields of modern scientific inquiry, but to all knowledge, including philosophy and literature.''
Looks like you're one of the confused modern readers.
No, the material you quoted supports what I was saying. In the copyrights and patents clause of the Constitution, the word 'science' refers to the subject matter of copyright (i.e. creative works), while the words 'useful arts' refer to the subject matter of patents (i.e. technology). Copyright is meant to promote the progress of Science. It's just an oddity of the English language and the clause that we now associate the arts with copyright (except when we don't, e.g. prior art, or state of the art technology), and science with patents.
This is also evident from just reading the clause, which is always structured in copyright/patent order: The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science [copyrights] and useful arts [patents], by securing for limited times to authors [copyrights] and inventors [patents] the exclusive right to their respective writings [copyrights] and discoveries [patents];
Moving on....
Second sale doesn't involve copies.
Since copies are tangible objects in which works are fixed, I'd say it does. Perhaps you meant to say that it does not involve copying.
But again, so what? It can be lawful to make copies without infringing on copyright, e.g. when a for-profit business purchases copies of software, and then makes backups of it pursuant to section 117, in order to save on the cost of purchasing replacement copies if the first set of copies go bad somehow. ...by helping authors.
To the minimum extent necessary to help the public to the maximum extent possible. You are confusing the means with the ends.
This is circular logic, arguing whether copyright exists to help authors or whether authors exist because copyright helps them.
Well I didn't start that. Authors do not exist because copyright helps them. Authors exist independently of copyright. Copyright is one incentive for them to create, but it is not the only one, nor is it always the most important one. I used ot be a professional artist, making a comfortable living, and I never made a penny by exploiting my copyrights, whether directly or indirectly. I didn't need to.
Fame, art for art's sake, money that can be made without exploiting copyrights, etc. are all very strong, even today, and would be in a tomorrow without copyright.
Well, you're talking web sites, rather than books, but there's a couple of problems with your post.
First, a typical search engine doesn't have to rely upon fair use; the DMCA safe harbor is more accomodating.
Second, your analysis is wrong and incomplete in the fourth factor. Web sites do not, as a rule, suffer financially by being indexed without authorization. There is no market for selling rights to index a site. And it's trivially easy for any site to have itself removed from the Google index, if it does think it can sell that right. And considering the burdens involved, it is easier for an unusual web site copyright holder to opt out than it is for Google to contact every one of them so that they can opt in.
Remember, fair use is not intended to help copyright holders; it is intended to prevent mindless adherence to the rest of copyright law from acting contrary to the expressly stated constitutional purpose of copyright law: to promote the progress of science. Search engines for the web are good for society; a lack of them is not good. The ability for copyright holders to opt in, rather than to opt out, does not outweigh this. Ergo, search engines are apt to be a fair use.
And that's a good thing, since I'm sensing a lot of mindlessness emanating from your post.
Copyright shouldn't guarantee you profits, but what it should do is prevent other from profiting on your work without your permission
Copyright has never guaranteed profits for copyright holders; whether they profit or not depends on the market. Copyright merely concentrates profits toward them, however much they might be. But copyright has never even tried to completely concentrate profits toward copyright holders. See, e.g. First Sale.
Remember, copyright isn't intended to help authors. It is intended to help the public. It helps the public by encouraging the creation and publication of works, and by minimizing the length and scope of copyright so that the public is as free as possible to actually use those works as it sees fit (which includes being able to get works for free).
We only temporarily grant copyrights of limited scope in order to encourage creation and publication. It is only good sense to grant the least amount of copyright necessary for a work to be created and published. Any larger of a grant than that would be wasted, in much the same way that if someone will sell you a gallon of gas for $3, you'd be a fool to buy it for $5.
If an author will create and publish with others able to profit in some way from the work, then that's perfectly appropriate. If another author will not, then perhaps we ought to give that author more. But we should remember that some authors may want so much more that the ultimate benefit to the public is less than the cost in terms of what we surrender. In that case, we are literally better off not giving the author what he wants, even if this means we don't get the work created and published. Some things just come at too high a price.
While I find Google to be dangerous from a privacy perspective, I think that their search engine (and those of their competitors) being comprehensive is far and away more important than respecting the wishes of mere authors with regard to search engines.
This is especially true given that copyright holders can opt out now, but virtually none care to do so, which strongly indicates that your claims have no basis in fact. If the copyright holders did care, why do they not take even trivial steps to make it clear?
Democracy doesn't always produce the right answer, and not all laws are worthy of respect, or even legitimate.
Compare speed limits (respected but usually broken), Prohibition (not respected, usually broken), and Civil Rights laws (initially not respected, initially usually broken).
I'd say that usually the government should enact laws that conform with the stated wishes and actual behavior of its people. Sometimes it is good for the government to get in a fight with the people, such as the federal government forcing the South to desegregate, but more usually it is not a good idea, partially because the stakes are so much lower, such as when they banned alcohol.
Overall, I'd say that copyright is more like Prohibition than Civil Rights. While Prohibition was widely considered to be a good idea at the time, it was immediately ignored by pretty much everyone. The lawlessness that this engendered quickly spread, and soon the fact that people ignored the laws about drinking meant that there was a huge upswing in official corruption, in violence, and in organized crime.
If people want to do things which currently would be copyright infringement, I think we would be best off in legalizing this, rather than fighting it. Fighting it hasn't worked so far, and probably never will. But the collateral damage done by the disrespect people have for one law will spread into disrespect for other laws, and the damage done in combating it will be worse than the offenses committed (e.g. three strikes). This issue just isn't important enough for the government to defend; better to yield.
Plus, of course, there's simply no evidence whatsoever that any current copyright law is democratic in nature. For over a century, special interests have dominated the field, and Congress has passed whatever they've been told to pass. More recently, international treaties have been used to completely circumvent domestic political debate, so that ever-worsening laws can be presented as a fait accompli. See e.g. the ACTA treaty, the details of which are being kept secret, which will certainly be non-negotiable once the public and our democratic representatives have a chance to see it, and which will be tied to other important issues so that it is dragged into law not because it is popularly wanted, but because it is inseparable from things we do want (although I'd find that part doubtful too, really).
So don't blather on about democracy; it is absent here, and is likely to malfunction even if we did consult it.
It isn't good to break laws, since this can destabilize society, and it isn't good for society to have bad laws on the books. But which course of action we should take -- breaking it, or suffering from it -- depends on which would be better. Here's another example: The Fugitive Slave Act. I would not have hesitated to break that one; a society that has a law like that is in need of destabilization. We're not at that point with copyright, by any means, but it does remind us that just because something is a law, that doesn't mean we ought to obey it.
I like the idea of copyright, and I think we certainly ought to have copyright laws. But I hate our current copyright laws, and they're getting worse. Depending on who breaks them, and how, I may not have a problem with it, personally.
When we have good laws, we'll talk some more.
So? Traditionally (and in a good copyright system anyway) there are many ways for a work to enter the public domain. There's nothing bad about the others, or especially good about the term expiring.
Well, we already have a law that grants copyrights on public domain works. It is 17 USC 104A. Feel free to challenge it, and let us know how that goes.
however, you do not have the right to read a copyrighted book, unless the copyright holder has granted you permission to do so
Well that's just plain wrong.
The person who owns a copy of a book can restrict access to it, and refuse to let other people handle it unless and until they pay for it. However, that person may or may not be the copyright holder. Nor is it necessary that the books are even copyrighted.
The copyright holder, meanwhile, has no rights as to a work or copies that the work is fixed within, except for the very specific rights set forth in the law, which themselves are full of exceptions.
The copyright holder has the right to prohibit other people from making copies of the work, and has the right to prohibit other people from distributing copies of the work (both subject to many exceptions, e.g. the distribution right doesn't apply to people reselling lawfully made copies), but he does not have a right to prohibit other people reading books for which he holds the copyright. That right is just not in the law.
So yes, Virginia, so long as you lawfully have physical access to a book -- something that the copyright holder cannot control once he has initially distributed it -- you have a right to read that book.
After all, someone had to do go through a number of hoops to eventually release the book in a format you could read, and they deserve to be compensated for doing so.
People do not always deserve to be compensated for things that they do. I once saved the princess in Super Mario Bros. but no one paid me for that. In fact, with regard to copyright policy, the smart thing is to not grant authors copyrights unless it was absolutely necessary in order to get them to create and publish their work. That's simple frugality, right there. Why pay if the author is willing to do it for free? Or at least for non-copyright related benefits, such as fame.
You always have the choice to either pay for the book, or not buy it at all. Any other claim that you're 'entitled to X' is just bullshit.
And in a country with a government that is legitimate because it is consented to by the people, who have a say in such matters, we also have the choice to rewrite copyright law to better suit our purposes. At which point authors always have the choice to either keep being an author under the new, better-for-the-public laws, or to not write at all. Any claim that they're 'entitled to copyrights, particularly copyrights as they'd like them to be' is just bullshit.
No, plagiarism and infringement are two very different things. For example, if you copied someone's ideas for a paper and took credit for them yourself, that would be plagiarism but not infringement; if you copied the paper itself but gave credit, that would not be plagiarism but would be infringement.
Plagiarism is about who gets credit for things, not copying, while infringement is the other way around.
The real question is whether or not making a copy of a CD (an approved device) to an MP3 player (also almost certainly an approved device) by using a PC (a non-approved device) for the ripping/transfer is still covered. Based on past legal cases and statements agreed to by the RIAA during Senate hearings on the matter, this should be legitimate -- but it has never been ruled on directly in court.
Diamond v. RIAA got into this, and found that computers break the chain of AHRA-compliance. Thus MP3 player manufacturers don't have to pay the AHRA royalties, respect SCMS, etc. so long as they require a computer in order to basically do anything.
The interesting thing about the 1992 AHRA, is that, while it is still illegal to do so, there is no legal PENALTY for making copies of an copyrighted audio CD using a standalone audio-CD recorder -- even if you are making dozens of copies and giving them to all your friends and family members. If I wanted to make 1000 copies of an audio CD and then hand them out on the street corner for the heck of it, the strongest thing they can do to you legally is ask you to cease and desist. This only applies to non-copyprotected audio CD's -- if they have copy protection on them then the DMCA comes into effect (which is an entirely different mess).
Nice try, but no dice.
The AHRA is very unusually, very specifically, and very cunningly worded. It doesn't make the reproduction of certain sound recordings non-infringing. It merely makes it non-actionable; i.e. you cannot be sued for this unlawful behavior.
Since the copies made are unlawfully made, they are not eligible for first sale. Therefore, making a copy of a sound recording under the AHRA and then giving that copy to someone else would infringe the distribution right.
No, the best argument is one that they apparently failed to raise - the jury was presented with an instruction, number 110, that willful infringement requires only knowledge or reckless disregard of the copyright, and thus damages up to $150k per work are available, thus leading the jury to pick the $18,000 figure. The RIAA briefed in support of this instruction, and I can't find a copy of the opposition brief or the ruling, but the final jury instruction was exactly what the RIAA wanted. I believe it's incorrect as a matter of law, because their interpretation expressly removes the $750-30k range of damages from ever being able to be applied. Instead, it would be $200, or $150k, but that's not what Congress said. They're misreading and misapplying both the case law and the statute.
The defense had made an argument regarding the requirement for willful infringement, but the judge rejected it, since, predictably, it went way beyond the statute.
There's also one other argument the defense could make with regard to the jury instructions. The suggested instruction by the plaintiff was that statutory damages should be calculated per infringement, and the judge accepted this. However, the statute requires that the damages be calculated per work, regardless of the number of infringements. I predicted at the time that this could result in the jury multiplying the damages by the number of times they estimated the works were infringed by the defendant. And the number that they came up with is suspiciously $750 (minimum damages per work) x $30 (number of works at issue) x $30. It is possible that they meant to award the minimum damages but multiplied them by 30 for whatever reason.
This does happen sometimes, but they call them commodities, not creative works.
Well, you'll find that copies of creative works are commodities. One copy of Romeo and Juliet is as good as another, and so publishers wind up competing against one another, and the public benefits from cheap, widely available copies.
You have to realize that without Copyright, Patents and other methods of control distribution of Creativity are the only way to encourage Creativity.
This is demonstrably false. Copyright as a means to 'encourage creativity' was first enacted in 1710, and then only in England. It took some more time for it to spread. And many types of works, such as paintings, were not covered for quite some time either.
Yet many creative works predate copyright law. If copyright was "the only way to encourage creativity," they couldn't exist.
The most you can say for copyright law is that it may encourage the creation and publication of works that otherwise would not be created or published otherwise. But of course, the amount of encouragement that copyright provides will vary depending on circumstances. And you ought not to assume that more copyright is always better in terms of how much encouragement it provides; very broad, long-lasting copyright can permit copyright holders to discourage new authors from creating, since the former group sees competition as undesirable.
Who to say a better performer can't steal your well written song?
This already happens. Musicians are allowed to cover the songs of other musicians, and sometimes do a better job, e.g. Jimi Hendrix did a better version of 'All Along the Watchtower' than Bob Dylan. While there is a fee to be paid for doing covers, it is set in the statute and is fairly small, so most of the rewards would tend to go to the better performer, rather than the songwriter.
What's to stop another band from imitating your sound and throwing a tour that happens to play in every city you do and the same time, but at 1/4 the price for admission?
Again, there's nothing stopping that now. Since you think it would be the end of the world if we allowed this, and we do and always have allowed it, please feel free to point to signs of the imminent collapse of art as a direct consequence of this.
If you don't agree with their system, don't participate in it.
Why not participate in it with the aim of fixing it or abolishing it? Like it or leave it has always been a false choice.
On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations.
That's not desirable at all.
Each nation should pursue the copyright policy, and enact the copyright laws, that serve its own people best. This could be no copyright, or minimal copyright, or broad copyright, depending on the circumstances of each particular country. The only international cooperation on copyright matters ought to be that various countries will work to ensure that whatever copyright laws, if any, each has, they are not mutually incompatible such that an author might have to choose between a copyright in Canada, or a copyright in China, being unable to get both due to some sort of technical issue.
In the US, we should only enact copyright laws when doing so will promote the progress of science more than if we did not enact them, and then only to the extent that we enjoy the greatest public benefit for Americans. This can include granting copyrights on works created by foreigners without concern for reciprocity by their country, since one of our goals is to encourage authors to create and publish works, wherever they're from, and wherever they are working.
There's no reason for laws to be uniform, and in any event, it has helped get copyright laws in the fucked up state they are in now, and the various international agreements on the matter are significant obstacles to reforming the laws so that they can best serve the public interest.
Other than some fetish for it, I just don't see why anyone would want uniformity anyway.
As for the treaty, the reason major copyright legislation is conducted by means of treaty, rather than in national legislatures, is so that there is no public debate. The representatives of the people never have an opportunity to work out the details of the treaty according to the interests of their constituents. Instead, executive branches agree to the treaty and either bind their countries to it directly, bypassing legislative bodies, or present it to the legislature as a fait accompli which cannot be altered and which has too much riding on it to be rejected.
It is profoundly anti-democratic, and should not be tolerated under any circumstance. Treaties negotiated and agreed too without being worked on publicly, and without the direct involvement of both executive and legislative branches of government should be routinely trashed as a matter of principle. There is no issue so important that the underhanded methods being used here would ever be acceptable.
This is Slashdot, so I'll just butt in.
Name ONE instance of fair use being under attack. ... And please, don't say the DMCA. All that did was say it is OK for copyright holders to enforce their existing rights through technological means.
I'd say the DMCA.
After all, it goes far beyond merely permitting copyright holders to enforce their existing rights through technological means. First, it permits copyright holders to enforce rights they do not have through technological means. Since it is an exercise of free speech rights to make non-infringing uses of copyrighted material (e.g. through fair use), they are, in fact, trying to impair the rights of others every time they use a DRM system that is overly restrictive, which is to say, every time they use a DRM system, period.
Second, if copyright holders merely want to enforce their existing rights, they don't need technological means; courts work fine (and don't let the copyright holders go too far, as already pointed out). But even if the copyright holder does want to use technological means, he still doesn't need the DMCA. The DMCA is notable not because it permits the use of DRM -- which could already be used -- but because it grants a new right to prevent people from interfering with the technological means even when it does not infringe a copyright. Why do copyright holders need to protect something other than their copyright, when their copyright isn't even threatened?
The fact is, there has never been anything in copyright law that says 'it is OK to make backups'.
17 USC 117(a)(2). It doesn't apply to everything, but for what it does cover, it says it is OK to make backups.
Plus, of course, any use is potentially a fair use, depending on the circumstances involved, so some backups may be made pursuant to fair use. Libraries can make copies of copyrighted works without permission under some circumstances. And it is non-actionable to make copies of certain sound recordings, using approved media or devices, again, under the right circumstances, which could easily include making backups.
If you don't even know what copyright law is, how can you say what it doesn't include?
There has never been anything in copyright law that says 'it is OK to make a copy on a different medium for your own use'.
See above.
All there has ever been is a rule that says the copyright owner is the only one allowed to make copies or allow others to do so, and that there are a few exemptions to this rule which as decided on a case by case basis.
No.
The rule is that the copyright holder has the right to prohibit other people from making copies. Copyright doesn't grant the copyright holder the right to actually do anything; he inherently has that right, which is protected as free speech and press. In fact, we all have that right, but copyright temporarily and to a limited extent, interferes with it. That copyright is an exclusive right (i.e. a right to exclude others) is why an author who makes child pornography, for example, may have a perfectly valid copyright in it, and can sue if someone else copies it, but cannot make copies of it himself either.
There are then very many exceptions to that right, most of which apply automatically whenever the circumstances are right. For example, if a copy of a work is lawfully made under US copyright law, it can be resold by the owner without the permission of the copyright holder. This always applies; it isn't to be determined on a case by case basis. Fair use is unusual in that it is decided on a case by case basis, but absolutely any otherwise infringing use can potentially be a fair use, so what it lacks in certainty, it makes up in breadth; fair use is the last-resort catch-all exception to copyright.
Except for length of copyright, name ONE change to copyright law that gives anything new to copyright holders, or takes away a right consumers already had.
17 USC 104A. This takes works that are in the public domain in the United States and places them under copyright.
I could name some more changes, if you like, but it's a pretty significant one.
If I were a lawyer my nipples would explode with joy.
No they wouldn't. No one who can experience human emotions such as joy is permitted to be a lawyer.
it is never in the public interest to tolerate authors throwing obstacles into the path of people wishing to engage in fair uses. All DRM schemes fail in this respect for exactly the reasons you note -- DRM schemes fail to allow those otherwise infringing actions which, if fully adjudicated, would be determined to be fair uses
What sense does it make to bar copyright holders from preventing infringement so that infringements can later be tried in court?
If that were all that they were doing, we could discuss the (lack of) merits of self-help in our society. But the very part of my post that you quoted and emboldened points out that the copyright holders are preventing uses that, if a court ruled on them, would be found to not have been infringements at all. It makes a great deal of sense to promote uses of copyrighted works against the wishes of the author where it is good for society, and to make those uses lawful. And they have done this, in fact; that's what fair use is, just to name one example.
If there were a DRM scheme that perfectly judged every use as if it had run the gauntlet of the courts, and allowed or disallowed them depending on whether they were lawful or not, DRM would not be nearly so objectionable. However, no DRM scheme does that -- instead they are inevitably over-inclusive -- and no DRM scheme ever possibly could, so it is pointless to try to improve them. Better to abandon the entire thing as having been a bad idea in the first place, badly implemented.
All the arguments against things like the DMCA, that I've heard, are from the consumer's point of view entirely, not being able to do this or do that.
Consumers, as you call them, are more important in copyright policy than authors or publishers (who are both also consumers, after all). It sounds to me like you've been hearing a lot of good arguments, and been ignoring them like some sort of moron.
they are allowed to actively prevent infringement (why on Earth shouldn't they?)
Because they're very, very bad at it. First, they prevent things that aren't infringement, and second, in practice, they don't prevent actual infringement, because the pirates are inevitably more clever, more motivated, have more time on their hands, etc.
The movie studios could just murder everyone in their beds, and this would also prevent a lot of infringement. But I'd be opposed to that too. There are more important things than preventing infringement, even when looking at copyright policy.
When you say 'public' that includes both consumers AND producers AND everything in between. It's in the public's interest to keep generating quality work, and keep spending money on it.
That is only half of the public interest, and the slightly less important half actually. Also, quality is not a factor -- the copyright system is only interested in quantity, and in any case, no one wants the government making artistic decisions about what is a quality work and what isn't.
The slightly more important half of the public interest is in providing the minimum amount of copyright, for the least amount of time, necessary in order to incentivize the creation of works. This is simple prudence: getting the most works created for the least cost to the public in terms of rights granted. The works should enter the public domain as rapidly as possible, and be as near to the public domain as possible before then, so that the works are more valuable to the public (for example, a movie I can't resell is not very valuable to me, while a movie I can copy and give away however I please is more valuable to me; a movie I can't make my own sequel to is not very valuable to me, while a movie I can use as the basis for a derivative work is valuable to me; etc.).
I dunno.
I recall that NASA did a study many years ago regarding how long their data remained readable. After all, it just wouldn't do to spend lots of money firing monkeys into the moon if the data wasn't kept over the long term.
They tried putting the data onto punch cards, paper tape, and hardcopy printouts, those being the standard storage systems of the era. After a rather short span of time, they found that they had lost the ability to easily read the first two formats, but they could still understand the printouts and make use of them.
I don't think paper books, and the need to have large collections of paper books, are going anywhere anytime soon. The convenience of ebooks is a nice supplement for regular books, but no substitute.
DRM also allows Libraries to lend e-books, soemthing they could not legally do without it.
It seems easier and better to me to simply change the law to permit them to do so without DRM, then.
(from your later post:)
It's a stupid argument because [publishing ebooks without DRM] will never happen (except on a select, book by book basis), and if we have a ubiquitous technology for managing legal copies, like ePub is fast becoming, it will only be a problem for people who wish to copy the material illegaly.
The music industry said they would never publish music without DRM, and now they do. Didn't even take very long for them to see the error of their ways.
But you're almost right. Eliminating DRM will never happen so long as quislings like yourself have that sort of self-harming defeatist attitude.
Further, DRM is a problem for people who wish to use DRM-encumbered works in any way that the copyright holder doesn't like, regardless of legality. It is legal to sell used books, but if the copyright holder decides that he doesn't like that, since he doesn't make money from it, he can effectively stop the used book trade in ebooks by making them non-functional.
This is intolerable.
I'm sitting on my couch, across from a massive bookcase occupying an entire wall up to the 12' high ceiling, which is full of books. And it isn't even the only bookcase I've got. I love reading, I love books, I frequently buy books, and check out books from the library, and borrow them from friends.
And I will never get one of these idiotic ebook readers, or buy an ebook until I can do so without having to suffer through yet another inane DRM system. This is not to say that I am against the concept of ebooks. I'm seriously considering getting a slate-format laptop and using it as a reader that I have significantly more control over (and which would have a bigger, better screen; there are too many books that a crude device like a Kindle can't even begin to display properly). I'll supply the books myself, whether via a homebuilt camera-based scanner that doesn't damage books, or other means.
It is impossible for a copyright holder to permit fair use. A use can only be a fair use when it would otherwise be copyright infringement, and actions taken with the permission of the copyright holder are never infringing.
This having been said, the only legitimate concern when crafting copyright law is the public interest, and it is never in the public interest to tolerate authors throwing obstacles into the path of people wishing to engage in fair uses. All DRM schemes fail in this respect for exactly the reasons you note -- DRM schemes fail to allow those otherwise infringing actions which, if fully adjudicated, would be determined to be fair uses. DRM schemes also tend to prohibit actions which are not even infringing at all, which is also against the public interest.
When authors, publishers, and copyright holders engage in such behavior it is completely appropriate to speak out against it, and rewrite the laws to prohibit it, or discourage it, as appropriate.
For example, I would like to see copyright law modified such that if a copyright holder or a person acting under his authority applies DRM to a published work, that work is immediately placed in the public domain. Copyright holders would have a choice to either trust in the legal protection of copyright, or the technical protection of DRM, but not both. This is similar to how we currently handle inventions; an invention can be patented, which requires disclosure, or can be a trade secret, but not both. DRM would be legal, which I think is a consequence of the First Amendment, but people using it would not receive the encouragement of copyright, which they are not entitled to automatically anyway.
Of course, it would be in the public interest to crack the DRM on the public domain works, so the US Copyright Office could work in conjunction with private parties to break the DRM schemes and distribute copies of the works to everyone for free.