Slashdot Log In
Harvard Law's Nesson Says P2P Is "Fair Use"
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Apr 02, 2009 04:30 PM
from the hopefully-mix-tapes-are-a-corollary dept.
from the hopefully-mix-tapes-are-a-corollary dept.
eldavojohn writes "Ars has been covering the story of Charlie Nesson (alias 'Billion Dollar Charlie') of Harvard Law who's tangoing with the RIAA in court. His approach has been revealed in e-mails on his blog and has confused everyone from Lawrence Lessig to the EFF. His argument is simple: file-sharing is legal as it is protected by fair use. I dare say that even the most avid file-sharers among us would be a bit skeptical of this line of reasoning."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Nesson & Camara Increase Attack Against RIAA 193 comments
eldavojohn writes "We talked about Charlie Nesson of Harvard Law School before, and it may not have been known to you, but he is backing former student and Jammie Thomas' new lawyer, K.A.D. Camara. Ars is reporting that Nesson is upping the charges against the RIAA. Not only is file-sharing fair use, but the $100,000,000 the RIAA has collected through fear is due back to those wrongly accused. He's also increasing the number of fronts he's fighting. On Camara's website, he indicates that in another case, Brittany English (pro bono), they 'are asking the courts to declare that statutory damages like these — 150,000:1 — are unconstitutional and that the RIAA's campaign to extract settlements from individuals by the threat of such unconstitutional damages is itself unlawful, enjoin the RIAA's unlawful campaign, and order the RIAA to return the $100M+ that it obtained as a result of its unlawful campaign.'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: RIAA Seeks Web Removal of Courtroom Audio 138 comments
suraj.sun writes to tell us that the RIAA has asked a federal judge to order the removal of what they are calling "unauthorized and illegal recordings" by Harvard University's Charles Nesson of pretrial hearings and depositions in a file-sharing lawsuit. "The case concerns former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, who Nesson is defending in an RIAA civil lawsuit accusing him of file-sharing copyrighted music. Jury selection is scheduled in three weeks, in what is shaping up to be the RIAA's second of about 30,000 cases against individuals to reach trial. The labels, represented by the RIAA, on Monday cited a series of examples in which they accuse Nesson of violating court orders and privacy laws by posting audio to his blog or to the Berkman site."
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.
Pipe dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Informative)
In related news, his blog [harvard.edu] is complete utter nonsense.
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Bingo (Score:4, Insightful)
I expect you'll get modded up further, but this is dead on. Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement. The method used to infringe the copyright is largely irrelevant.
The real questions in the RIAA trials are always: was a copy made? If so, was it an authorized copy? And, of course, the RIAA evidence gathering techniques raise plenty of questions on their own.
I expect Nesson's point is being transcribed poorly. I say this because, even though he's at Harvard, I expect a professor to get at least that much nuance in the law. Even if it's only his research assistants helping set him straight.
I should also point out that $150,000 per infringement is a statutory amount. That is, the copyright law gives that amount as the damages for infringement (or actual damages, whichever is more). That's both the incentive to register your copyright (it's good to stick a verifiable date on them) and disincentive to infringe. As a matter of personal opinion, it seems ridiculously high, and perhaps there should be more discriminating infringement penalties ($100 per copied song, for example), but I don't think a statutory minimum is a bad idea in the abstract. I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think copyrights should be entirely abolished. Made sane, sure. Completely removed, no.
--
IAAL, but not YOUR lawyer. This is my opinion, not advice.
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Interesting)
My father was a criminal defense attorney / prosecutor. His most effective defense in front of a jury, "the sucker had it coming". Seemed to work especially well when the client was obviously guilty such as bar room fights with 100+ witnesses.
Many of his acquittals and jury nullifications he got in his carrier where some variation on that very simple theme. This argument is not that much different. Everyone likes fairness, even if it is not fair.
Just about anything the RIAA might come up with will look more complex, confusing, and simply unfair.
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called jury nullification, and I'd think most judges won't let you argue for it, make juries swear an oath to uphold the law and follow the judge's instructions, and/or issue jury instructions that, if followed, preclude nullification.
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd consider it fair use for anyone who has a right to a digital copy of the file, to download that file regardless of who uploads that file to them.
If I've purchased the media on a physical device such as a CD, DVD, etc. or a digital copy of it from some media store that has been licensed to sell the media, I feel as though I have a right to digital copies so that I can make a backup copy in the event that the physical media is damaged an unable to playback or to ensure that the media can be used on different devices because DRM on the file would prevent me doing so otherwise.
There are probably a few finer points to my philosophy that could stand some fleshing out (e.g. does purchasing a DVD movie entitle me to a digital Blu-Ray/HDDVD copy with higher quality?) but it's probably not worth going into.
If we can accept that as fair use, then by extension P2P file sharing should only be illegal in the event that a person isn't entitled to own a digital copy of some work. It's not really much of a reach if you're willing to accept that my rights as a consumer trump any corporations rights to require me to purchase the same media over and over again and prevent me from enjoying in the way I want to do so.
Even though some people are going to abuse P2P systems and obtain material that they haven't rightfully paid for, that shouldn't be a reason to remove a system that works well for responsible users.
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Insightful)
That's how they catch people. And that is why they are claiming such high damages.
Even if you have a license to own a copy of the work, downloading it on P2P means that you are offering to distribute it. And you are doing so without even attempting to find out whether the people downloading have a license.
Your defense would be, in some ways, like standing on a street corner handing out burnt copies of $NEWLY_RELEASED_ALBUM to anyone who asked, and when apprehended, claiming that you assumed that only people who owned a license for it would take copies. It might work if you made the people sign an affidativt that they do own a license before giving it to them, or even just made a general announcement that your service is only to be used for legal means by people who have a license to own a copy. But short of something like that I don't see how you can claim you aren't just handing out unlicensed copies.
(For the record, I don't like the music industry or current copyright law any more than the next guy. I just don't like strawmen.)
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Informative)
I was under the impression they generally target the older style of network, where the default is to seed a downloaded file indefinitely, and where any node will send a list of all the files it's sharing to any other node (although I would love to get some confirmation of this).
All of the RIAA's cases I have ever heard of involved allegations regarding either the FastTrack protocol (e.g. Kazaa) or the Gnutella protocol (LimeWire).
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I purchase tons of dvd's, and if one gets scratched, I have no qualms about downloading it. Or if I'm at a relatives house, downloading it for all of us to watch.
It just 'makes sense' from a user's standpoint. I'm depriving no one of anything, I paid them already, fair use should apply.
However, what the RIAA/MPAA sue over, isn't the individual downloading something (usually), its more about them uploading. You are acting as a distribution center for copyright material.
I can see a download easily as fair use. It is harder to justify the upload.
If a total stranger came up to me and said, "hey, could I make copies of your DVD's", that is not exactly fair use. I could kinda fib a bit and say "well, he's my friend and I loaned him my copies".. that might fly. But what if my entire neighborhood copied my DVD's? Certainly not fair use.
I really don't know what the answer is for copyright law, but from a user perspective, it sure seems like downloading something you own should be OK.
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Eventually someone has to stand up to bullshit laws. A popular solution is to prevent them from being passed in the first place, but it seems as though it rarely works in the real world considering that politicians generally have little or no knowledge of the things which they seek to legislate.
Short of that, someone has to either get charged with the law and present a compelling argument of why the law is complete shit so that it gets tossed or lobby a congress critter to pass a new law overwriting the old one.
You're absolutely right that if I went to court over it, I would care a whole lot, but from society's point of view it's completely worth it. I suppose I could always get a complete shyster lawyer myself and countersue them for legal costs, emotional damages, etc.
It took a black woman to completely disregard a bullshit law and reap all the consequences associated with breaking that law in order to ignite the spark to fix that law and many of the other similarly crap discriminatory laws. Eventually there's going to be another person like Rosa Parks that gets sick of the shit we have to deal with and won't allow themselves to be bullied by the powers that be. With the shift in the attitudes of people it's only a matter of time before this happens. It's only a question of how long until the pot boils over.
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get why people assert that they have the right to media in a different format to the format in which they purchased it.
It probably has something to do with this [findlaw.com].
A company has made something and is selling it. You can accept the deal or not, but you can't override their right to set the terms of the sale.
The US Copyright Act disagrees with that. See, e.g. UMG v. Augusto [eff.org].
Parent
Is he? Maybe he has insight? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it possible our sense of what is 'real' or 'fair' has been pushed so far to the 'right' by the outrageous tactics of the RIAA and idea of creation of "Intellectual/Virtual" Property, that we are perhaps buying into some idea of "fairness" as defined in an unreasonable system?
I.e. -- It's generally human to try to be reasonable (in a non emotional/non rant state). A tactic of Republicans during Clinton's term was to present such outrageous demands, that in order to seem "moderate", he had to stand to the right of the line that would conventionally divide Republicans from Democrats.
In a similar way, if the media companies present some outrageous version of reality that what is imaginary
or that which is 'thought' is now something that can be protected, then bought and sold -- that thoughts can be bought and sold, but they package it artfully enough, they might get people to buy into their version of reality and start creating a legal system to defend it. We might start thinking along the lines about what is fair and not fair within that 'created' system -- without seriously or critically thinking about the validity, or, invalidity, of the system created.
When a system starts needing such strong laws to protect it and massive threats of retaliation far out of proportion to the damage done or any sense of 'justice', one needs to look at why such harsh penalties are necessary to engender 'law abiding' behavior in a 'just and fair' society/system. Such outrageous penalties may be put in place out of fear of losing control -- because someone is trying to "legislate" something that is being artificially applied to society that goes contrary to human nature or contary to what is considered "innately" fair in that society.
It could easily be these problems arise because the new, 'created', 'imposed' is being seen as 'unfair' or not just by a significant percent of the population -- it's being forced upon the masses by those who can manipulate the media and legal system so that the average citizen unquestioningly accepts the premise and starts reasoning about 'fairness' within the newly created framework.
Perhaps someone with more advanced insight into the law and social-shaping by creating new "crimes" for new "virtual property" might have a view worth listening to?
Parent
Re:Finding Easter Eggs in the Legal Code (Score:5, Informative)
It does, however, highlight the unfairness of a law that makes do distinction between commercial and non-commercial breaches of copyright.
Parent
Re:Finding Easter Eggs in the Legal Code (Score:5, Insightful)
It does, however, highlight the unfairness of a law that makes do distinction between commercial and non-commercial breaches of copyright.
The damages (as they are) to the rightful copyright holder are identical whether the violator made a profit off the violation or not.
Parent
Re:Finding Easter Eggs in the Legal Code (Score:5, Insightful)
If the violator made profit, that could have went to the copyright holder. So there is a potential loss.
On the other hand, if there was no profit, it is not missing from the copyright holder either.
Parent
Re:Finding Easter Eggs in the Legal Code (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, this just sounds like he's torturing the concept of "fair use" until it suits his purposes. If I look cross-eyed at the tax code for long enough, I wonder if I'll find a way to have the government give me millions of dollars.
Only if you're running a major bank or large manufacturing corporation into the ground.
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Interesting)
So... with 150$ and a month you can steal 460billion dollars worth of mp3s. Or the yearly gdp of Sweden.
(I totally get the RIAA now, really big numbers are fun!)
Parent
That's why no one is harmed (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why one can say that people wouldn't buy the media if it weren't available as an unauthorized copy.
You don't even need to use that ridiculous $150k per mp3 the RIAA insists upon, just add the retail price of every work in a typical teen's computer and you'll see there's no way he or she could have bought it.
At $0.99 for a 3MB file that's typical of mp3 songs, every 100GB of media has a $30000 worth, if the retail price is used. How much do teens get as allowance? $100/week or so? Is it realistic to assume a kid would spend six years of his allowance on music, if he couldn't download it as P2P?
"Fair use" or not, the fact is that P2P harms no one. It doesn't take anything away from the legitimate owner, and there's no lost profit either.
Parent
Re:That's why no one is harmed (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:4, Funny)
Or around 3 times the GDP(yearly) of Jamaica.
How many Libraries of Congress is that?
Parent
Re:Pipe dream (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Methinks... (Score:5, Interesting)
...going to Harvard is not a guarantee of sanity. Just looking at this guy's blog seems to confirm that suspicion. Of course, I wish him the best of luck! If he somehow manages to successfully argue his case, I will be very happy for him. Shocked, but happy.
Re:Methinks... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's faintly conceivable that he may be attempting to assert that p2p distribution provides a positive benefit to the copyright holder in the form of increased exposure.
In other words, that P2P is the worlds most efficient viral marketing campaign.
The plus is, p2p is non-commercial, and non-commercial use is usually considered favorably. The minus is, the entire product (which has a monetary value) is being distributed against the express wishes of the copyright holder. That's usually considered a bad thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a bit hard to understand exactly what it is he's claiming, since he does not appear to publish any concise treatise of his legal theory. He does appear to claim that the four question test is invalid as he feels that Fair Use is a Common Law construct that supersedes the current precedent for Fair Use.
To which my only response is incre
Re:Methinks... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the law is beside the point. Not for him of course, but in general. The law isn't in sync with reality. Millions of people can copy and share trillions of bits quickly, and there is no practical way for any authority to know about it. What isn't known can't be stopped, counted, recorded, monitored, regulated, taxed, or otherwise controlled. Sharing is like sex, but with even less evidence. Sharing certainly can't be outlawed with any reasonable expectation of effectiveness, same as with trying to outlaw specifics kinds of sexual acts. Even ludicrously drastic measures such as shutting down the Internet or DRM crippling every PC and consumer electronics device ever made couldn't stop the sharing.
Even if it was possible to monitor sharing, the sheer quantity might well overwhelm any such monitoring. The Stasi grappled with that problem. It was simply not possible to hire enough secret police to monitor everything they wished they could. I mean, taking screen shots of IP addresses is ridiculous on so many levels. Might as well patrol the beaches, trying to stop the ocean from "stealing" sand. And then there's encryption. Just try to figure out which grains of sand the ocean can have, and which ones it can't, when they can't be told apart. By far the most effective deterrent has been appeals to morality and people's better natures. That still exists but it's wearing thin thanks in no little part to the totally unfair Mafia-like terror and extortion campaign so called "champions" of copyright are waging.
The law needs to get with the program. Copyright must go, and eventually I think it will. I wonder if he could get somewhere in court with arguments along these lines. IANAL but I believe there's a principle about equal applicability, that is, you can't have a law that is applied utterly arbitrarily to a vanishingly small fraction of those who are allegedly guilty. He's just the unlucky sod who gets to be the martyr of the moment dragged in for Inquisition style questioning and ultimately sacrifice on the altar of the copyright fanatics, who however much they rage, froth, foam at the mouth and torture victims, can't impose their religion, which in any case isn't even logically consistent. And it seems they kind of know the futility of their goals, but they keep working at it for the extortion money and because they secretly enjoy torturing people. Spoils the appearance of legitimacy when the Inquisition can be bought off. Utter hypocrisy. When the judge in the Napster case exclaimed "you have created a monster!", she merely showed just how far the law needs to go to come to grips with reality. I wish him luck, but I think we're stuck with copyright for the immediate future.
Parent
Re:Methinks... (Score:4, Informative)
The minus is, the entire product (which has a monetary value) is being distributed against the express wishes of the copyright holder. That's usually considered a bad thing.
"Making available" isn't distribution. Check the NYCL threads, probable google "beckerman"+"making available"
Parent
Re:Methinks... (Score:5, Informative)
"Making available" isn't distribution. Check the NYCL threads, probable google "beckerman"+"making available"
I'll make it easier. Read Capitol v. Thomas [blogspot.com], Atlantic v. Howell [blogspot.com], Atlantic v. Brennan [blogspot.com], and LondonSire v. Does [blogspot.com].
Parent
Re:Methinks... (Score:4, Interesting)
I pretty much think this guy is the Jack Thompson we want to win, except if people like that get to win, then Jack Thompson might too, and we lose.
Parent
Re:Methinks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Baen Books does this very thing, they offer 100% free, complete versions of the ebooks (high quality, in multiple formats, not shit) by any of their authors willing to participate. 43 authors choose to do so, and the vast majority of them saw a major boost in sales of their entire catalog when they did.
http://www.baen.com/library/ [baen.com]
Eric Flint, one of the co-founders of the free program, spells it out with his own book sales. Basically, he made 85% of his money on a book of his in the first six months, another 8% or so the following six months, about 1.5% for the next year. That's when he put it online for free, and a funny thing happened. His sales doubled from the previous 6 month period, and had grown another 50% for the following period.
My money is on "pirated" music being the only thing propping the industry up right now. If they actually find a way to snuff out internet music sharing, it very well could be their downfall.
Parent
Re:Methinks... (Score:4, Insightful)
If every other lawyer in existence is telling him he's nuts, does he really have a solid chance with a judge?
I doubt it. She may listen to his ramblings, she may even humor him a bit. But unless he starts convincing people real quick-like, the judge isn't going to buy it any more than his peers.
Parent
And in summation (Score:5, Funny)
This does not make sense. What are Wookies doing on Endor? Why would an eight foot tall Wookie want to live with two foot tall Ewoks?
What does this have to do with digital piracy? Nothing. If this does not make sense then you must aquit.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Turning their own tactics against them (Score:5, Insightful)
The plaintiffs in cases like these usually involves throwing as many claims as possible into the fan, hoping that at least a few stick to the defendant.
This is also a favorite tactic of prosecutors in criminal cases these days: pull someone over for speeding, and charge them with possession, molesting a teenager, carrying a concealed weapon, and reckless driving. Shock the defendant into pleading guilty to the reckless driving charge in exchange for dropping the rest, when in reality he deserved no more than a $200 ticket for speeding.
So in this case, why not claim "fair use"? Why stop at just one claim? Why not raise a thousand doubts about the legitimacy of the claims? It's certainly no worse (nor less truthful) than the RIAA claiming a million dollars in damages for putting 10 files up on an FTP site.
NewYorkCountryLawyer (Score:5, Informative)
To you law students and young lawyers out there; please don't think you can learn anything from this case. Just ignore everything you are seeing from both sides. I have seen more bizarre filings from both sides' lawyers than I would imagine possible.
Sounds like this new exchange won't do anything to alter his opinion...
My statement on "fair use" & p2p file sharing (Score:5, Informative)
But I will say this much for the benefit of my friends here:
1. Prof. Nesson and all of his assembled, learned advisors and cyberlaw scholars do the subject an injustice by overly simplifying the term "file sharing".
2. There are many different factual scenarios within the penumbra of "file sharing".
3. Some of those factual scenarios would clearly be entitled to a "fair use" defense; some clearly would not; some fall in a gray area. Contrary to what the 'content cartel' lackies would have you believe, and contrary to what Prof. Nesson's friends seem to think, we are at the beginning -- not the end -- of mapping out the boundaries of "fair use" in this area.
I will also interject, from a procedural standpoint, that I find it unusual and inexplicable that a conversation between an attorney and prospective expert witnesses would be posted on the internet; one would have to wonder whose side the attorney is on.
Re:My statement on "fair use" & p2p file shari (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on the traditional four point analysis of fair use, the typical "file-sharing" /.ers are used to doesn't seem to fair too well:
1. The purpose and character - file-sharing is hardly transformative or derivative. You could argue transformation much better with things like mashups, etc. But torrents of movies and music?
2. Nature of the copied work. If it's factual, the infringer is on better ground - e.g., if you're a chemist who photocopies a journal article so that you can take the copy into the lab with you, rather than the entire journal. There are of course fair uses of creative works, too. This would of course depend on the individual work, not "file-sharing" as a whole, though probably the vast majority of file-sharing is in creative works, rather than scientific/factual.
3. Amount/Substantiality - well, most people I know torrent the whole film, not just 5 minutes of it, so...
4. Effect upon economic exploitation of the work - would seem to go against file-sharers. Obviously they aren't buying it! And by sharing it, they may be hurting the owner's ability to sell it, etc.
Parent
Red herring? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike Prof. Nesson, I can see no advantage flowing to my clients and future clients from my tipping my hand to the RIAA.
Which makes me wonder if Charlie Nesson might be leading the opposition down the garden path, attempting to bury any real leaks out of his student brain trust under a barrage of unrelated sideshow acts?
(I'm reminded of an alleged CIA tactic called "the second cover": You wrap the secret in TWO cover stories. The first is plausible, even if potentially easily detected as bogus. The second is the kind of stuff you read about in tabloids and certain late-night talk shows (some of which may be the fossils of old second cover stories). When somebody penetrates the first cover they find the second cover. At that point any of several things may happen, including: A) They believe the second cover. Hilarity ensues. B) They "recoil" back to the first cover. C) They become suspicious of any other reports on what is actually under the covers.)
(Then again, maybe Charlie's mind has finally gone. B-( )
As with NYCL's adversaries, we'll know what the Billion Dollar Charlie team's arguments REALLY are when we read them in the court papers. B-)
Meanwhile, if this is what is going on, I hope my speculation (if it has any effect) adds to the confusion rather than blowing the cover.
Parent
Re:Red herring? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike Prof. Nesson, I can see no advantage flowing to my clients and future clients from my tipping my hand to the RIAA.
Which makes me wonder if Charlie Nesson might be leading the opposition down the garden path, attempting to bury any real leaks out of his student brain trust under a barrage of unrelated sideshow acts? (I'm reminded of an alleged CIA tactic called "the second cover": You wrap the secret in TWO cover stories. The first is plausible, even if potentially easily detected as bogus. The second is the kind of stuff you read about in tabloids and certain late-night talk shows (some of which may be the fossils of old second cover stories). When somebody penetrates the first cover they find the second cover. At that point any of several things may happen, including: A) They believe the second cover. Hilarity ensues. B) They "recoil" back to the first cover. C) They become suspicious of any other reports on what is actually under the covers.) (Then again, maybe Charlie's mind has finally gone. B-( ) As with NYCL's adversaries, we'll know what the Billion Dollar Charlie team's arguments REALLY are when we read them in the court papers. B-) Meanwhile, if this is what is going on, I hope my speculation (if it has any effect) adds to the confusion rather than blowing the cover.
I hope you're right, and it's all a clever diversionary tactic intended to confuse and distract friend and foe alike from the real objective.
Parent
Re:Whose side (Score:5, Funny)
I will also interject, from a procedural standpoint, that I find it unusual and inexplicable that a conversation between an attorney and prospective expert witnesses would be posted on the internet; one would have to wonder whose side the attorney is on.
The side of openness of information?
So if you hired a lawyer to represent you in a litigation, you would want that lawyer to be more concerned with the "openness of information" about your case than with protecting your interests?
You are a most unusual and wonderful person; I would like to meet you sometime.
Parent
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
(didn't read tfa, but here's why I think we should be sharing information:)
Because we can!
Nevermind if it's fair use or illegal. We can enrich the lives of all mankind with a press of a button. Welcome to the 21:st century.
I don't buy it, except for one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were on that jury, most of his argument wouldn't sway me. But there's just one thing: the penalty. The penalty for copyright infringement is $150000?! If so, then copyright infringement must be a very serious crime, right up there with rape and murder. But p2p copying, which I would have assumed is infringement (because it seems like infringement in every way I can think of), obviously isn't anywhere nearly as serious as other crimes for which the penalty is $150k. Ergo, p2p copying must not be copyright infringement. If it's not infringement, then it must be Fair Use.
It's sort of the opposite of "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." If the penalty doesn't fit the act, then the act must not have been a crime. Or maybe I'd borrow from a certain princess: The more you tighten your grip and increase the penalty, the fewer situations the penalty must apply. Somewhere behind the law, somewhere in its dark origins, is a motivation: fairness. If you defy the motivation for the law, then there is no law. When they set the penalty for infringement to $150k, they created new criteria for Fair Use.
Here's a word to ponder: Betamax (Score:4, Insightful)
While I freely admit that this is way out of left field, this isn't as far fetched as it may seem.
May I present for your enjoyment: The Betamax decision. It is the decision that allowed us to own a VCR, and it hinged on whether making a recording of live tv for personal use was "fair use".
Let's put it up agains those 4 rules:
1. Amount of work used: fail. Users recorded the whole program.
2. Impact on sales: fail. A strong argument exists that it reduces demand for sales of that video to people who may have already recorded it.
3. Transformative: Fail. Total fail.
4. Type of work: Fail. TV programs aren't dictionaries or encyclopedeas. Most TV programs are fictional dramas.
So, under the four rules, there is no way recording live tv could be fair use. But the court decided that it was. So personal use recording was called fair use, the VCR was allowed, the copyright owners lost. Incedentally, it meant that the VCR became widespread, and the copyright owners made squillions selling videos, but that's beside the point (or highly relevant!)
So, a court deciding against all 'reason' that what everybody does is fair has a precedent - so his suggestion is not as strange as it may seem!
Re:Lessig? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's reasonable for an artist to expect to be able to profit from their work for a period of time. Protecting that right encourages others to spend the time to create similar work.
The problem is that now that "period of time" is effectively forever, which is bullshit. Those works become a part of the collective culture of a society and it's not right for corporations to continue to hold an intellectual monopoly on those works, long after the original artists have died.
Parent
Re:Lessig? (Score:5, Insightful)
This line of thinking confuses the creative genius with the entrepreneur.
The entrepreneur anticipates consumer need and employs capital in production to satisfy that need. He does so for the sake of profit. The creative genius, on the other hand, is rewarded through the process of creating itself.
To dispense with economic theory, I fall into both categories. I run a business, but I'm also a musician and an artist. I've written, recorded, and released an album. I've written stories and painted pictures etc. First of all, I have never met a single musician who writes music with any kind of expectation of profit. Profit is never the motive. I've met and jammed with lots of people who perform for profit, or teach for profit etc. In these cases they see the value of their product or service and will exchange that product or service. However, when they sit down to write a song, they never consider exchange. They write for the sake of writing.
If you ask any of them, myself included, if copyright has ever aided them financially they will think for a moment and then, reluctantly, answer "no". However, that is not to say that they are against copyright. Usually, they like the idea of copyright because morally they dislike the idea of some "greedy capitalist" being able to copy / redistribute and make money using their creation. However, I then ask them whether their status as a musician, and consequently further prospects as a musician and song-writer, would be aided or hindered if others distributed their work for them ?
Then they pause and think.
As a song-writer our biggest challenge is distribution. Getting radio play is nearly impossible for an independent artist. The Internet has helped tremendously, but we still have to labour really hard to get our songs up on all of the music sharing sites. Even then, few people bother to listen to us because there's so much out there that people put up their filters and wait for their friends to recommend new stuff etc.
To go back to the economic argument, if radio stations and Internet start-ups did not have to worry about copyright then web-sites, and DJs and radio stations would play and share much more music than they do now. People probably wouldn't share much more, since most people share copyrighted music in spite of the law, but in theory artists would get much more exposure while having to do less. As a result, the better musicians could conceivably get a fan-base much more easily, doors would open for them and their prospects as a professional musician would widen.
In conclusion, the only people who actually benefit from copyright are the distributors. Musicians are not distributors. It's a hard business to distribute music, and it's much harder thanks to copyright. That's it's whole point. To keep competition out. Disturbingly, competition in the mainstream music industry almost always includes the artists themselves.
Parent
Re:Lessig? (Score:5, Funny)
While lauded on Slashdot, Lessig only wants to restore copyright to the original length instead of abolishing it completely
Well now, that's just crazy talk. Restoring copyright to a reasonable term? Madness, I say. It's not far down that slippery slope before we get to the point where we give Congress the right to promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting time-limited monopolies to authors and inventors. How far we have fallen from the purity of our true common law roots! We must re-enthrone the true constitutional principle, embodied in the 32nd Amendment, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to keep and bear w4r3z w00t!"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The enormous benefit to who? Creators gotta get paid. Creators that never get paid stop creating, or at least stop doing very much creating because they are too busy doing some other job in order to pay the bills. Copyright, the idea that creators can exert limited legal control over who can copy their work, is a fairly successful real-world solution to this problem. And, on the whole, it's worked fairly well. Yes, things have started breaking down a little over the last couple decades and there are some pr
Re:Lessig? (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop think of P2P as the enemy... try thinking about it as "free publicity"
Parent
Re:Lessig? (Score:4, Interesting)
Every single good or service that has ever been invented has been done to satisfy some kind of need or desire.
When you buy something, you are acting to relieve some form of uneasiness. Maybe it's just boredom or to be part of a fad (the pet rock comes to mind), or maybe it's for survival (food, clothing, shelter etc.). But every single product or service has only existed because people, at the time they were consuming that product, felt that it made their lives better.
So if people are staying home to watch movies, then either the need that going to the theater once satisfied is being better satisfied by other means, or the cost of going to the theater is no longer in line with their subjective valuations regarding what doing so is worth to them, or the need has vanished all together.
Assuming the need is being filled by something better (or cheaper or both), we now have some new invention that replaces the utility of a movie theater. If movie theaters all go out of business then those entrepreneurs, capitalists and employees will go into production that fills more urgent needs.
This process always involves a restructuring and people will be temporarily unemployed. But any attempt to force conditions to remain the same will be futile in the long run, and will only prolong the restructuring process. It's thus better for everyone if the movie theaters either go out of business or shrink to satisfy a smaller market.
Parent
Re:sharing (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure NYCL or someone else who knows all the ins and outs can correct or expand upon this.
Don't be so sure.
Parent