Slashdot Log In
Copyright Alliance Says Fair Use Not a Consumer Right
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:12 PM
from the no-rights-make-a-wrong dept.
from the no-rights-make-a-wrong dept.
KingSkippus writes "In response to a complaint to the FCC filed by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) to change copyright warnings before movies and sporting events, Executive Director Patrick Ross of the Copyright Alliance tells us in an editorial that 'fair use is not a consumer right.' The Copyright Alliance is backed by such heavy-hitters as the MPAA, RIAA, Disney, Business Software Alliance, and perhaps most interestingly, Microsoft, who is also backing the CCIA's complaint."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Google and Microsoft Help To Defend Fair Use 122 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a complaint this month with the FTC 'alleging that professional sports leagues, Hollywood studios, and book publishers were all using copyright notices that misrepresented the law'. That is, they were aggressively pursuing 'right' that they were not entitled to. Now a group, backed by companies like Oracle, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Sun, and Red Hat, has launched a web site called Defend Fair Use that shows they are serious about making the complaint stick. From the article: 'In contrast to copyright notices that take no account of fair use and claim control over "all accounts and descriptions" of a game, the CCIA offers a different copyright notice of its own. "We recognize that copyright law guarantees that you, as a member of the public, have certain legal rights," it says, "You may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law."'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why isn't SCO in on this? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, but they're still evil.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why isn't SCO in on this? (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, and it's the same bloody case, too! From the summary:
So. no matter how this ends, Microsoft wins. But wait - no matter who loses, Microsoft loses, too!
Wow, someone give me a magnet and some copper wire. My head is spinning so fast it feels like a perpetual motion machine.
Parent
Re:WANTED: Lying sack of shit for our PR position (Score:5, Insightful)
The only difference is that the conduit by which that stench gets communicated to the public now has greater bandwidth, thanks to the internet. For now.
Parent
Re:WANTED: Lying sack of shit for our PR position (Score:5, Insightful)
Any public relations position's job is to present their company in the best possible light given whatever policy is dictated to them from above. Sometimes you are given dickhead policies and if you want to keep your job, there's not much you can do to defend it short of lying or ignoring counter-arguments. (See pretty much all political discourse as a perfect example.)
In the past, and still in a handful of cases today, presenting your company in the best light was done by treating the consumer well. I think the iPhone rebate announced today is an example of that. (For the record: I am not an Apple fanboi and hate those who are. I do not own an iPod, iPhone or any Apple computer; I do not have iTunes installed and have never bought a track from them, etc.) The idea there is simple: Treat them right, give them a decent product and they will return to buy from you again in the future.
This is only necessarily in competitive markets where there are nearly identical replacements. Being an ass in that context will drive your customers away.
In limited circumstances--movies, music, Windows, and more--there are monopolies or cartels that make it much harder to switch away. Yes, there is a lot of music outside the control of the RIAA, but it's not what you tend to hear when you turn your radio on in the car and that's what people are going to want. It's also not a real replacement; if I want a song by an artist from a major record label I have to play by their rules, a song by a random indy artist isn't the same thing. (It may be better or worse or even the same level of enjoyment, but it is not the thing I wanted.) Yes, you can install OS X or Linux or some alternate operating system, but if your applications don't run on it or you don't want to relearn things you're a bit stuck. Movies are probably the worst, in part because we've become accustomed to big-budget flicks with huge special effects that can't really be duplicated in independent films.
Since there isn't such a clear-cut replacement in these cases, they can afford to dick their customers around. They have what we want, and our choices become buy it anyway, go without or turn to illegal means. Since increasingly people are choosing #3, you see a concerted effort by groups such as them to control the law (DMCA) to their advantage.
So, no, you don't have to be a dickhead as a PR guy necessarily. You do, however, have to be as big a dickhead as the decision-makers in your company are.
Parent
Actually fine... (Score:5, Insightful)
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
There is zero reason why they should be given any extra protection by law then. It should be the companies' responsibility to think of the methods of protecting their idea/IP. If joe public is not allowed to have fair use, no reason why *our* tax money should go towards wasting time of courts funded by us, to help out these companies. Let them spend their own money on trying to devise methods to prevent competitors from copying off their idea.
The whole idea of copyrights and patents was for the benefit of the public, not for the companies, by encouraging invention and arts for the benefit of public. the whole deal is null and void if they want to renegade on their part.
If the joe public must pay for everything, so must they.
Parent
Re:Actually fine... (Score:5, Informative)
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
There are some issues you should likely become familiar with.
Let me preface this by saying I once saw a discussion of the fair use issue by a practicing IP lawyer on a photography usenet newsgroup. No, that doesn't make him evil -- he claims that most IP action is not the **AA stuff we hear so much about. Some 95% of the practice is dealing with B2B claims of infringement, not corps vs. individuals. He also said the goal is generally to come to a settlement between businesses (cross-licensing, etc.) instead of dragging cases before judges. FWIW, he also said he's not fabulously wealthy and has to work hard to keep up with a moderate-sized mortgage. Over some time, I found his input to be useful, non-hysterical and generally reasonable.
With that background in mind, his analysis follows.
Fair use is not actually a defined right. It is, instead, an"affirmative defense" against a charge of copyright violation. That's a difference, however subtle. That is to say, IF you are charged with violation, you may assert FU as a defense.
An analogous case _might be_ if you're being chased by someone with a gun and if you run through my front yard and trample some extremely valuable shrubs and flowers, you could possibly (if I were a jerk and had a compliant cop friend to push the issue) be charged with trespass and destruction of property. You might then assert, as an affirmative defense, that your life had been in danger. Though you might eventually have to reimburse me for my loss, the charge of trespass and property destruction would be dismissed.
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense [wikipedia.org]
An affirmative defense is a category of defense used in litigation between private parties in common law jurisdictions, or, more familiarly, a type of defense raised in criminal law by the defendant. Affirmative defenses operate to limit or excuse or avoid a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability, even if the factual allegations of plaintiff's claim are admitted or proven.
Hence, while not the same as a right, an affirmative defense can mitigate or remove a great deal of liability.
Standard disclaimers apply to anything I have said above.
Parent
Re:Actually fine... (Score:5, Funny)
I tried that. When I got my day in court, I said to the judge, "Here's my defense, your honor...FU!" It didn't help my case.
Parent
Re:Actually fine... (Score:5, Informative)
Copyrights, patents etc. are essentially a deal between the public and companies/innovaters to provide a safer way of releasing their inventions, creations etc. to public without wasting too much time on fighting off copycats. In return, the public gets a cheaper/better deal as well. Why on earth should the public provide special protection support if they are not getting much in return? Why shouldn't the burden of protecting their idea, be on the corporations instead? Let *them* figure out how to keep their idea a secret and still make a much larger profit without worrying about copycat competitors.
If the public sees no direct benefits at all from this deal, without having to pay through the nose for all and any usage, why on earth would we be interest in helping such corporations retain their profit? Let *them* find their own solutions for protecting their idea. why should courts and governments funded by *public* tax money, help out these corporations?
It is stupid to think that without patents, no progress will happen. Steam engine and Railways did get invented. USA and many other countries stole a huge amount of such industrial inventions from Britain and used it without paying any royalties, no? And yet even in such insecure environment, companies still were doing business. Such inventors were merely making lesser profits and going to greater lengths to keep their secrets.
Corporates are just trying to force a lop-sided deal on the public. And public need not keep their end of the bargain either then.
Parent
Re:Actually fine... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Actually fine... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I find this amusing. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell is up with that. Why did I not just bit torrent it and burn it myself? I did the correct thing and bought the product. So I ripped the thing and stuck it on a hard disk and took out all the nonsensical messages.
I don't really advocate mass copyright infringement but little things like that make me thing... what the hell... BT and burn away people.
Parent
Re:I find this amusing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for confusing the issue, though (and somehow getting moderated insightful...sigh).
This is part of what's crap with the current system. I walk into a store, find a CD I like, give the clerk money, and take it home. This, by definition, is a sale. That CD is mine to do what I want with. At no point in time during this transaction was it brought to my attention that I was actually agreeing to a license. Since you brought up cars...Imagine what would happen if I "bought" a brand new Ford and Ford then told me that I couldn't give rides to my family, friends, co-workers, etc. because I didn't have a multi-passenger license. Of course, they'd quickly offer me the "opportunity" to upgrade my license (for a fee) to allow this, as well as charging any person who wants a ride in my car a license as well. Don't like the car analogy? What if it were a house and the builder put these limitations on it? What a brain-dead system, all because "artists" think they're special (read: Better than everyone else).
But let's say it is actually a license. That makes it a freaking contract. That means that everything, all privileges, limitations and responsibilities, needs to be written down. Then all parties have to show what they're giving up in order to get something. Then all parties have to show they understand the terms. Then all parties have to sign it. And it needs to be kept on record. I need a copy and the manufacturer/producer (eg, Sony BMG, Universal, etc.) needs to keep a copy. That way, when I lose the physical medium of the work that I licensed, they can quickly provide me with a new copy for almost free (material cost and S&H).
I won't go so far as to say that copyright needs to be abolished, but these companies need to be reminded that it's a privilege, not a right, that they're granted. And as for duration, it needs to be shortened, not lengthened. (Financial and technical) Limitations from 200+ years ago justified 14-year terms. But in this nice modern world of ours where everyone has a computer with a word processor, an internet connection and access to Print On Demand technology, it's easier and easier for the artists to make their money back and then some, meaning the duration of government protection via fiat monopoly ought to be decreased.
Parent
Re:I find this amusing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright isn't a license. Copyright is a law granting certain rights and privileges to the creator of that work in return for the eventual handover of that work to the public domain for the public good. When you walk into that store and buy that CD, you didn't have to agree to any license. By living in a society where copyright is a recognized law, and by not having similarly like-minded individuals to abolish such a thing, you are required to honor that law until such time as you can convince a sufficient percentage of the population that it should be removed. That copyright states what you can and cannot do in reproducing or replicating that work. In some cases, where the literal copying of the work doesn't make sense or doesn't well fit (playing a recording of a performance for profit), the law seeks to cover those situations as "fairly" agreed upon by a "majority" of the population. "Fairly" and "majority" in quotations because this tends to get skewed in easily corruptible societies.
As for there being more specific terms of a copyright "license", all that should really be is a written form of granted rights that the creator of the work is granting the owner of that copy. Think GPL. In the forum of software, copyright applies just as it does in any other realm. However, the terms of the GPL do not seek to limit further than the law states, it seeks to grant additional rights to the 'owner' of that copy of the software, with additional terms and conditions in place for that grant. If you choose not to abide by those terms, then your standard copyright law would apply and you would be prevented from doing whatever copyright has disallowed you to.
If you enter into a contract that seeks to restrict beyond copyright, then yes, those terms should be plain, in writing, and agreed upon by both parties. The car analogy that was given was not an invalid analogy, even though it is a car analogy. In the analogy, a prototype (unique, one of a kind) is available to you, but in order for the creator to allow you to purchase it, they want you to sign a contract that will bind you to additional terms and conditions. As long as it is agreed upon by both parties and you enter into that contract to buy that car, even though you "purchased" that car, you are still held accountable for the conditions stipulated in that contract you signed. You agreed to them before purchasing the car, therefor being (to me and apparently the parent of your post) an ethical, legal, and proper agreement.
Of course, these are all 'ideal world' statements, and simply my opinion and understanding of how it should operate. You don't need to agree to laws to be bound by them, and copyright is a law. There are a great many I don't agree with, but until/unless I can convince enough other people that they are useless laws, the 'majority' feel that it is the public interest to have them, and so they will stay. Oh ya, and IANAL so I may have made mistakes in my understanding of the laws.
Parent
You still don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
Since copyright actually comes from the days of books and newspapers, get this: you never "licensed" a book, except if you wanted to republish it yourself. Otherwise, if you walk into a book store and buy one, that's it: you bought that book. (Or rather, a copy thereof.)
The "license" bullshit comes from software, and was based on the following weasel reasoning: to use a program, you have to make a copy to RAM. Since you're making a copy, you need a license from the copyright holder. You need their permission to make copies. You know, Copyright.
Re-read that paragraph, because that reasoning was the sole and only reason for software "end-user licenses". And, again, it never existed for anything else before: you don't get an end-user license on a book. And it's especially funny since, AFAIK:
A) Even in the US copyright law, that loophole has already been closed. So, regardless of what MS tries to tell you, you _bought_ a copy of their software, you have the same rights as if you had bought a book.
You _would_ need a license, if you wanted to press your own Vista CDs and sell them, or maybe make some derivative works based on it. Dunno, pack it together with your own crapware or themese and sell it. You don't need a license as Joe Average who just bought a packaged copy and installs it on his own home computer.
It's already a disturbing trend that a corporation can try to snow you over several pages that they can override your consumer rights... and people actually believe it. So then, it's no surprise that:
B) I now see them trying to expand this to stuff which didn't have even that bullshit excuse in the first place. To play a CD, you never needed to make a copy in any form or shape. A typical CD player never reads more than maybe a second or two ahead, at any given time.
And, oh, since you seem obsessed by that car sale:
C) Copyright never applied to stuff like cars, since you seem obsessed by that car sale. Consumer rights, however, did. There _have_ been manufacturers who tried stipulating that you don't have this or that right (e.g., that you're a criminal if you repair it yourself), and it's already been ruled even in the USA that they can't do that. You _are_ legally allowed to repair your own car, whether the manufacturer likes it or not.
You may still void the warranty if you take your engine apart. You may get extra conditions if you have to give that car back, i.e., it's a lease or rental. But a sale? A sale is final. It's yours now. It's your legal right to do whatever you damn please with it, as far as the manufacturer is concerned.
Even for rentals or leasing, it has already been ruled even in the USA that certain clauses don't belong there. Stipulating that you can't wreck it is OK. Most other stuff is not. Even if it's a contract, stuff that a reasonable person wouldn't expect in there, or wouldn't see a reason why it would be needed in there, is legally null and void even in the USA. E.g., if I had a rent-a-car shop and snuck in the fine print "I just adopted your firstborn", that clause would get thrown out of court if I tried to enforce it. It's not the kind of payment a reasonable person would expect in a contract to rent a car.
Also, a contract doesn't override the laws in any part of the world. E.g., I can't put in a contract that you're now my slave, because slavery has been outlawed a long time ago. Well, the same applies to copyright law (which _does_ include that fair use clause) and consumer rights laws. _Regardless_ of what a contract says, it can't take away your legal rights.
Also, the idea of a contract is, or at least used to be, something that has been explicitly agreed upon and signed in advance. It's (or used to be) also expected that if any point is even borderline controversial, then it would have been explicitly brought up and dis
Parent
Re:You still don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you don't accept the terms of the licence, the Law of the Land (Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended) gives you the right to use the software for its intended purpose. And a contract cannot take away a statutory right.
Parent
Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there is one thing: don't purchase it. As enraged as people seem to get about these things, though, nobody actually stops buying.
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Insightful)
oh wait...
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but you're mistaken. *I* stopped buying ebooks. And I was HOOKED for a long time. When I figured out that Adobe was going to steal the books I'd purchased back from me after I bought my 3rd laptop (they limit the number of devices you can read their books on), and after I spent hours on line with their "tech support" (sorry if milk just squirted out your nose at the notion of Adobe providing tech support), I decided I was done. Cold turkey. This was about 3 years ago. I'd love it if I could go back to ebooks, but I will not until they fix (or eliminate) their horrible DRM scheme.
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Informative)
Many of the authors who deal with Baen even give them away, either through the website or with CDs distributed on first run hardcovers. The CDs while copyrighted are freely redistributable and are all found at BaenCD. [thefifthimperium.com]
Parent
Baen ebooks: no DRM (Score:5, Informative)
I am a very satisfied customer of Baen ebooks. Baen does it right.
You can download in any or all of five different formats: HTML, RTF, Palm ebook, Rocket ebook, or Microsoft ebook. The book is not under any sort of DRM. They have all their new releases, not just some weird out of print titles. And they have a deal where you can buy 5 or 6 books at a time for $15!
That latter deal they call "Webscriptions". If you buy a really new book, the webscription might include only part of the book. Over time, more of the book is revealed, and finally the whole book is available. But as long as you are buying a Webscription monthly selection that is old enough (which is most of them) you get all the books at once.
And, I believe they are still doing the deal where you buy a monthly Webscription selection and you can give a Webscription selection to a friend. You do this by providing them with the friend's email address, so check with the friend to make sure he or she is cool with giving out the email address. (I made a test email account on my server, and gifted it with a monthly selection; it has never received any spam, so I believe Baen when they say they do not give out your email address to spammers.)
I have spent over $300 at Baen, and my collection of Baen ebooks is up to 200 books! That includes titles from the "free library". Yes, Baen also just plain gives away some ebooks.
Baen free library:
http://www.baen.com/library/ [baen.com]
ebooks, and monthly Webscription selections:
http://www.webscription.net/ [webscription.net]
Here are a few free ebooks to get you going. These are some of my favorites; perhaps you might like them too.
The best of Keith Laumer's classic "Retief" stories!
http://www.webscription.net/pc-347-1-retief.aspx [webscription.net]
A book in the style of the old "pulp" novels, with magic and mad science thrown in.
http://www.webscription.net/pc-110-1-doc-sidhe.as
Humans stranded on a planet with large intelligent large molluscs. The humans need help just to digest the local food, but they can do some things the locals cannot, also.
http://www.webscription.net/pc-287-1-mother-of-de
The first of the "Honor Harrington" series, and my favorite of them.
http://www.webscription.net/pc-304-1-on-basilisk-
I hope you will enjoy reading some of these ebooks!
steveha
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's the precise reason I haven't bought a CD or DVD since the RIAA and MPAA, respectively, started this little anti-fair-use jihad of theirs.
Here's an example: I subscribe to HBO. HBO shows, say, "Superman Returns." I can watch it legally on HBO. I can record it and rewatch it. The MPAA is arguing that I can't "context shift" that material so that I can watch it when I'm stuck on call at work. (Doctor. Lots of down time in the middle of the night.) What has the MPAA lost? Nothing. What has HBO lost? Nothing, because I already subscribe to that channel.
Now, I can see the MPAA's argument if I don't subscribe to any of the "premium" channels and am doing this, but regardless of HOW I get the material, I'm paying to view it. Frankly, the more the MPAA argues these points, the greater the chance that people like me are just going to stop subscribing to the "premium" channels in the first place. They've already done great strides for this with CableCard. (i.e., I'd love to record my favorite programs to my PC, then load them on my laptop and watch them during down time. Unfortunately, idiotic encrypted QAM prevents that.)
The same goes for the RIAA. If it's "fair use" that I record a song off the radio, then how is it any different if I obtain said recording through a different means? Sure, I *could* go set up a recording rig and hook it to an FM receiver. I have the equipment to do it. In that case, I have the content, and it's "fair use." So if I obtain it through different means, it's the same data. How is that not "fair use?"
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, you can circumvent it yourself without consequence because you are not doing anything to deprive them of any revenue or infringe on their copyright making 10000 copies for your closet stack of DVDs. Simply put, Copyright's never been about guaranteeing revenue... but it's turned into that... and copyright's "limited time" has been assraped so much that it's probably unable to even fart. Their idea of telling you what you can and can't watch/listen to your purchased content on is their desire for a pay-per-view universe... where you pay for every viewing, listening, reading of something... not just once in the case now... like we're all in their own private little theater and we have to pay the fee each time we use their crud. It's their orgasmic dream to do that... and they are working _VERY_ hard to make it happen... harder than they work even to sue the pants off college students who trade music.
I don't purchase crippled CD's (or those from major labels, for that matter... not that it matters much, since major labels really _do_ produce dog shit music.) I also don't purchase anything Disney has anything to do with, since they are instrumental in raping the corpse of the public domain... the goddamned vultures need all to die... It means I miss most Pixar movies... well, all of them, actually... unless of course someone else loans me their copy.
Since the "digital age" (as if it somehow has put the western world in "jeopardy") is now an attempt to force even more controls on _ME_, rather than the works themselves... I find it laughable that they can make a distinction between fair-use _now_ and in the _past_ simply because it's on a computer rather than a VHS tape or audio cassette. Because it's "bits" now instead of magnetic media (or whatever), they somehow believe all the provisions that were set forth in court case after court case in hundreds of years of law don't apply because the word "digital" is attached to it. Fuck you... to put it in terms they can understand.
The problem with people in general is their incessant desire to be entertained, because they've known nothing more over the last few decades... people of a previous generation are less likely to hoard useless entertainment materials and seek out all kinds of entertainment because their upbringing was work until dark, then sleep so you can do it all over again tomorrow. We (and I'm including me in this one, so keep those cards and letters) are lazy, Pavlovian experiments gone wild. Ring bell, fork over money, get treat. It sucks. I figure it'll get worse before it gets better... that the moguls and idiots in charge will find a tipping point past which NO one will bother with the hassle of movies or music... and they'll have made such a mess of the legal and technology sectors because of it that it'll take two generations to fix... and then it'll go RIGHT back to the way it is now... as if the Marx cycle has an "entertainment division..."
I sometimes feel like part of the problem... and I'm not even the worst "consume more" person that I know...
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda like the right for copyright protection itself huh?
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Insightful)
Previously, there was some sort of tenuous balance, though it wasn't specified by law: people could use copyrighted materials in certain ways (fair use), and companies were pretty much guaranteed that widespread infringement would be easy to deal with (since printing presses were big and expensive). In the modern age, the companies see their previous comfortable position being eroded (by copying and distribution becoming trivially easy). So they get new laws to give them back the comfort they previously had. They claim that this is their "right" and so now we have the DMCA, granting them these "rights."
The people, meanwhile, are seeing fair use eroding more every day (DRM, etc.). However, fair use has not been protected by any new laws. So companies can use technical measures to prevent fair use, and there's nothing we can (legally) do. The balance is gone.
Personally, I think the means of restoring the balance would be to repeal the DMCA and even scale back copyright law, rather than creating yet more laws.
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think the means of restoring the balance would be to repeal the DMCA and even scale back copyright law, rather than creating yet more laws.
Even better, just do it. (sorry Nike, track my ass down.)
Seriously, the current copyright regime has twenty years tops before people realize that it's counter-productive. More significantly, the (jargon alert) MAFIAA will have reduced itself to a shadow of its former might by its heavy-handed tactics.
There's a beautiful symmetry to all of this. The copyright holding companies wanted to make sure a fluke like "Night of the Living Dead" never happened again. So they made everything copyrighted. Problem solved? No, since everything is copyrighted, everything was potentially infringing. The achillies' heel in all this is that if everything is sacred, nothing is sacred. You've debased the term to a meaningless point.
Now, they're trying to deal with the fact that they're a victim of their own success.
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are as much socially-granted rights as fair use. (And happen to be damn good ones.) All three share the quality of being relatively new ideas in society, in the grand scheme of things. You might say we'd like to think that all three of these rights are vast improvements over how things used to work in historical times. I don't see the distinction you are trying to draw here at all.
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps one of the hardest ideas to get across in the whole "intellectual property" debate is that, perhaps, there is some social value currently being ignored. Many people decry the "information wants to be free" rally as nothing more than "greedy pirates justifying their selfishness." While I will not deny that many people violate copyright law for purely selfish reasons, I again want to emphasize that there may be a deeper moral question... and that many opponents of the status quo may be deriving their opinions from that question.
I do not really think that a "no copyright" world is the right way to go... but there is a social value of "digital freedom" (or whatever you want to call it) that is not yet taken seriously, but I believe will be crucial to our advancement, as a society, in the coming years. I think we need to learn to accord fundamental respect to the pursuit of knowledge, to the free distribution of knowledge and culture. Yes, this needs to be balanced against incentives to artists and reward for contributing to society. However I believe the present climate where all ideas are "owned" is untenable and, ultimately, immoral.
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not really think that a "no copyright" world is the right way to go...
I'm not quite there (yet,) but the thing that I can't figure is:
The Founding Fathers (if I ever do a superhero spoof, that's the one) figured that fourteen years was enough.
In the interim, We figured out how to do printing much faster (that's my industry, so trust me on this one)
On top of that we figured out how to get copies out to potentially unlimited individuals (c.f., SPAM.)
So, why is copyright now longer (and more inclusive) than it was when the country was founded?
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Depends on what you mean by "right". (Score:4, Informative)
Really? I bed to differ. Some thought control methods that come immediately to mind :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotism [wikipedia.org]
and more generally :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_control [wikipedia.org]
wrt how well they work on populations, YMMV, but at least propaganda has been used extensively throughout history, in war and peace time.
Parent
In a word, bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
-jcr
Hmmmm.....Then Copyright is not a "right" either.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they want re-negotiate, perhaps we should go back to the way it was originally setup in the constitution and start back from there. Full and exclusive copyright only lasts 17 years. Period. No extensions of any type. That's my best offer.
Hollywood is playing a very dangerous game here. Public opinion is pretty much against them, while we're re-defining copyright perhaps we should put this up for a referendum?
Pardon me? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I shall be publishing a short copywritten piece shortly with just this provision in it, and if anyone knows the guys behind this push, feel free to send copies to them, I insist....
Re:Pardon me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the authority of the federal government to issue copyrights is directly provided for in the Constitution. One of the powers granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 is: (Clause 8)
Parent
Re:Pardon me? (Score:4, Informative)
Now what makes all this a farce is that it is virtually impossible to create an all but the simplest copyrighted work without making use of works copyrighted by others.
Slightly off-topic rant: One of the examples used in favor of extending the term of copyright was to allow Harold Loyd's granddaughter(?) to earn some money by re-releasing his movies. At the same time, Hollyweird basically told the widow of the captain of the boat that inspired "The Perfect Storm" that she was SOL in regards to mis-portrayal of her husband in the movie.
Parent
Copyright Progress (Score:5, Informative)
Congress can make an exception to protecting our rights to free expression (like copying someone else's expression) where economics requires exclusivity of some expressions to promote progress in science and useful arts. But only where necessary for that promotion of progress, and only for limited times - and only to authors and inventors. Not when economics doesn't require the exemption. Not for unlimited (or so long that the limits are effectively meaningless, or renewable) times. And not to record labels, which are neither authors nor inventors.
The "fair use" isn't some exception to copyright. It's the basic right, to free expression. In recognition of its nonthreat to progress, the exclusivity, the artificial monopoly that Congress can create, doesn't apply to that free expression.
The whole copyright exclusivity is obsolete. There's a case for very short times for exclusive exploitation, different lengths for different media, before the content becomes folklore. But these Copyright Alliance creeps are just thieves. Using our government against us. Trashing the First Amendment we use to get our government to protect us. And exploiting beyond any defensible reason their license to mint money that they find in Article I.8.
Let's take them up on their offer to start over. And strip down these artificial government monopolies to actually promote science and the useful arts. 17 years for books and songs, shorter for the rest, maybe a day for news, maybe 15 minutes for financial news. That's progress.
Re:Copyright Progress (Score:4, Interesting)
But there is clearly a measurable economic underlying this principle. To be more precise, every registered copyright (which should be required for any enforcement, not just the current system which gives punitive damages only to registered ones) should have an auditable cost invested. As soon as the work has returned 10x the investment, or 17 years, whichever comes first, the copyright expires. Every 5 years or so the average time to return 10x investment should be recalculated for the previous maximum expiration, and the default set to that new term. That way, progress by profit motive will be ensured, as will return to the public domain.
Parent
The "Right" of Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, yes we do.
Consumer vs citizen rights... huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Got lube? (Score:4, Funny)
Because I *so* enjoy being told to bend over and brace myself. As a consumer, I work to get money. Then I hand that money to companies that make things I like. Some of these things are intangible--like music and movies and in some rare cases . . . art. Since it's hard to make money off of intangible things (since media and transmission is relatively cheap) I'll allow laws to grant companies exclusive distribution rights so they can make profit and keep making stuff I like.
*My airwaves* *My nation's laws* *My consent* *My money*
#1 & #2 were long since auctioned off. #3 has been rendered imaginary. I still have power over #4, and guess what I'm not shelling out for crap I don't want anymore?
(and why the hell doesn't slashdot have a +1 drunken rant!? Or -1 drunken rant . . . or even Z@!I#NV j60o
The article is oversimplified and confusing (Score:5, Informative)
The argument that Ross appears to make is a non-sequitur. He says that fair use is not a consumer right because it is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. There's no connection between the two. For those who don't know, an "affirmative defense" is a defense that does negate an essential element of the charge. For example, if you are charged with murder, one defense that you could offer is the prosecution hasn't demonstrated that you were the one who committed the murder. Another defense would be that the prosecution has not shown that a homicide occurred (if, say, there is no body). These are non-affirmative defenses because all the defense has to do is to argue that the prosecution has failed to meet some part of its burden. Another defense to a murder charge is self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The defendant admits that a homicide occurred, that he or she did it, etc., but argues that he or she is nonetheless not legally responsible.
In the case of copyright infringement, civil or criminal, fair use is an affirmative defense because the defendant admits the elements. He or she says: "Yes, I copied material whose copyright does not belong to me", which is the essence of copyright infringement, but its okay because the use was of a type that the law acknowledges as acceptable, just as self-defense is an acceptable reason for killing someone.
There is no reason to suppose that there should be a connection between whether a defense is affirmative or ordinary and whether it is a right. For example, surely self-defense is a right, but it is nonetheless an affirmative, not ordinary, defense. So the mere fact that fair use is an affirmative defense does not show, as Ross seems to think, that fair use is not a right.
The possible grain of truth in what he says is that the fact that fair use is a defense to copyright infringement does not mean that it is a right whose violation is actionable. Statements that describe copyright infringment in absolute terms, without mentioning fair use, are inaccurate, and possibly constitute deceptive advertising, but whether consumers have a legal right to fair use that makes technical measures, such as DRM, that interfere with fair use, actionable, is unclear. There is a colorable argument that there is a fair use right in this sense, which is what the plaintiffs are arguing, but it is also true that this has not been established in court.
So, insofar as Ross is claiming that there is some sort of connection between the kind of defense provided by fair use and whether it is a right, he is wrong, but insofar as he is just claiming that the provision of fair use as a defense does not make it a right, what he says is true. I personally think that fair use is a right, for First Amendment reasons, but this right flows from the First Amendment and not from the fair use provisions of the copyright statutes.
music is evolving (Score:5, Interesting)
music will become something people only pay for to go to live concerts. all other music will be freely traded, and musicians will make money from advertising and abovementioned concerts. no, it's not jayz money. as if that was ever a prerequisite for the desire to make music
the only people who are losing are the economic middle men. all we hear are the cries of their death throes. zzz
let them lock up their copyrighted works with all of the advanced tools of copyright protection they want. #1: it's easily defeated anyway. #2: much like newspapers have learned, it's all about accessibility. so let the morons make their product inaccessible, and reap the fruits of that genius strategy in a new world with new rules
all we hear are from idiots in media companies who don't understand what the internet means to their business, or desperate men who do understand what the internet means to their business: it's killing it
oh well, who cares. sucks to be on the losing side of history
Legal advice? (Score:4, Interesting)
He is basically arguing that Fair Use is so complicated that explaining it to people constitutes legal advice. Yet he admits that the notices currently in place are simply scare tactics.
"these warnings do exactly what they're meant to do--notify consumers in a succinct fashion that infringement has legal consequences."
In essence, he's saying "Our rights are easier to describe than yours, so we'll forget about yours."
Corporations Need to be Smacked Down! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is very simple - corporations have less of a right to exist than consumers have of a fair use in copyright, and, even more importantly, the desirability of corporate profits does not entitle them into twisting laws to create an oligarchy. Capitalism exists as an American system to benefit the American people, and not the other way around. Corporations are no more entitled to rent seeking and guaranteed profits than a lazy man is entitled to a government check. If corporations want to earn more money, then they should be compelled to invent new products and new services, not attempt to bend the will of the government and the soul of the people into being enslaved into old products, old services, and worst of all, old ideas.
My fellow Republicans need to be reminded that to be a genuine conservative is to value freedom first and foremost. From that freedom we do have a prosperous society, yes, but prosperity is not why we value freedom and we should not let our greed rule deceive us into believing that the point of freedom is profits for someone else. There will come a time, and it may be soon, when we have to choose between freedom versus wealth, and we can only hope that men of good conscience will have to see that the former is always priceless.
Whether it is a right is irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Ross is technically right, practically wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be the beginning and end of this argument. The broadcast warnings clearly speak in absolute terms, and here we see Ross admitting that he knows that the copyrights referred to in the warnings are not, in fact, absolute. Thus the warnings are not just vague, they are factually (and willfully) incorrect.