"we are talking about advocation of communist ideals. Fair use is just window dressing to make such ideals appeal to people who normally think of themselves as being capitalists."
i disagree that fair use is *just* window dressing for communist ideals. fair use might serve that purpose; but fair use is *also* an american ideal, grounded in the first amendment.
so, you say, fair-use-as-an-american-ideal is suspect because people also rely on fair use to advance a communist agenda. if we accept that reasoning, then the bounding-fair-use argument is also suspect: although people might use it to fight a communist agenda, people might also use it to advance an unamerican, absolutist property position.
fair use and anti-fair-use should be evaluated not by examining the questionable motives their advocates might possess, but by considering their own merits. and fair use has merit as an american ideal, independent of any communist agenda.
"What percentage of music files shared on P2P networks do you think are anything but theft?"
i recall estimates of <10% from cases in teh 9th & 7th circuits, but i don't remember the details. obviously, theft is rampant on file sharing networks. but that fact doesn't support the proposition that *all* unauthorized copying should be illegal. at a minimum, our legal system should define and sanction fair uses.
regarding the anti-property and fair use arguments: when a non-controversial argument is sufficient to rebut a point, one should prefer it to a more divisive, and hence possibly less persuasive, argument. the post to which i responded was extreme in pushing for an absolute bar on all unauthorized copying. it was so extreme, in fact, that i could sufficiently respond with a reasonable fair use argument, without having to make a more controversial anti-property one. now, if the author had written that some unauthorized copying is acceptable as long as it constitutes fair use, and that any copying beyond that should be illegal, then one could make an anti-intellectual property or an anti-property argument.
"downloading and uploading copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder is illegal. It is theft."
it is illegal because the music industry has lobbied for it to be so. that doesn't mean it *should* be illegal, though. file sharing networks *should* be available to facilitate legitimate fair uses such as sampling and space-shifting.
for example, if i want to sample a new song, i shouldn't have to go to a friend's house, go to the music store, or wait for it to come on the radio. if millions of people already have it, and we have the technology to transfer it, why shouldn't i be able to sample their copy? (and i'm not refering to abusive sampling--i'll get to abuse in a second). moreover, if i own the cd at home, i should not have to go to an online music store and purchase another copy of my songs just to listen to them at work.
these uses should be fair. at some point, however, they do cross over into infringement. we all know the guy who loaded a hard drive with napster music back in the day. i agree that that is wrong. but if we agree, as a society, that mass-piracy is wrong, it doesn't follow that the fair uses i described above are wrong as well. but your approach, and the one taken by the riaa, seeks to ban any unauthrized copying
note that the last time a shift in technology produced a mixed bag of fair use and abusive copying, the consumers won. that was when the supreme court ruled on what we now call the vcr. copyright holders demonstrated that about 80% of vcr copying was unauthorized. the equipment makers showed that although the uses were unauthorized, many of them should be fair. for example, people used the machines for time-shifting, or viewing programs at a later time. the supreme court allowed the manufacturers to continue selling the machines because of the fair uses
can you imagine the world if that decision had gone the other way? no vcrs, so probably no video stores. no tivo. perhaps no dvd players, because the video industry and video rental industries would never have developed. perhaps no cd-rws, because they can be used to make unauthorized copies. well, this time around, it has gone (and is still going) the other way, with absolute bans on file sharing, criminal punishments for dmca violations, etc.
the balancing approach used in the past, and the approach i advocate for file sharing, is reasonable: it provides the music industry a return on its investment (and thus gives incentives for creation) and allows consumers some flexibility over their expressive environment. but that's not the approach advocated by the music industry. they take the approach you advocate: *any* unauthorized copying is theft. that approach is foreign to our intellectual property tradition, which allows for fair uses designed to protect our first amendment freedoms.
so, you can go around chanting your "any unauthorized copying is theft" mantra, but know that your approach is not necessary, and that it is highly unusual in a legal system that has traditionally allowed flexibile fair uses.
Agreed. The marketing of this service is atrocious. Yahoo! appears to be preying on unwitting consumers. Here is my favorite set of statements from the website. First, in flashy colors:
Share the love
* Explore and listen to others' collections & playlists using Yahoo! Messenger. Find music you didn't know you were looking for
* Send a song to other subscribers easily
[Great! Sounds like I have Aimster back.]
Then, in fine print:
Note: Yahoo! Music does not permit copying or transferring music files to other users.
Slashdot Mirror
"we are talking about advocation of communist ideals. Fair use is just window dressing to make such ideals appeal to people who normally think of themselves as being capitalists."
i disagree that fair use is *just* window dressing for communist ideals. fair use might serve that purpose; but fair use is *also* an american ideal, grounded in the first amendment.
so, you say, fair-use-as-an-american-ideal is suspect because people also rely on fair use to advance a communist agenda. if we accept that reasoning, then the bounding-fair-use argument is also suspect: although people might use it to fight a communist agenda, people might also use it to advance an unamerican, absolutist property position.
fair use and anti-fair-use should be evaluated not by examining the questionable motives their advocates might possess, but by considering their own merits. and fair use has merit as an american ideal, independent of any communist agenda.
"What percentage of music files shared on P2P networks do you think are anything but theft?"
i recall estimates of <10% from cases in teh 9th & 7th circuits, but i don't remember the details. obviously, theft is rampant on file sharing networks. but that fact doesn't support the proposition that *all* unauthorized copying should be illegal. at a minimum, our legal system should define and sanction fair uses.
regarding the anti-property and fair use arguments: when a non-controversial argument is sufficient to rebut a point, one should prefer it to a more divisive, and hence possibly less persuasive, argument. the post to which i responded was extreme in pushing for an absolute bar on all unauthorized copying. it was so extreme, in fact, that i could sufficiently respond with a reasonable fair use argument, without having to make a more controversial anti-property one. now, if the author had written that some unauthorized copying is acceptable as long as it constitutes fair use, and that any copying beyond that should be illegal, then one could make an anti-intellectual property or an anti-property argument.
"downloading and uploading copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder is illegal. It is theft."
it is illegal because the music industry has lobbied for it to be so. that doesn't mean it *should* be illegal, though. file sharing networks *should* be available to facilitate legitimate fair uses such as sampling and space-shifting.
for example, if i want to sample a new song, i shouldn't have to go to a friend's house, go to the music store, or wait for it to come on the radio. if millions of people already have it, and we have the technology to transfer it, why shouldn't i be able to sample their copy? (and i'm not refering to abusive sampling--i'll get to abuse in a second). moreover, if i own the cd at home, i should not have to go to an online music store and purchase another copy of my songs just to listen to them at work.
these uses should be fair. at some point, however, they do cross over into infringement. we all know the guy who loaded a hard drive with napster music back in the day. i agree that that is wrong. but if we agree, as a society, that mass-piracy is wrong, it doesn't follow that the fair uses i described above are wrong as well. but your approach, and the one taken by the riaa, seeks to ban any unauthrized copying
note that the last time a shift in technology produced a mixed bag of fair use and abusive copying, the consumers won. that was when the supreme court ruled on what we now call the vcr. copyright holders demonstrated that about 80% of vcr copying was unauthorized. the equipment makers showed that although the uses were unauthorized, many of them should be fair. for example, people used the machines for time-shifting, or viewing programs at a later time. the supreme court allowed the manufacturers to continue selling the machines because of the fair uses
can you imagine the world if that decision had gone the other way? no vcrs, so probably no video stores. no tivo. perhaps no dvd players, because the video industry and video rental industries would never have developed. perhaps no cd-rws, because they can be used to make unauthorized copies. well, this time around, it has gone (and is still going) the other way, with absolute bans on file sharing, criminal punishments for dmca violations, etc.
the balancing approach used in the past, and the approach i advocate for file sharing, is reasonable: it provides the music industry a return on its investment (and thus gives incentives for creation) and allows consumers some flexibility over their expressive environment. but that's not the approach advocated by the music industry. they take the approach you advocate: *any* unauthorized copying is theft. that approach is foreign to our intellectual property tradition, which allows for fair uses designed to protect our first amendment freedoms.
so, you can go around chanting your "any unauthorized copying is theft" mantra, but know that your approach is not necessary, and that it is highly unusual in a legal system that has traditionally allowed flexibile fair uses.
yes, if the media is encumbered, i wouldn't even pay the manufacturer's cost of producing the drive.
haha. given that your score is still 1--and has not been marked "funny"--i assume the mods haven't been watching their south park.
Agreed. The marketing of this service is atrocious. Yahoo! appears to be preying on unwitting consumers. Here is my favorite set of statements from the website. First, in flashy colors:
Share the love
* Explore and listen to others' collections & playlists using Yahoo! Messenger. Find music you didn't know you were looking for
* Send a song to other subscribers easily
[Great! Sounds like I have Aimster back.]
Then, in fine print:
Note: Yahoo! Music does not permit copying or transferring music files to other users.