RIAA President Decries Fair Use 486
triskaidekaphile writes, "Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, has an editorial on CNet responding to the Consumer Electronics Association's support of the Digital Freedom campaign for fair use. Sherman proclaims, 'The fair use doctrine is in danger of losing its meaning and value.' Like a true spinner, he indicates that fair use is indeed important, then states 'Let's be clear. The CEA's primary concern is not consumers, but technology companies — often large, multinational corporations which, like us, strive to make a profit... But to seize the mantra of "consumer rights" to advance that business interest is simply disingenuous.' Slashdotters, trollers, and pollsters one and all, what say you? Disingenuous or dissembling?"
Leaving for Lojban forums (Score:4, Funny)
u'e sai
fa'o
Re:Leaving for Lojban forums (Score:5, Funny)
Well... you can't say the parent post is offtopic. I mean, this was all but asked for.
I think he has a point (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not (only) the duration of the copyright, the form itself hinders the creation of art. Copyrights (as well as patents) have turned from a tool that should encourage to publish and produce into a tool to monopolize the market. And that has never been the intention of its creation.
Quite the opposite!
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
While some may point to the vast quantities of works created the past century in the USA as proof that copyright works, I'll respond with two points:
- Copyright is a coupl'a hundred years old. It is really only in the last 50-100 yrs that there has been an explosion in the publication of works.
- I suggest as an alternate theory that the creation of works is tied directly to available leisure time (both as creator and consumer), and at no time in history have more people had more leisure time than the USA in the same last 50-100yrs.
Provable? nope, but it's at least as plausable as the copyright theoryLastly, what those that are proponents of copyright never talk about is the damage that it does - I've read estimates that some 70% of all published music is unavailable for purchase. It's locked away under copyright, and the 'owner' doesn't feel that it's profitable to release it. So anyone who looks at the shear quantity published, without taking into account the works that copyright renders *unavailable* is being dishonest... ... when in reality it is necessary only in terms of ensuring their profits.
It's the RIAA/MPAA et al that have everyone believing that copyright is necessary to us
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think he has good points, too.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, fair use is being able to backup my cds onto my harddrive and encode them in any format I please for my mp3 player.
If it were up to the RIAA, they would determine exactly which format I would purchase and keep my music on, and that I would have to buy the same music over and over again everytime the next best thing came out.
Given their history, their hypocritical actions against artists, I have very little reason to believe they are arguing anything in good faith, hence I have very little reason to listen to them at all.
He did lie.... (Score:5, Interesting)
He did lie about a couple of situations being theft, when in fact no theft was ever involved.
"For me, fair use is being able to backup my cds onto my harddrive and encode them in any format I please for my mp3 player."
That about does it for me, too. Add to this DVD/video content (including anything I download or view online) and being able to view such content on my DVD player.
Re:He did lie.... (Score:5, Informative)
You're confused;
Fair use is an exemption that lets you make and distribute copies (for money or not) which would normally be prohibited by copyright. Thus, things like reviews and parody.
Things like backups and media shifting which doesn't involve making copies for other people should never have been the subject of copyright in the first place. They're just "use". Reasonable, ordinary, non-infringing "use" of something you already paid for.
I shouldn't need permission to "copy" a CD onto my mp3 player or recode it in different format, the same way I shouldn't need permission to put it in a regular CD player and have all the bits 'copied' from bumps on the disk to digital signals, to an analog representation of the music.
Don't let them pull the wool over your eyes, this isn't about fair use. This is an attack on just plain "use" and if you let them get away with it this time, the next move will be a fee every time you play the disk.
Re:He did lie.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Can it be agreed upon that theft is when you take something away, without permission, from someone else so that they no longer possess it, or as much of it, as they had before the theft?
Then copyright infringement _IS_ in fact, a type of theft. One is stealing something from the copyright holder.
What did the copyright holder stealing? Not money, certainly... as the copyright holder has no _less_ money than they had before the infringement. But there _IS_ something the copyright holder _does_ have less of: Exclusivity.
Copyright is the _EXCLUSIVE_ right of its holder to copy a given work, and nobody else has any permission whatsoever without granted permission from the copyright holder. If one decides to copy a copyrighted work without permission, they are intrinsically lessening the amount of exclusivity that the copyright holder possesses over the right to copy the work (exclusivity of course meaning that nobody else was supposed to do it). Fair use copying is a concession to the general public that does slightly lessen the exclusiveness the copyright holder has without, in general, impacting the value or worth that it might have. Since such use is explicitly exempt from copyright infringment as outlined in the copyright act, the copyright holder can always be assumed to have agreed to this concession, or else he would not have copyrighted and published his work and nobody would know of its existence. Therefore fair use copying isn't stealing, since the copyright holder has implicitly given permission to copy for such purposes.
But make no mistake.... copyright infringement is most definitely stealing.
It's nice to hear different reasoning, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm much more comfortable with the argument that piracy is stealing from the (mostly well lined) pockets of record companies and artists. This at least holds water when directed at those who could have/would have otherwise paid for the content.
By your logic, artists could sue for the pain and suffering their loss of exclusivity caused them.
Re:It's nice to hear different reasoning, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you bother to think this through? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, since the taking away part you describe as necessary is not present in copyright infringement.
"Therefore fair use copying isn't stealing, since the copyright holder has implicitly given permission to copy for such purposes. "
Actually, it isn't stealing, since no form of copying is stealing (whether it is unfair use or fair use)
"But make no mistake.... copyright infringement is most definitely stealing."
BR Ermmm. yeah. Despite the fact that it does not meet the definition. Chalk this up to the weak argument: "copyright infringement is theft because I SAY it is, no explanation necessary."
Yet, no exclusivity is stolen (Score:4, Insightful)
Let us return to that place where those who abuse the definition of "theft" fear to tread: the dictionary. Definition of theft "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
Aside from the gross inapplicability of the idea of "carrying off" to a possible diminishment of a right, let's look at the "taking" requirement. You are arguing that exclusivity is stolen, right? If this is true, then how come the copyright infringer does not gain any exclusivity???. If he's taking it, he'd gain it, right? Of course he doesn't.
The word "theft" once again is proven inapplicable. Even if we assume that this right is a property, the act of infringing on it does not constitute the right being taken from one person by another. Rather, it constitutes the destruction or damage of the right.
In a real-world analogy, crimes where you wreck something but don't steal it are often called "property destruction" crimes. They are never called theft. A vandal smashing a window is doing something similar (in the analogy) to what you describe when talking about damage to the exclusivity right. The vandal certainly can't be accused of stealing a window.
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, their history sucks. But is what they're saying now unreasonable? If you push your opponent against the wall and he finally relents and gives you what you need (not saying he's giving everything, but he is giving something) do you just scoff at him?
Hell, we need to be taking notes on what he's saying now and we need to stick him to his word. He says things should be balanced. Yes, they should. He says we should have some, but not unlimited fair use. Yes and yes.
When your enemy gives you ground, you don't go hide in your bunker and call him names. You advance. I consider this an opportunity.
TW
Yes, what he's saying is unreasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact the copyright balancing is the interests of the content producers versus the interests of the content users (of a number of types - including the content PURCHASERS who want to format-shift their property in order to player-shift or space-shift it, whom he carefully ignores).
The makers of the equipment, software, and other insturmentality that enables the content users' exercise of their fair-use rights DO benefit. So they have a financial incentive to support the content users' position. (Indeed, the industry's activity is an effective way for the content users to fund the defense of their own rights.) And their profit is indeed part of the overall social benefit intended to be promoted by the copyright law. But (despite Sherman's FUD) the copying-equipment industry's interest is NOT the other side of the "balance" of fair-use.
I think you're walking into a trap... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not arguing that I should be able to get my music for free, but once I pay for it I can do with it whatever I want, as long as it's fair use. I'm not going to accept his version of "fair" - probably no media shifting, no format shifting, if possible no time shifting and hardware-locked to a specific player - I want the rights I deserve for having paid.
You make the mistake of accepting his framing of the argument: he isn't "giving in" in the slightest, he makes an outrageous demand, and, when no one will fulfill it, backs down a little. It's the same as if I asked you to pay me a million dollars for using the same air that I breathe, and if you aren't willing to pay, well, I can back down to a payment of one dollar a month. I guess you would consider that a great deal, since I "backed down" so much...
(I'm not accusing you personally, but every time I see something like this I wish people were more aware of basic manipulating tactics - these are old tricks, and, sad as it is to see, they still work).
seriously, more mod up for parent (Score:5, Interesting)
"Fair use" does not define a certain limited amount of copying that you have permission to do. It defines copying that you do *not have to ask permission for. You can try to prevent "fair use" technologically, but there is nothing in copyright law that prevents my circumventing that technical measure. Now I defer to a smarter man:
(Moglen on the DMCA): "You never read a case, because there never was a case, in which under the copyright law, somebody was charged with a federal legal offence of any kind for writing a book about how photocopiers work or for distributing blue prints of photocopiers or for manufacturing and selling photocopiers. When you see a legal regime that is engaged in trying to charge people for doing those things, you can be pretty sure it's not the copyright law, it's something else. The fact that they put the word copyright in the title doesn't make it a copyright law folks"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But hell I won't even buy the latest Micros
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NO!
Fair use is fair use. Either you have it, or you don't. Why do you think the word "fair" is in there? If it shouldn't be allowed, then it's "unfair".
Fair use should absolutely be unlimited.
By your logic, if the government starts advocating severe limits on free thought, you'd think it would be a good thing if we complained and complained about this, and they relented, allowing some free thought, and you'd be here on
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Warfare analogies (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, we need to be taking notes on what he's saying now and we need to stick him to his word. He says things should be balanced. Yes, they should. He says we should have some, but not unlimited fair use. Yes and yes.
When your enemy gives you ground, you do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it's very unreasonable.
I should be able to take music I purchase and move it anywhere. To my iPod, to my server, to my stereo, anywhere I want. Period. End of sentence. That's what I have now with CD's. Why would I give up anything? Who am I being unfair to when I buy a CD and move it to my iPod?
Same with the MPAA. I should be able to take a DVD and copy it to my HD. That's not being unfair.
Ask this guy..."When I take a CD that I bought and mov
Re: Speaking on their history (Score:5, Interesting)
There are many products that we buy and replace because they wear out (record, 8T), or because newer products offer better quality (CD) or convenience (mp3). If you made most of those conversions, it's because you had a good reason and obtained a clear benefit from doing so. You could have, for example, bought some equipment and recorded all of those 8-tracks to CDR, but the quality would have sucked, and you didn't really want to take the time to do it anyway (convenience). Again, things we often pay for.
This is what makes the transition from DVD to BR/HD interesting, because in one way you may be paying for the "same" movie yet again... but on the other side, it's not the same movie, but a much higher definition, clearer, sharper version.
Worth paying for? Your choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought the media content on those 8-track and cassette tapes. The medium which conveys the media matters little in this argument.
Without the content they are just blank tapes.
When I purchase the music I will listen to the music on the original -or- a copy of that original as I know all too well that any mechanical carrier wears out with time and the medium is not the message, the content is.
My library content goes back to reel-to-reel tapes and yet I have no reel-to-reel machine anymore. It died in 19
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You also choose to spend your time doing so, whereas others often will pay not to s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you obviousally haven't look at hddvd and dvd side by side. We demoed a HDDVD player to a big client on HIS home theatre.
you could not tell the difference between the regular DVD through his $30,000.00 video processing system and $55,000 projector and the HDDVD of the sam
Re: Speaking on their history (Score:5, Insightful)
I once dug up an early 'mix tape' that my father had made this way, in the late 60s...format shifting is not a new idea, and it's fairly recently that its been attacked and called "stealing."
The previous upgrade cycles mostly happened because there was some perceived consumer advantage. 'Cassette tapes' sucked less than eight-track (cassettes), particularly for use in cars. CDs were superior to vinyl in terms of damage resistance (or so they said at the time, anyway), not wearing out, ease of FF/REV and SKIP, and sound quality. People chose those upgrades. Anyone with a decent home stereo could go from LP to cassette tape pretty trivially, and some people did (I know I did, for my car), but it was time consuming and most people didn't bother.
With the CD to MP3 format changeover, moving one's music oneself is trivial. Put the disc into iTunes, hit Rip. Thus, a lot of people aren't repurchasing their music as they did in the past, because this changeover is easier than any in the past. This drives the record companies crazy, because they've been used to getting a huge influx of cash every time one of these changeovers has happened in the past -- in fact, they think they're entitled to it. That is their critical mistake. They are not.
Frankly, I think it is this sense of entitlement that really aggravates me about the RIAA and its member companies most of all.
Re: Speaking on their history (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, how do you tell when the head of the RIAA is lying?
His lips move.
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure that his use of "fair use" is that far off. For example, "fair use" means you can quote a few words from a textbook, but cannot repeat the whole book. "Fair use" also means you can play a few seconds of a song, or a few seconds of a movie without permission or penalty.
Fair use does not mean they have to make it easy for you to make a copy of those few seconds.
The real dissembling comes from him saying nothing about the doctrine of "first sale." That's the one that gives you the right to do whatever you want with a product once you've purchased it. For example, if you purchase a Spalding baseball the Spalding company cannot limit you to catching it only with a genuine Spalding glove. They can advertise the balls as "best caught with a Genuine Spalding Glove", they can print "WARNING: catch this ball only with a Genuine Spalding Glove or hand damage may result", and they can even print "Never sell your glove to anyone else" on your glove. But what they print on it has no legal bearing on what you are legally permitted to do with it.
There are exceptions for certain materials, such as pesticides and herbicides, that prevent you from using them in a manner harmful to the environment. But unless a Brittany Spears disc is capable of producing an ecological disaster, I doubt strongly that they apply.
Re: (Score:2)
-nB
Time/Format Shifting (Score:3, Insightful)
yer mistaken (Score:5, Interesting)
You are mistakenly conflating two forms in the statutory basis for fair use: borrowing for purposes of quotation or criticism and limits on commercial exploitation.
It is perfectly legal to spend an afternoon photocopying a complete book in your public library and lugging the reams of 8.5X11 home with you, if your purposes are scholarly or educational and you have no intention of commercial redistribution. Mr. Sherman is pleased by your confusion in this regard and your mistaken guidance to the hoi polloi. In fact, they are relying not upon the deterrent effect of a handful of lawsuits, but the great murk that this tactic generates around these questions in the public discourse.
It is perfectly legal to make complete copies of any copyrighted work provided there is no commercial intent and no restraint of commerce (read: giving them out for free and destroying the market) and anyone who will tell you otherwise is mistaken or lying. Grokster died not because copies existed on its servers or servers it indexed, but because it had no way of guaranteeing that those copies were not commercially exploited or that restraint of trade was not occurring. It purposefully marketed this anonymity of purpose as a value-add.
No - you are wrong on the amount you can copy (Score:4, Interesting)
When I studied Copyright Law as part of my engineering degree, it was emphasised that you cannot copy the whole material regardless of whether it was for educational or non-commercial use.
If you want to read more, you can do so at the US Copyright Office website:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html [copyright.gov]
From that site:
Note that nowhere in those examples does it say wholesale copying of a document.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use; that set manufacturers could profit from the sale of VCRs; and that the plaintiffs did not prove that any of th
Re:yer mistaken (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, look who we're dealing with. The RIAA. The same people who claim letting a friend borrow a cd is the same as attacking a ship.
When your point is not to mislead (Score:2)
Re:I think he has a point (Score:4, Interesting)
What part of it don't you agree with? He really doesn't say anything inflammatory at all. In fact, he goes on and on about a balance and different interests working together.
In truth, I think he only does that because we pushed his group's unreasonable stance so hard that they have no choice but to come closer to the center. We should not let up. But what he is actually saying makes sense.
Point one: We must balance interests. Yep, I like it.
Point two: Downloading songs without paying for them is bad. I agree with that as well.
Point three: There are fair use provisions in the copyright act that must be respected. How could I disagree?
Point four: The group championing consumer rights is self serving and wrong. This one I don't know about. I'm honestly not very familiar with this particular org. I won't defend this.
3 outa 4 aint bad. Do you care to elaborate further on the reasons for your stance?
TW
Re:I think he has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Fair use isn't about making personal backups (I'm talking putting the song on your favorite player not copying for your friend).
2) CEA is self interest, but the RIAA is better than that..
Also he never said that fair use rights "must be respected" he acknowledged they exist. But the RIAA and MPAA have shown disdain in the past for research and other fair use rights when they require breaking encryption to achieve them.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, fair use IS about making personal backups. It's not about making copies for your friends.
If you purchase the media, you can make copies for your own use, and change the format for your various listening/viewing devices. If you like, you can transfer ownership of said media to someone else. Once you transfer ownership, however, any other copies of the media you no lo
Re: (Score:2)
I was in effect quoting what the RIAA guy was trying to imply.
NOT my opinions on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I think he has a point (Score:4, Insightful)
The other problem with Mr. Sherman's statements is that it serves mostly publishers and not the artists -- while the goal of copyright law is the encourage the creation of artistic works, not to maximise the profits of publishing houses. Whether downloading is illegal or not ignores the real question, which is does it help artists and should it be illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. The question should be about respecting private property of all kinds, no matter who it belongs to. The alternative is a slippery slope on which the government tells you what you are allowed and aren't allowed to own.
Private property? (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright is not private property. Copyright is a limited-time government-granted monopoly on the reproduction of intangible works.
I own a bicycle. I own it forever -- my ownership of the bicycle never lapses.
I own the copyright to this message. 70 years [or whatever the Disney Corp. manages to extend it to] after I die, the copyright expires and this message automatically goes into the public domain.
Nonsense. With copyrights, the government is controlling what I can do with the book I already paid for. And the government already says you are not allowed to own some things -- like other humans.But... consumers *do* care about fair use (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiiiight! (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why RIAA has gone for a lot of soft targets http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35 669 [theinquirer.net]
No Need to Poison the Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Let the guy make his points and disagree where you feel appropriate. But there is no need to preface it with a comment. You could say that about anyone trying to make an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If by "that" you mean "like a true spinner...", I disagree. Normal debate tactics are to emphasize your point's advantages and minimize it's disadvantages:
Spinning, on the other hand, is the "art" of making your disadvantages look like advantages:
Frankenslash here (Score:2, Funny)
Information wants to be free.
> trollers,
First Goatse
> and pollsters
79%
> one and all
79% of information is goatse.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
79% of information is goatse, whose original content should be provided free (as in speech) so that the public can improve upon it for future generations. Also, Fuck Microsoft.
Let me fix that (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let's be clear. The RIAA's primary concern is not artists, but themselves -- a large, quasi-multinational corporation which strives to make a profit... But to seize the mantra of "artists rights" to advance that business interest is simply disingenuous.'
Sherman uses incorrect terms.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that it is impossible to steal IP (you can only copy it), he has no idea what he is talking about. Either that, or he is intentionally lying. He also quotes a Grokster judge who said that Grokster was theft, and says that this judge is tech-savvy. How can he be? If he knew a thing about Grokster, he'd know that no theft ever took place on it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious that the RIAA hasn't cornered the market on "spin".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not spin to point out abuse of words and encourage accurate usage in accordance with actual definitions. Copyright infringement and theft are two different crimes. No one has ever shown even one example of anything being stolen via p2p.
Re: (Score:2)
If you put your hand in my pocket, take money out and walk away you have committed theft. Period. Why you thought you should do this is immaterial. You can say "I just made a copy" but that does not change the fact that you accessed something I should have been paid for to enable your access.
What a terrible analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.... which has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
"You can say "I just made a copy" but that does not change the fact that you accessed something I should have been paid for to enable your access"
Accessed? Like in your wallet example? Theft is theft. Period. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Period. Sounds like you are discussing some sort of unauthorized access. There are other forms of unauthorized access which are also not theft (such as trespassing). The person who has "just made a copy" is guilty of copying, not stealing.
You know the Dems are on the Hill when... (Score:2, Interesting)
(emphasis added by poster.)
You know the Democrats are in power when the RIAA line is that fair use has to be eliminated due to "large, multinational corporations", instead of "freeloaders" and "free riders".
I'll give Cary this much. He's smart enough to adjust the spin vector to best conform to the prejudices of whichever group of thugs ha
Of equal interest is Gary Shapiro's response. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair Use vs. Limited Times (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A work created today has a copyright term of the life of the author plus 70 years or for works for hire a term of 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation (whichever is sorter).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(The last Mickey Mouse Copyright Expiry was to have been in 2003, but after intense lobbying, Congress passed The Sonny Bono Co
Bottom line: I should be able to record anything! (Score:5, Interesting)
I should be able to make a copy, for personal use, of any content that I can receive, whether it is broadcast for free or (especially) if paid for.
This is what Fair Use has always been understood to mean, in addition to being able to use small excerpts for review or educational purposes.
It was about us popping a tape in our VCR or radio and making a recording.
Now that the recordings are equal quality to the original, the RIAA and company want to renig on the deal. It's as simple as that.
If you've paid to receive the content, or it is freely given away, you should be able to make a copy for personal use. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Today, the right to make a copy for personal use has been extended to making a copy to share with friends. And, because we're friendly on this planet, "friends" means everyone on the planet. Make no mistake, the more militant folks out there want to enforce "buy one copy, share with the planet."
Electronics manufacturers have somewhat less to lose than content producers, but both are going to lose in the long run as long as fair use is translated to "free music and movies."
Just exactly how do w
Re: (Score:2)
If things degenerate to free music and free movies, we'd still need electronics to play them on. How could the electronics manufacturers lose? Or are you referring to how if media because driven by the customers instead of by bizarre descrees from companies to buy everything all over again in a new format ever 8 years, the h
Disingenuous how? (Score:4, Insightful)
classic ad hominem attack (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything similar to "fair use" outside of media? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything else you can buy in the world, where there are such restrictions placed on its use? Stuff that's reasonably easy to duplicate, and has potential for such abuse, that it has protections?
Looking around my (typically messy) desk, I see... hmm, my camera. Ok, I can pay $1300 for a lens on my DSLR.. Canon doesn't say "dude you can't put that on any other camera". Nope. Of course, there's no other camera to put it on, but I knew that when I bought it, and canon doesn't say that I can't do what I want with the results of the pics.
Ah, there's a clip loaded with .22's (well, this is the country, and the other day a coyote tried to get at my chickens!). Remington doesn't say that I can only put these in their rifle. I bought the bullets, I can do what I want with them, as far as the originating company is concerned (Uncle Sam may disagree with me, of course, but you won't see Remington getting involved in that).
So, is there anything produced where the manufacturer places specific use restrictions (not "suggestions", like a recipe which calls [let me exercise "fair use" in an excerpt here] for "1 bar (8 oz.) NESTLÉ CHOCOLATIER(TM) 62% Cacao Bittersweet Chocolate Baking Bar, broken into sections" or "2/3 cup LIBBY'S® 100% Pure Pumpkin" as though something else is going to ruin the recipe - they're not denying you the right, or ability, to use their recipe unless you use their product!) other than media?
Perhaps the special thing about media is that the company wants to sell you not "listen to this song" or "watch this movie" but "listen to this song only on this one thing". There's a clash between what the consumer believes himself to be buying, and what the company claims to be selling.
Where the difference lies (Score:3, Insightful)
But, unlike you, the CEA does not seek this profit through monopoly control over the products they sell (OK, with the possible expception of Sony...). A CD player is a CD player is a CD player, no matter who manfucatures it, but a new Death Cab for Cutie CD can only come from Atlantic. Because the electronics manufacturers don't have nearly the same amount of federal legal power to fall back on to protect their profits, they are far more inclined to (day I say it) cater to the whims of the customer (insert previous Sony caveat here).
While there is always the danger of manufacuring cartels getting together to limit consumer choice in the realm of hardware (DVD-CSS), these cartels don't have the same kind of legal protections that copyright holders do, and are always susceptible to competitors making cheaper yet more functional devices (Wal-Mart won't try to sell bootleg movies, but will be more than happy to sell you a region-free DVD player).
which wal-mart? (Score:2)
Which Wal-Mart is this???
Social Contract (Score:5, Interesting)
I ask myself one question. Do the laws surrounding copyright encourage innovation? My answer is "no, they do not." With that answer, it means that I must necessarily think that the laws regarding copyright are unconstitutional. Innovation is not when Velcro's replacement is held back from public consumption until after the patent on Velcro has expired. Innovation would be releasing it when it is discovered. Many companies hold back the next generation of products until the previous generation patents have or soon will expire. Companies use patents to prevent competitors from making obvious enhancements to their own products. Copyright law is being used to prevent Fair Use and extending the copyright every time it get close to expiring indicates that it is not a limited time. Author's life + 10 or 25 years, whichever is shorter would be more than sufficient for protecting the creator for profit to encourage creation of new content.
Oh, and "Science and useful Arts" does not include business processes.
Re:Social Contract (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. 10-20 years is all they should be given a copyright for. Its the expiration of income from a given work that inspires one to produce more works. If I come up with a good idea and got paids for it for the rest of my life, what's my inspiration for creating even more works? None. If I know that gravy train is going away soon you best believe I'll be working my butt off on coming up with a new idea to sell.
That's how copyright came into existence. What we have today is an abomination and is in serious need of correction.
The Pot and the Kettle (Score:2)
I have but one thing to say about that. If the consumer market did not want it, the manufacturers wouldn't make it! This premise has been shown again and again. They don't want to make things people won't buy. They buy it because they want it. They make it because people ask for it or they think the people would like it. (product failures are common, no need to cite examples...cue cat)
Disingenuous indeed...
this doesn't make sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes, all of these entities are the same company. Look at Sony for example. They own a record label, produce consumer electronics, and sell blank media.
All of the above (Score:5, Interesting)
All of the above. I have the right to use my media as I see fit. What, is he next going to claim that ripping my own CDs is illegal [eff.org]? Pesky "Fair Use", it's holding back commerce and hurting the economy. Hey, we have record executives to feed! They have children to put through ivy league schools! And Hummers to buy! The rabble is getting just too damn uppity, I say. Do you honestly think that's disingenuous?
Sheesh!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go download last nights Frisky Dingo episode.
Interesting contrast (Score:2)
It seems fairly clear that neither the RIAA nor their member companies really understand technology well at all. They try to stagnate music distribution in the mid-80's, and they disregard how easy it is to compare and contrast
He got one thing right (Score:2)
What a lying sack of !@#$ (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh huh. And the RIAA's primary concern is
Slashdot user decries copyright. (Score:2)
But the analogy hits upon a very important point. Love, knowledge and wisdom are all best when shared freely. A society composed
The IP Crusades (Score:3, Insightful)
On one far side of the IP continuum, you treat intellectual property almost EXACTLY like physical property. Lifetime ownership, lifetime copyright etc... This situation probably grants excessive monopoly power to the IP creator and creates inefficiencies.
Extreme #(2)> ... This situation creates a variation on the classic tragedy of the commons. [wikipedia.org] Everyone has an incentive to use the common IP resources; no one has an incentive to create them. (And no, communism does not work and the broad population will not create free stuff for the benefit of mankind without compensation.)
On the other side, you have absolutely no rules whatsoever. Everyone is free to use/steal/whatever anything.
(3) The Fuzzy Middle
Then there is some position in the middle that grants a time limited monopoly (copyright) with certain exceptions for "fair use." Where "fair use" has a strict definition. A brief quotation is "fair use," while a larger excerpt is not. the Anti IP group (2) people want to redefine "fair use" as "all use." (Switch US system from (3) to Extreme #2 by stealth.) Not that I'm an RIAA fan, but the opinion piece here has a point.
IP control is less and less useful. (Score:2)
This is not about communism, since communism is all about brutal totalitarian dictatorship. Anyway, I'm getting happier and happier with this extreme. Why? More and more of the content I am finding and enjoying is made by people for the pure fun of it in the
Best Case Scenario: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, this guy is playing good cop. While another part of the organization litigates the end-user into oblivion.
The goal remains, Greater control for higher revenue, which naturally entails drastically limiting consumer usage.
Microsoft's goal, RIAA members goal. All of them.
That this is even being considered as thoughtful by some is just... astroturfing.
'The fair use doctrine is in danger - (Score:2)
And you, yourself are one of the dangers.
If you can't win the argument, redefine the terms (Score:3, Insightful)
The effectiveness of this can be demonstrated by the conservatives' redefinition of the word "liberal", which nowadays is used pejoratively. Originally, the word had a positive meaning (one with liberal views, supporting individual liberty).
Doesn't the RIAA represent the rap industry? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I buy is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
IS that to hard to understand?
You know what? he's right... but doesn't say all. (Score:5, Insightful)
He also makes a couple of interesting points: first, that downloading is illegal and immoral (the opposite view being an "extremist position"); and second that the new fair use will stop artists from producing content because there would be no economic advantage. And IMHO both of these points are flawed and misleading.
For the first one, there is no mention of what makes it an extremist view (other than his obvious agenda), and the opposite view is just as extreme. Downloading is not illegal everywhere, and it certainly is not immoral - there is no morality on the reordering of a bunch of 0 and 1s on magnetic storage. Nothing was lost on the other side.
But the second one is more interesting. It is simply not true that artists will stop producing content if people are free to use the technology as they see fit. This is already happening, and the attempts to outlaw it is a proof of that. But the impact won't necessarily be worse than today if allowed to happen.
I think that these are hiding another, deeper, threat for content companies: the fact that technology companies serve both consumers and content creators, and it scares the crap out of them because of the implications.
In other words, technology massively lowers the barriers of entry for new artists. Massive distribution technologies allow users to bypass the traditional and oligarchic "means of production". Cheaper equipment means more talented people can reach the eyes and ears of listeners, which will cause money to be distributed more broadly, and more fairly - at the expense of the traditional players of the content industry. An example of this is how, given a specific content, some illegal copies manage to release something of a better quality (no ads, multiple subtitles in different languages, better size/quality ratio, etc).
Content industries have a history of perverting technology for their own economic ends. DVD zoning is an example of this. I can understand the marketing drives to do it - artificial market segmentation, and so on. But in a increasingly global world they become as annoying as they are obsolete.
So yes, the technology companies have a lot to profit from this. But guess what - their best economic interest is to allow the people (artist and consumers) to be able to do more with their gear, not less. So if I have to choose my side, I'll go with the technology companies, not with the people who would like to "license" things to a given item of hardware and still charge as much as possible.
Some people are getting it... these guys [mariposahd.tv] are trying to offer a free HD TV show on the net. In other areas such as gaming, there are many examples [sourceforge.net] of freely available software [sourceforge.net], which are free yet fun to play [romhack.net]. This is the future, IMHO, and is arriving sooner or later. Yes, in part, I like it because I get a free ride, but that's because I'm given one by people who have the means of doing so. And those means are given by technology.
A dare (Score:4, Interesting)
BULLSHIT.
PLENTY of artists continue to create and release works under Creative Commons and other open license on a daily basis. Only artists and commercial publishers like the RIAA's clientele won't produce content without restrictive "protections". If they went away, the commons would only grow.
"Threatening" us with the bankruptcy of proprietary artists does NOT serve you well as a useful argument. It makes me want to call your bluff. No more Britney or NSYNC?
Of course, we both know you're not going away. So quit bullshitting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Without content, the market for technology designed to deliver it will dry up quickly."
How can you say that when you've been claiming enormous losses from widespread online piracy for a decade? Obviously you do not hear the CEA's clients crying uncle (an observation you make in this very article!), so obviously all that piracy isn't hurting them in the least.
Of course, you may have a point insofar as you, considering yourself the exclusive font of all content, are still supply
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair use is an undeniably important plank of copyright law. Critics like CEA sometimes lose sight of the fact that record labels and other copyright owners are as dependent on fair use as consumers. A healthy and robust fair use doctrine is critical to us, since so much of what we create is built on the art that came before.
The question is what each side considers "fair". They're hitting CEA for being on the side of free file sharing (by backing Grokster), which does not sound e
Technology vs Economics (Score:3, Interesting)
Not so. At least, we wouldn't have to switch to some sort of "communist system" in the sense that all extent and historical so-called "communist" states have used - forced equal distribution of resources.
If by some technological means we arrive in a situation where capital and labor both are so plentiful as to be free (via robots and Star Trek-style