"There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies of motion pictures . . .."
Hate to break this, but he's right on the first count. US copyright law does not provide a private copying exception to infringment. Contrast this to many European countries, which give individuals the right to make private copies (e.g., you buy a CD, you can copy it as much as you like for your own use). Often, those governments impose a blank tape levy, the proceeds of which go to copyright owners to offset their losses from private copying.
US law doesn't do this. If a person buys a CD and copies it to tape for himself, the only legal justification he has is fair use. Fair use is a defense to an infringement claim, not a right. Congress would have to change the law to make it a right.
I want to toss this out there, because there's not much being said about why it might be a good idea for Australia to increase the term to life +70. Here's what Australian copyright owners would say:
One of the reasons for increasing the term of protection to life +70 is to impove Australia's competitiveness overseas. Under international copyright, Australian works are protected in the US and Europe, but only for life +50 years, while US and European works are protected for life +70. As a result of the shorter terms, Australian works on the whole are less economically valuable than US and European works (putting Australian copyright owners at a competitive disadvantage). I suspect that the life +70 rationale is to bulk up the competitive strength of Australian works.
Also, there are economic benefits to increasing the term of protection. In the US, the copyright economy makes up about 5% of GDP, or about half a trillion dollars. That money doesn't just sit in a bank vault, rolled up in stacks of gold coins, but means jobs, paychecks, tax revenues. With an increased term, copyrighted works can be rented, sold, licensed for a longer life, and will have more economic value, thus adding to things like jobs, paychecks, and tax revenues.
That's not exactly true. Copyright infringement is actionable in a civil lawsuit (by the copyright owner) or in a criminal lawsuit (prosecuted by the US government). You should check out the the copyright act's section 506. It's a higher burden to prove criminal copyright infringement (you have to infringe "willfully"), but it still happens, and not just for cable, DMCA, etc.
The bottom line is that the labels are suing because they have the money to do it and they can control the legal strategy. Also, the US government may not want to sue because it has other priorities (and a more limited budget).
Slashdot Mirror
"There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies of motion pictures . . . ."
Hate to break this, but he's right on the first count. US copyright law does not provide a private copying exception to infringment. Contrast this to many European countries, which give individuals the right to make private copies (e.g., you buy a CD, you can copy it as much as you like for your own use). Often, those governments impose a blank tape levy, the proceeds of which go to copyright owners to offset their losses from private copying.
US law doesn't do this. If a person buys a CD and copies it to tape for himself, the only legal justification he has is fair use. Fair use is a defense to an infringement claim, not a right. Congress would have to change the law to make it a right.
I want to toss this out there, because there's not much being said about why it might be a good idea for Australia to increase the term to life +70. Here's what Australian copyright owners would say: One of the reasons for increasing the term of protection to life +70 is to impove Australia's competitiveness overseas. Under international copyright, Australian works are protected in the US and Europe, but only for life +50 years, while US and European works are protected for life +70. As a result of the shorter terms, Australian works on the whole are less economically valuable than US and European works (putting Australian copyright owners at a competitive disadvantage). I suspect that the life +70 rationale is to bulk up the competitive strength of Australian works. Also, there are economic benefits to increasing the term of protection. In the US, the copyright economy makes up about 5% of GDP, or about half a trillion dollars. That money doesn't just sit in a bank vault, rolled up in stacks of gold coins, but means jobs, paychecks, tax revenues. With an increased term, copyrighted works can be rented, sold, licensed for a longer life, and will have more economic value, thus adding to things like jobs, paychecks, and tax revenues.
That's not exactly true. Copyright infringement is actionable in a civil lawsuit (by the copyright owner) or in a criminal lawsuit (prosecuted by the US government). You should check out the the copyright act's section 506. It's a higher burden to prove criminal copyright infringement (you have to infringe "willfully"), but it still happens, and not just for cable, DMCA, etc. The bottom line is that the labels are suing because they have the money to do it and they can control the legal strategy. Also, the US government may not want to sue because it has other priorities (and a more limited budget).