Google and Microsoft Help To Defend Fair Use

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."'"

About...

God damned time

Of course....

Of course, at least one of those companies is selling/making money from systems that won't allow you to exercise your fair use rights...

Re:Of course....

I have the right to print a publicly distributed newspaper; however, I can't do that, because I don't own a printing press or the means to rent the use of one. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn't mean you have the resources or tools to make good on that right. There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also failing to provide the technical means to exercise that right, or even placing technical hurdles to exercise it.

Nobody said it would be easy.

Re:Of course....

There is no logical conflict between a company defending a legal right for a customer to do something, while also... placing technical hurdles to exercise it.

How is that not a conflict? They're countering their own defense of the right. I agree they have no obligation to provide the tools, but they intentionally (actively) cripple the tools they sell to prevent fair use. They spend money creating the hurdle. They also attempt to counter fair use rights in their own software licenses (i.e. legal hurdles on top of technical hurdles). Seems like a logical conflict to me.

Re:Of course....

I'll believe it the day Microsoft includes the above language in Vista's EULA, not before.

Re:Of course....

I have to wonder what use of software would fall under "fair use" guidelines.

Educational & backup copies, of course. And of course, derivative works, for stuff that is open source to begin with.

Then again, I have to wonder why we treat software as similar to music and literature by placing it under copyright scope in the first place. If software needs a form of IP protection, copyright is the wrong fit, and fair use just makes that all the more evident.

That's strange, I'd argue exactly the opposite- that patents are a wrong fit, as evidenced by the LACK of fair use since software patents have been applied.

To the broader topic: That a company is not required to provide for your fair use is established law, true. Of course, that concept predates the DMCA. The DMCA takes us out of balance by introducing the infamous anti-circumvention clause. Under this clause, not only must I respect the rights of the copyright holder, so must any technology in which I traffic. Not so with fair use -- I can traffic in technology that tramples the consumer's fair use right (per prior law), but not in technology that might be used to trample the copyright (per the new law).

Correct. But also, given fair use (as predated the DMCA, which completely trampled fair use) the consumer's right to fair use should give them the ability to say, make an ISO file of any CD they own.

Most fair-use advocates assume that the best solution to restore balance is to elmiinate the anti-circumvention clause. This returns us to the world of yesterday, where the most technologically capable among us have exercisable fair use rights and the rest of the citizens don't; except that DRM schemes are ever more complex, resulting in an even higher technical barrier to entry into the world of the fair-use "haves".

True enough, though I'd argue that for the widest form of fair use (multiple copies supplied to a classroom for educational purposes) any reasonably well-funded school should be able to circumvent easily (by using nearly identical hardware, thus defeating the "license keyed to specific hardware" algorithm), and have done so for non-circumvention reasons (for ease of maintenance- every computer in a classroom should have identical and interchangeable parts).

But there's another way. Keep the anti-circumvention clause, but add a new clause. Make it illegal to traffic in technology that abridges fair use. If it's illegal to make tools that violate one right, make it illegal to create tools that violate either right. Restore balance. And at the same time, give everyone the ability to exercise their fair use rights, regardless of individual technical knowledge.

Interesting idea that- which would make Windows Genuine Advantage illegal tech....

Re:Of course....

Of course, at least one of those companies is selling/making money from systems that won't allow you to exercise your fair use rights...

You think any of them want to do that? You think Microsoft is happy they had to pour a gazillion dollars into some cockeyed DRM scheme dreamed up by coke snorting clowns?

Microsoft would be pleased as punch if customers could buy hi-def capture cards from Fry's that can plug into any computer and work with MCE. They would be giggling like school girls if a beige-box PC could record hi-def HBO without a set top box like Tivo. Google would be pleased as punch if you downloaded the show from them instead of used the hi-def capture card. Apple wants you to buy the latest "New Kids on the Block" single from their online store. RedHat wants all of the above to work on Linux.

All these companies are pissed because they cannot get access to the media their customers desire. While it may seem like all these companies, especially Microsoft, "support" DRM schemes, trust me they don't. Would you want to piss away a bunch of your developers time writing in crazy DRM crap that only keeps your company from innovating?

That can't be true...

That explanation is REDICULOUS(sic). I have a far more reasonable one, so allow me to elaborate.

Everyone *KNOWS* that Microsoft enjoys being evil precisely because they are evil! Or, at least, that is what people around here have told me. I have a feeling the people in Redmond drive into work like everyone else, but once they get into work, they start smiling. When they finally start working, they are chuckling to themselves: "Haha, its time to SCREW OVER THE WORLD! I can't wait to subtly break everything we've made, and inconvenience hundreds of thousands of users!" Because evil has this amazing ability to attract other forms of evil, thus allowing it to compound faster than one would expect, evil alliances are formed with alarming regularity: "Hmm, its Thursday, we should find a KKK club to sponsor since its been rather quiet this week." Naturally, everyone drives cool cars around the campus. Bill Gates is known to be able to fly, teleport, and destroy someone with a single thought of the mind. But few actually get close enough to him to observe these things, unfortunately.

I am sorry that this information is so long in coming. But I am glad I decided to post it on a site that is a beacon of truth, logic, and unbiased opinions.

Google and Microsoft in it together?

Google and Microsoft? Going above and beyond the call of "Don't be evil"? Together?

Wonders never cease. Nice work.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together?

It shouldn't really be surprising. Neither Google nor Microsoft have much of a stake in content creation. What they have in common is creating systems which aggregate and display content. If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game. That would definitely get in the way of both companies' business model.

Re:Google and Microsoft in it together?

If the NFL had it's way you wouldn't be able talk to your co-workers about the previous nights game.

It seems that major sports leagues are given special legal status in general. For one, they're exempt from antitrust laws. (Not that I like anti-trust laws, but selectively enforcing them can be worse.) For another, they seem to have additional rights to the content of their games beyond what IP law normally grants. Like, if I watch a game and stream my commentary about it so people can listen as they watch with the official broadcast's sounds muted, I'd be shut down in a heartbeat. But if I did the same thing to the e.g. Kasparov/Deep Blue chess match, IBM couldn't stop me if they wanted to.

Sounds good!

"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."'"

IANAL but that sure sounds a lot like "tape recording/ripping movies and putting them on the internet" to me.

It's a trick...

"Self-interest might well be among of their motives, too, as companies like Google and Microsoft are routinely sued over copyright-related issues. Defending fair use might be good for consumers, but it might turn out to be good for business as well." ....get an axe.

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

This Microsoft + Google alliance reminds me of that episode of He-man, where He-man and Skeletor have to join forces to save Eternia from this interdimensional monster - or when the guys from Dungeons n Dragons have to help Venger defeat Tiamat.

This is getting sooo interesting! *grabs some popcorn and enjoys the show*

History Repeats Itself

It sounds like those entertainment lawyers DCMA'd one too many people. The lawyers start letting the fact that they were able to trample on the little people get to their head and eventually piss off someone big enough and with enough teeth to fight back. When SCO declared they were going to start charging $699 Linux licenses, it was the little guys who were concerned. Then they picked on Novell and IBM and look where they are now: Litigated into oblivion.

ZOMG THE IRONY!

Am I the only one finding it ironic that Microsoft is demanding that Fair Use be recognized, while shutting down Autopackager [slashdot.org] and infringing on the right of first sale [blogspot.com], even in cases where the software isn't even opened [applelinks.com]?

Sorry, I'm just frustrated that I spent thousands on two MSDN subscriptions and have been trying to activate them for a week, and have spent over 115 minutes on the phone, with the last two calls assuring me with 100% certainty that the problem is now resolved, only to discover they are STILL not activated and I have to call them yet AGAIN. GRRRRRRRRR!!! This is why I run Linux for everything except for client projects. Ugh.

Copyright EVERYTHING and destroy it all!

If everything were copyrighted (most things sort of implicitly are), and we upheld MLB's version of Fair Use, then lawyers' motions would be copyrighted and as such could not be discussed by other lawyers or judges. Nobody would be able to talk about anything that had been written down or produced in any way. One could even claim that all speech is a derivative work and we could only use words and letters that hadn't been used in the same combinations anyone has used in the last half century!

Nobody would be allowed to do anything because they would be sued by people who wouldn't be allowed to sue!

Now that I think about it, such inability to enforce anything would be like having no copyrights at all. One end of the spectrum is exactly the same as the other. Too bad circles are copyrighted.

Maybe they can start with karaoke?

Quick summary...

Karaoke is about 10 years behind the music industry, we *just* started getting PC based karaoke systems rolling.

2 karaoke companies have decided that copying a karaoke disc to your PC isn't covered under fair use laws. Below are their press statements.

ANTI-PIRACY CAMPAIGN STATEMENT 12/28/06

Stellar Records in a collaborative effort with some of its clients,
customers, law enforcement agencies, and in some cases even its competitors has
stepped up its campaign against piracy. As part of this campaign, Stellar will be
directing much of its attention at the venue level and soon will be taking
steps to notify suspected venues as to the potential risks and hazards
involved when using unauthorized copies of Stellar Records products.

Stellar Records, its customers, clients as well as several of its legitimate
competitors have been damaged considerably through the illegal copying and
distribution of their products, as well as other acts of piracy, some of which
pertain to the violation of trademarks that are also the property of
Stellar Records.

Prior to pursuing any further action, we do recognize the possibility that
at least some venues may not be aware of these violations and may be engaging
in these activities unknowingly. Hopefully this communication will provide
the information necessary in helping to determine if the use of a Stellar
Records product is authorized, or in any way infringes on its copyrights and/or
trademarks. At the very least, we hope this will provide the impetus to seek
legal advice on these matters before continuing to engage in these practices.

To be more specific, it has been brought to our attention that there are
several venues in the Phoenix and Scottsdale area that have been promoting
karaoke shows which are using unauthorized copies of karaoke products either
directly through the use of in-house systems or vicariously through the
contracting or employment of KJ/DJ hosts and/or hosting companies. Some of these
products have been identified as karaoke products containing the copyrights and/or
trademarks of Stellar Records including products bearing the trademarks "
Pop Hits Monthly", "Top Hits Monthly", or "Stellar Records". In addition it
has been suggested that there could be other products containing Stellar
Records' copyrights and/or trademarks being illegally distributed, and an
investigation is currently under way in an effort to identify those products as well.

In order to assist those in determining what constitutes an unauthorized use
of Stellar Records' products, please be advised that Stellar does not
support nor does it have the authority to support (due to contractual limitations
in its licensing agreements with various publishers) any device which stores,
and/or plays karaoke products from a hard drive or any device other than a
device that plays directly from a CD+G disc. For example products include but
are not limited to the CAVS JB199 as well as the RSQ-500 when play back is
not directly from a CD+G disc. There are a number of software based products as
well like MTU's Hoster, PCDJ, CompuHost, TriceraSoft, Sax N Dotty Show
Hoster, and Dart just to mention a few, when play back is not directly from a
CD+G disc.

Stellar Records does empathize with the concerns of some of its customers
who may want to make copies of their legally purchased products for the
purposes of making back-ups or to rip them onto a hard drive in a more convenient
format. However we do not have the authority to grant anyone the right to do
so. Most if not all of our karaoke products contain the copyrights owned by
parties other than Stellar, namely the writers, authors and/or publishers of
the work (song) itself to which we must seek prior approval for use in
producing our final karaoke products. The licenses and/or approvals that we secure
from these publishers do not include the right to distribute t

Companies fighting companies

It's great, but a long way from anyone defending personal fair use. This is just corporations fighting over who gets to disseminate sports scores. In short, companies fighting over money. Just using fair use as the angle of attack.

Wake me when the megacorporations start fighting for my right to rip my CDs and play them on my MP3 player.

microsoft v dreamworks...

I found it interesting to note that MS was backing a complaint against Dreamworks, you think they could sort that one out in-house.

Thats the gig !!

thats what it should have been all along from the start !! great job you internet giants - now we can join in on this as the public and get things in their right places.

Enough with the website launches...

I'm tired of companies and organizations launching websites and being completely ineffective thereafter, as if the launch of the website itself was the brunt of their effort. I seriously hope they do something about this, but in my mind, just launching a website proclaiming your objective doesn't cut it. Let's see some results.

We can only hope

Could this be a reversal of Microsoft's prior stance on DRM, wherein they fellated the movie and music industries despite the consumer electronics industry being far larger and far more consumer-friendly?

Nah.

This is interesting...

"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."

They appear to be taking a step in the right direction, until you take in to account that legislators go to the highest bidder... There is no question that M$ and Google have deep pockets and both company's lobby congress, its certainly no secret.

Great! What's next?

After they clean up the over-reaching copyright notices, maybe they could go after the EULAs next?

It is time...

Finally some corporations recognize that the madness of the current abuse of IP rights has to stop. Perhaps their deep pockets will "convince" politicians to fix this (since they really don't give a rat ass notice of what people want).

If this stands up in court...

People can go back to blogging sports events without getting thrown out of them. IIRC, the blogger from the paper in Louisville managed to get tossed out of the College World Series this year for blogging...

The actual site

A site sponsored by MS, Google, and others and it looks like that? Must not be high on their priority list.

Take a look before you get too impressed

Has anyone actually looked at the website [defendfairuse.org]?

There's a link labelled "Tell us what you think" about fair use, overreaching copyright notices - but when you click it, the only option is to sign their pre-drafted petition. There's no way to actually convey your views. Much what you'd expect from these companies, really.

Then try reading the petition itself. Some idiot has failed to specify a proper charset for the web page, so it's peppered with weird characters.

Freakin' amateurs.

Not Protecting Fair Use For Everyone

Keep in mind that Microsoft is a huge violator of your privacy with the 47 spyware programs they put into Vista. Also the major WGN/WGA crap they put into Vista and XP. Bottom line is that they are not here to defend the rights of the people. Microsoft is doing this to defend their position alone so they don't get sued right and left. In fact, Microsoft years ago started buying up the rights to all sorts of digital works. They didn't do this to have them they did this to defend their rights. Nothing wrong with that except if you were to use those I'm sure they would be more than happy to bust your chops. For instance, the autopackager site they just shut down is a fair use site yet they have shit on everyone by closing it down. They did so because they know that such a site has little resources to defend themselves.

Never ever trust Microsoft.

Spell it out

These are all great sentiments. But the average person isn't a lawyer and doesn't understand exactly what is fair use. So just to be safe, they respond to any threat or reported threat and end up giving up their fair use rights. Nor do they have time to do the research to figure out whether a particular use they are contemplating is safe. Hmm, spend time with the family, or research fair use?

The only way this is going to be solved is to spell out in very concrete, specific examples, what is clear fair use, what clearly isn't, and what's in the grey zone. If these companies really care about defending fair use, they'll do this. But of course, they might accidentally be construed to be giving legal advice, and they might even make a mistake, and be held liable. So just to be safe, they won't.

Argh! /K

i'm glad this happened

Maybe I'm just optimistic but I'm very happy such large corporations are standing up to defend fair use. It might be for their gain but it benefits us as well! I mean, Google mainly just wants youtube to not suck. Anyway I created a facebook group because I'm bored. Mainly to spread the news about this website to the non-geeks. Please join! http://harvard.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56791052 12 [facebook.com]

Fair use

Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing!

For a link to the actual complaint

On my blog I have a link to the actual complaint here [blogspot.com] and a link to a good article by Maura Corbett on C/Net News about the case here [blogspot.com].

Re:"You may copy...."

Well, you could say...

"Provided that such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise permitted by applicable law, you may copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, and transmit portions of this publication."

But I suspect any watered down language would take the negative approach to remain in good standing with the law...

"You may not copy, distribute, prepare derivative works, reproduce, introduce into an electronic retrieval system, perform, or transmit any portion of this publication unless such use constitutes 'fair use' under copyright law, or is otherwise explicitly permitted by law."

And, for good measure, (and if there's time or screen space), they'll add "Any intent to apply or exercise of fair use rights shall be sumbitted in writing to the content license holder prior to such use, and approval or denial shall be determined at the sole discresion of the content holder except as determined in a court of law."

See, now wasn't that easy?

Re:It's Microsoft

if it gets this into the Windows and Office EULAs:

"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."'"

and thus it means that schools can, for educational purposes, run unlicensed copies of said software, it might just be worth it.

Re:I may disagree with them, but I will defend the

While your words are aggressive, I agree about one point, the data mining.

I suspect data mining is the true ulterior motive for both Microsoft and Google. Its why they want to support fair use. Its in their interests, as they want to data mine everyone and any copyright rules can get in the way of exploiting other people's information (especially if any of that datamining was based in turn, on copyright information).

Both Microsoft and Google stand to gain from the public continuing to have access to fair use of media data, as then Microsoft and Google can mine and profile all our views etc.. and sell that information onto anyone they wish.

But I love the way their PR teams spin the news, as if its all done in our interest. Like all companies, they do not do anything unless there are good business reasons to justify doing something. They are doing it for themselves, not for us. Its just one more business "chess" move for them ... and as usual, ultimately, we are the pawns.

Re:Amen

Since 15khz is ear-piercing, I really hope most artists avoid using sounds in the 15khz-20khz range.

In fact, here http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/samplesViewSingle.php ?id=18266 [upf.edu] is a sample of a 14-15khz wave. Do you really care what wave form that kind of sound is?