Fair Use is Not a Constitutional Right 464
jmichaelg writes: "Ed Stroligo at overclockers.com has written an article on the fair-use provision of the 1976 copyright law. He goes into some depth on the difference between a constitutional right vs. a legal right as well as covers the Betamax, Napster and Rio cases. It's a well thought out article and definitely worth the read."
I don't care (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't care (Score:2, Insightful)
The proceeding was brought to you be the letters d, u and h, the number 1 and the writing style satire.
Re:I don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
Prime example is Japan, where CDs cost a fortune, because the artists get a large large portion of that money.
Fair use != theft. I wont steal. But if one day what I feel is fair use is considered against the law, so be it.
copyright infringement != theft (Score:4, Insightful)
copyright infringement != theft
Property rights have nothing to do with copyright. The laws governing those two subjects have totally different motivations.
Freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
I think of it this way, if I pay money for something, I can do any damn thing i want with it, If I buy a Cd and decide to use it as a frizby then so be it, if I decide to break it into peices and feed it to my dog so be it, ITS MY CD.
They own the right to sell it, but once i buy it its MINE.
I can copy the information off of it, that information is also mine, they own the right to sell it, but i can share it if i want to!
If you were playing a CD on your stereo and invited friends over, and its against the law to let anyone besides you listen to that CD, should speakers by outlawed because they allow you to break the DMCA or whatever stupid law is in place? Should you tell your friends that they cant listen to the music with you? Hell clubs and raves should be outlawed too, after all these people are all stealing sound. hey dont forget the people who share TV sets, all of them are evil paracite pirates who are stealing from tom cruise and keanu reeves.
Oh and dont even think about trying to draw your favorite cartoon character or comic, thats against the law too.
Re:Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't sound like a very open-minded person, but...
Depends on what you mean by "share". You are paying for a use of the material. You are not paying for distribution rights. The use you paid for is "home use", which roughly covers what you do with things in everyday life. Not reselling, and not redistributing.
That's fine, that's covered by regular "home use", and it's something you've paid for. What you can't do is charge for admission. That's "commercial use". You also can't redistribute the music for other people to make their own copies of it - that's redistribution.
Believe it or not, clubs and raves have to pay pretty hefty prices to do what they do. They do not just go to Rhino Records and pick out some tunes. They pay thousands of dollars per year to ASCAP and BMI, organisations who (purportedly) then compensate the copyright holders. So your analogy doesn't hold up.
And I disagree with that (Score:3, Funny)
If you have a program, and you have a compiled binary and its source code. But people say "Look but dont touch" and its that shared source bullshit, "Touch but dont share"
Well then, wheres your freedom?
That's fine, that's covered by regular "home use", and it's something you've paid for. What you can't do is charge for admission. That's "commercial use". You also can't redistribute the music for other people to make their own copies of it - that's redistribution.
I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about right and wrong. Its right for us the consumer to completely control distribution.
Its also fair for the artist to get 100 percent all the profits. Meaning i dont think its right for a consumer to sell something created by artist X. I do think its right for a consumer to share, copy, or do whatever they want, because no money is changing hands here, the people you are sharing it with obviously wouldnt buy it in the first place, anyone who is going to buy it are the ones sharing it usually, those are the fans.
Believe it or not, clubs and raves have to pay pretty hefty prices to do what they do. They do not just go to Rhino Records and pick out some tunes. They pay thousands of dollars per year to ASCAP and BMI, organisations who (purportedly) then compensate the copyright holders. So your analogy doesn't hold up. Its morally right to share. Greed is morally wrong, But this fucking country's system be it law, or the capitalist system, rewards GREED!
I'm sorry, but I can not support a law which I do not agree with morally, its like supporting capital punishment.
Copyright is like Capital Punishment because alot of people are dying over medical patents, cant afford medicines which could be given to them for free over some patent bullshit.
Patents only help the rich CEOs at these big music companies. Musicians arent all rich, most are poor as hell, Musicians make pennies per CD, this just isnt working, Musicians and Consumers arent satisfied, People are dying in other countries, and the only ones who like patents and copyright are the people who own them and are making a fortune from them.
Programmers hate copyright and patents thus we have open source movement.
Consumers hate copyright and patents thus we have napster, gnutella, etc.
Radio broadcasters on the net hate copyright and patents, thats why they protest the laws wit it.
So I'm going to assume, about 80 percent of the population is against copyright and patents, for some reason or another, but they are too confused to do anything about it, or they cant do anything about it.
IN a democracy, you do what the people want, not what the corperations want, not what the politicians want. IF we were a democracy, people would vote, and the patent system would be gone. Because theres more of us who dont have patents and copyrights, or who dont benifit from them, than the few guys in suits who do. Who do you think would win in a vote? And if you make it a world vote, it would be silly to see 6 billion people all vote against copyright and maybe a million people support it, not even 1% of the world population.
This is about whats right and whats wrong, its about what the people want, the consumers, the programmers, the artists and musicians want, not about how to give corperations and rich guys what they want.
Re:I don't care (Score:2)
Re:I don't care (Score:2)
Re:I don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
If you intend to take this as a civil rights matter, then you have my deepest respect. But to make it a civil rights matter in the tradition of Martin Luther King and his followers, you must do it as they would have.
To wear the mantle of civil disobedience of the cause of civil rights, you must bear the crown of thorns that goes with it. You must make your violation flagrant, obvious, and nonviolent. When the police(or civil litigation lawyers) do come to deal with it, you must at most passively resist them, never denying that you committed a crime and never opposing them with either deceit or violence. When they drag you to court, you must forgo any pretence of innocence and instead focus on the fact that the laws you broke should not be laws. When the judge passes the sentance, you must accept it stoicly, and suffer whatever punishment he hands down passively, putting your hope in the populace to support you, the legislature to change the laws you broke, and if you are truly lucky the executives to pardon you.
And when you finish suffering whatever reprecussions they hand down, you must be ready to do it all over again, still stoicly, still nonviolently, and still suffering whatever punishment they hand down, taking your consolation only in the fact that your cause is just and your actions righteous.
That would be noble, that would be admirable, and that would be in the tradition of the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King.
On the other hand, to just violate the laws for your own selfish reasons, concealing your actions if not from the world at large, at least from thoe who would punish you, and being ready and willing to do whatever legal manuevering is necessary to minimize the punishment if you are caught is not civil disobediance in the name of a cause, it is just a lack of respect for the authority of the government, and that is something that both Martin Luther King and the Christ he followed would disdain.
Re:I don't care (Score:2)
to just violate the laws for your own selfish reasons, concealing your actions if not from the world at large, at least from thoe who would punish you, and being ready and willing to do whatever legal manuevering is necessary to minimize the punishment if you are caught is not civil disobediance in the name of a cause, it is just a lack of respect for the authority of the government, and that is something that both Martin Luther King and the Christ he followed would disdain.
yah... that one... I'll go the second way every time... thanks :)
I have a question for you,, (Score:3, Interesting)
You buy comic books, and say you draw wolverine, the Xman character on paper, you are learning to draw and you begin to appreciate art, eventually you grow up to become the best artist the world has ever known.
This is one possibility.
Now, lets take another look at it, from another view point. Imagine buying a comic book with a timer on it. This timer tells you how much time precisely you have to read it after its opened.
You open the comic book, you read it as fast as you can to beat the timer, after the time is up, everything erases, this is so you cannot share the information in this comic book, this prevents you from ever having a refrence point to learn to draw, from ever becoming an artist. To make it even more extreme, imagine this book could only be read when your registered finger prints were on the book, any imagine that when your prints are on any book that you are automatically being charged for the purchase.
Imagine now, someone invents a machine, which allows them to randomly generate comic style artwork from just scanning one image of wolverine into a computer, imagine then people using these machines to not only share comic books, but to create new comic books. Then imagine the original comic book company suing the makers of this machine for giving art back to the people who for a long time had to pay $20-30 a comic book, a book which they were timed for how long they could read.
Now lets bring it to the most extreme, imagine it being illegal for people who read these books and decide to share it online by repeating the story from memory and using the comic art generator software being thrown in jail.
Ah so people should be thrown in jail so a richer group of people who have a monopoly can maintain it? Even if just as much money can be made by advancing the industry via software generated artwork and a new group of artists who create art for fun?
Thats something to think about. Seriously. Because this situation WILL happen in our lifetimes and we will be forced to choose, money, or freedom.
Do you want to control the art? or is art just about money now?
Care (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that's not the scenario you should anticipate. If you provoke the ire of the media monopolies, they won't have you arrested. They'll sic their lawyers on you. Which will tie up all your assets in litigation until you relent.
Nor should you expect society to respond to your actions the way it did to the Civil Rights movment. That was about fundamental matters of human dignity, like being able to sit down while riding the bus, or use a public bathroom, or buy a house, or do a thousand other things most of us take for granted.
Many people might think you also have the right to listen to a song without buying the whole album, or watch Sex and the City without subscribing to HBO. But let's get real: these issues will never inspire the same level of outrage and activism.
Re:I don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also illegal, and it should be illegal. I know it's illegal, but I've gone and done it anyway. I have no moral defense, because there is none. If I use someone else's works, then I should compensate them for it. I work in the media industry, for crying out loud! I would hate to have someone using MY stuff and not compensating me for it. If this sounds hypocritical, it's because it is.
Now, in a perfect world, I would happily hand over the royalties to the song owners/producers/artists and everyone would be happy. The problem here is that I can't do that. Sony, Bertlesmann, etc. want their share. The problem there is that Sony, et. al. are music distributors, not creators. They only publish the music, stamp the CD's, and ship them to Media Play. If I download an MP3, they incur none of that cost. I should just be able to compensate the artist and be done with it.
The huge music companies have all worked very hard to prevent consumers from having too many choices in how to purchase their products. They can do this because there are only a few huge megalithic companies, and they all know each other very cozily. They simply will not give up their lucrative business for anything else, even perhaps a just as lucrative business selling music online, one song at a time. Anybody remember how badly the MPAA and the RIAA tried to fight VCR's? Now video rentals and sales account for 40% of a movie's total take!
I would personally pay a nominal fee per month (say, $19.95) to be able to download high-quality MP3's that are legal and licensed. It would be so damned convenient nobody would care about pirating the music. I believe that convenience is one of the largest reasons MP3's have become as popular as they are. After all, who wants to stand in line? Who wants to browse endless racks of CD's looking for that one song you want? If the record companies would wake up and realize that they're sitting on a potential gold mine just as large as their current monopoly, we'd all be able to be happy AND legal.
Alas, 'tis not to be, I think.
Re:I don't care (Score:2)
One of the standard excuses of the "music pirate". Unfortunately for you, the Sony and Bertelsmann that you mentioned are the song owners. The artists signed contracts with them transferring their rights to them, so you should be perfectly happy to fork over your money to Sony et al.
Now, your next line of defense is probably going to be something like "CDs are too expensive because of the greedy record industry". Granted, CDs cost relatively much compared to their manufacturing cost. Physical manufacturing cost isn't everything though, in fact it's the smallest of costs in this case.
More importantly though, it is not up to you to determine what is a good price. Well, it is, indirectly: if you don't like the price, you don't buy the product! If enough people do it, then the recording industry will "get it" and be forced to lower the price. If not enough people do it, then that's a sure sign that CDs are currently "priced to market". Supply and demand still determine price, and the current price of around $15 is what supply and demand have agreed upon.
Maybe you should buy better CDs. (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe you should like bands that suck a little less. Really. I mean, shouldn't someone have at least 5 good songs before putting out their own album? If you only have 3 good songs, you can put out a split CD with a similar band or something, but...
Admittedly, working as a music director at at a (largely) independant radio station, I have a bit of an axe to grind. But it's a really good axe
A large benefit of this is that most of those stations are not RIAA members. Yes, kids! You can buy CDs, good ones, for less money, and not support the RIAA!
Of course, they don't have the marketing machine that you pay for when you buy the overpriced CDs, so how can you find out about them? College radio station people read the College Music Journal . There are also many good review sites; do a Google search and find a site where people have reviewed Quasi, Built to Spill, Autechre, The Czars, etc.
You could also listen to my station online
Re:I don't care (Score:2)
You sound very brave sitting there behind your computer. But if one day the FBI breaks down your door and hauls you off to jail where you'll be some guy's bitch, I bet you won't be so tough anymore.
Re:I don't care (Score:2)
Re:I don't care (Score:3, Interesting)
And to compare yourself to those people is pretentious to the extreme. You are not protesting an unjust law by leeching off of Napster in the privacy of your home. If you want to be like those civil rights activists, be an ACTIVIST: go sit in front of city hall or the library of congress with your computer and offer "free music" to passers-by. As it stands, you're no better than every other 15 year old who rather spends his money on new sneakers and cigarettes than on music.
Re:I don't care (Score:2)
But that's not for the moderators to judge. It is you, the reader, who judges him.
So the moderators are right to mod him up. The moderators are supposed to be impartial. (Of course, the moderators may just be agreeing with him, which would then be ironic : they made a right decision based on wrong reasons.)
Oh i'm sure guys in suits really do pay Nsync (Score:2)
So you'd rather they rob the musicians instead of us?
Face it, at least if we rob the musicians, musicians have a better chance of getting rich and making money. If their music is really that good, more people will pay for their service to make more. more people will go to their concerts, more people will buy their fancy high quality DVD with their videos on it even though you can record low quality videos on MTV.
You see, when someone makes revolutionary music, people are very willing to pay money. People shouldnt pay money for trash like britney spears, if you want to pay money to some fake musicians with no talent in the current system go ahead.
In the new system at least we will know the musicians who do get paid deserve every penny.
Re:I don't care (Score:5, Interesting)
And your belief that "snot-nosed brats" are the only ones with a stake in the consequences of the ownership of ideas is laughable. The patenting/copyrighting of DNA threatens to create a much more insidious era of subjection, and what good is freedom of expression if all the obvious ideas and ideas you'd like to use as building blocks for your own new ideas are owned by immortal corporations?
If you can't see the perils inherent in this system, you are extremely short sighted.
Re:I don't care (Score:4, Insightful)
Kid, anyone who equates fighting against clearly unconstitutional oppression on the basis of irrelevant genetic characteristics with a bunch of snot-nosed brats not wanting to pay for other people's labor is beyond pathetic.
Hah! I bet people were making similar "arguments" whenever someone brought up civil rights for colored people. Because there was a time when people DIDN'T believe that those genetic characteristics were irrelevant. They DIDN'T believe that the constitution applied to colored people, because they weren't considered people.
Maybe the rights we'd like to have with regard to copyright isn't as fundamental as being able to sit anyplace on a bus, or come in any door of restaurant, but then again, maybe they are? Isn't the free exchange of information the most basic right of a society? In fact it's the cornerstone of our society. What use is free speech, if all the printing presses are controlled by the government. Controlled by the government on behalf of corporations, who are upset that the citizenery are copying their newspapers to, get this: READ THEM!
It all depends how you look at it. I didn't give a shit about law and politics until the DMCA was passed. Now I'm I understand the drive behind activists and other people I used to think were just a little too paranoid.
It seems that the framers of the constitution didn't foresee this loophole that copyright seems to have created. They were worried about people in government abusing power.. not corporations seeking profit.
I hope the civil disobedience keeps up, and reaches a fever pitch, until the corps do something so stupid that even average Joe can see it as stupid. Then perhaps in 100 years, someone will look back on it and shake their heads the way we look back on segregation and shake our heads.
As for the original post, well, I agree. I don't really care about these laws any more. I'm going to trust my instincts that copying my CDs into my iPod is as immoral as making ice in my refrigerator, and figuring out how to break any copy interference to do it is as immoral as changing the bag in my vacuum cleaner.
You cant review movies anymore on slashdot (Score:2)
you reviewing a movie is stealing from the actors like tom cruise and dennis hopper. These guys are starving in the streets because you reviewed their movie revealing their plot, causing millions of people not to go to the movies anymore!!! Movie sales are way down due to sites like slashdot.
Yeah its not a law yet, but do you really think this couldnt apply? After all, mp3s arent 100 percent digitally perfect conversations, and neither is turning a movie into a text file, not only that but, is it not your right of free speech and expression to do whatever you want with the information you consume? Even share it?
So why when its digital information, the rights of the offline world dont apply anymore? I say fuck that, we deserve the right of free speech and expression in the digital world, because eventually the digital world will be the offline world, and we dont want our children to grow up in a nazi facist RIAA ruled information economy where all the information is controlled by corperations and people all have to fight for information.
It makes sense to fight for physical objects, but to fight, compete for and attempt to own information in an information based society? Thats just fucking silly.
Humans produces information at unlimited amounts, the population keeps growing, you have the third world who needs this information and who could contribute so much to the world, yet we want to hold this information back and keep it to ourselves, or not us, but the top 1% so they can continue to rule the world through censorship.
This is as bad as China, Nazi Germany, Russia, etc.
Re:I don't care (Score:3, Funny)
All this would appear to stem from the granting of "personhood" to corporations in the 19th century. This isn't so much a loophole in copyright as it is inability to predict human stupidity.
Once this happened it was only a matter of time before corporations became patricians and ordinary people became plebeans.
Re:I don't care (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the question of the ownership of the imagination, of the stuff that, by my own experiences with the rest of the world, have become part of my psyche, part of my cultural environment, even part of my subconscious. The widening control over copyrights - and especially the tightening noose around fair use - affects my ability to describe the contents of my own imagination insofar as they've been formed by images and ideas from without.
What do I mean? The other night, I had a dream that, for some reason, took place on the bridge of the Enterprise and had a couple Disney characters in it. Those cultural franchises has taken root in my subconscious. Can I make a movie depiction of my dream now? Can I publish a story about it? Do the rights of the creators of those characters and such have a right that is greater than my own ownership over the contents my imagination? Does their property right preempt some of the most essential rights of expression I might have?
Again, in the creation of intellectual "property." my belief is that you are responsible for making sure you're going to get paid *before you actually do the work.* Once the work is out there, I believe the moral priority goes to those who are going to do with what have then become the elements of their cultural environment as they will, rather than to your belated attempt to get paid for it.
Re:I don't care (Score:2, Insightful)
Who are you to decide that fair use is "something you (we) don't need in the first place"? I suppose you are the final arbiter of and repository for the whole body of jurisprudential findings on the right of fair use? We who care about these matters are merely fighting the RIAA? I think not, we who care about these matters understand it engenders deeper meaning than just being able to copy a CD we own legally. Don't look now, chucklehead, but the gov't will be fighting for the RIAA/MPAA, et al, if more of this legislation passes that infringes on our right to fair use, which is a longstanding legal right. I say to the gov't: "You may increase my rights, fine, but you may not take away rights that I have enjoyed legally and for many decades, just on the whim and under the dictates of some corporate interest or another."
Now, you may crawl back under your rock. Thanks.
Re:I don't care (Score:2)
well... (Score:4, Insightful)
The existence of rights, constitutional or
otherwise is very different than the ability to
excercise those rights.
The fact remains that our whole society is set
up without any pretense of making life better for
people -- rather, its set up to make life better
for companies.
This message is very unpopular. People don't
like to learn than the way the Western world works is
stacked against them having a good life; they
fight that truth at every turn.
Re:well... (Score:2, Insightful)
up without any pretense of making life better for
people -- rather, its set up to make life better
for companies.
Balderdash. To the extent that it is set up to make life easier for companies, it's because things are set up to make it easier for individuals to do what they want -- including working together in groups.
the way the Western world works is stacked against them having a good life
I suppose the Eastern world is better -- even though its emphasis on human rights and freedoms is much lower than in the west. Perhaps you could explain why? Be sure to look up the meaning of the word "explain" before you start.
Re:well... (Score:2)
Well, duh. That idiotic court case that gave corporations fictional, but legal, personhood, was a bad move.
However, it is not responsible to leap from that, to "Western civilization is designed to deny everyone a good life."
Re:well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Our society is set up to reward people with money. Theres a word for this - it's called capitalism.
Nope. Our society was set up to let people have as much freedom as we could without destroying the society (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).
Lots of societies reward people with money, including communist societies.
Implicit in capitalism is the idea that capital is an end in and of itself, and that having capital is important.
Not true. Capitalism is based on the idea that capital exists, can be held as property, and can be then be used productively as wanted by its owners. It makes no assumption about what is important to any particular individual.
The corrolary is that people with capital are better then people without capital.
And this is some really nonsense. Some people with money (not to be confused with capital) feel they are better than people without. Others do not. The same is true of people with less money.
EVERYTHING in our society is based on how much money you have,
EVERYTHING?
people know this and understand this but still pretend to be offended when someone who's clearly guilty gets off because they have very expensive lawyers
Those with money have advantages. So do celibrities. Nobody has ever been able to make a society that doesn't have some sort of inequity. Had you noticed that?
This is all by design! We WANTED society to be this way! Everytime you complaign about taxes, or welfare, or how "what I earned should be mine", remember that this is also a vote for the ideal of justice by money.
Apparently you learned economics and political science the same place you learned how to write the english language.
In the US, we vote by individual, not by dollars. Haven't you noticed? Bill Gates has no more votes than you do.
The only thing he or some other wealthy person can do is gain influence by contributing to a congressman's campaign. And the only reason anyone cares about that is because the voters are dumb enough to pay attention to the advertisements bought with that money.
Money, goodness, God, Capitalism, and predestinati (Score:3, Interesting)
So they looked for signs that God liked you. And they decided that the best evidence that was available was whether or not you were successfull. So the successfull people were the people that God liked. And it was important to take any possible chance to be included among the people that God liked.
This was a minority view in the American Colonies, but it has been a persistent strain of belief. Naturally it is more popular among the wealthy. Especially they approve of having other people espouse it.
It isn't a part of the constitution. Most of the people who believed this way had Tory sympathies, and so they didn't have a large part in the construction of the new government. But they had some part. Alexander Hamilton had sympathies in this direction, e.g. But they remained wealthy, and were soon politically powerful again.
So you are both right when you assert that "x" was believed by the founders of the country. It wasn't a homogenous group. And some of them believed that liberty was the most important thing. And some of them believed that economic success was the most important thing.
They don't fight truth; they just don't care (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it speaks to human nature as a whole, not just to the shortsightedness of our elected officials, which is an extremely depressing realization. I'd like to shout at some people to wake the hell up, to cut through that apathy and complacency that so many wrap themselves in because thinking is hard, but then again if the majority don't care about Fair Use rights do they really deserve to keep them?
Really, why do we think we're so special as a group that people are going to make any effort whatsoever to, well, care? There never really seems to be a fuss when amateur radio buffs get screwed, and whatever gun rights are left seems to be largely as a result of the NRA. Now that a good chunk of what we love is being shackled by legislation is it any surprise that the masses aren't jumping to our defense either, even when it's going to hit them just as hard down the line?
Companies generate more revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
Ceos and management are getting richer, not us.
Open source and free sharing of information makes life better for everyone, for you, for me, for people in third world countries, EVERYONE benifits from free information and only the top 1 percent benifit from intellectual property.
What intellectual property do you own? yeah you dont own any, neither do i, neither do billions in china, india, africa, and other places, so 99 percent of the world owns no intellectual property.
This means the top 1 percent of the world wants to control the remaining 99 percent, they want control of all the information, sure it benifits them, but not the world, sure as hell doesnt help innovation when billions of people who could be innovating if they had the proper information arent allowed to do so.
If all information is free, there will be more innovation due to more people having knowledge.
There will be more musicians and better ones, if more people are exposed to great music, there will be more programs and better programs if more people learn to code and if source code is shared and reussed, there would be better artists if everyone taught the billions around the world, and everyone around the world would be smarter, if everoyne had books.
Of course, theres reasons why you wouldnt want everyone in the world to be as educated as you, and to be able to read like you, because if they could, then you couldnt dominate and control them anymore.
Re:Companies generate more revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
And exactly how many jobs do you think there would be if there no corporations? Zero. The purpose of a company is to make as much money as possible. This means they have to grow to a size that is as large as possible - antd this growth is what adds jobs.
Open source and free sharing of information makes life better for everyone, for you, for me, for people in third world countries, EVERYONE benifits from free information and only the top 1 percent benifit from intellectual property.
So you never purchased a record, watched TV show or movies, read a book, or had a dose of antibiotics in your life? All of there things are intellectual property, and they ALL benefited you,
What intellectual property do you own? yeah you dont own any, neither do i, neither do billions in china, india, africa, and other places, so 99 percent of the world owns no intellectual property.
The fact is that we need more intellectual property - as great literature and music, life saving drugs, and wonderful inventions that make out life easier. Places like China where the vast bulk of the population owns no intellectual property are also places where education is rare, and the average person lives at a sustenance level as a peasant on a rice paddy. Is this what you want as a world economy??
Re:Companies generate more revenue (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong, We'd all run out own businesses. Ever notice the highest paid computer workers or workers in any industry, are usually independent contractors and people who run their own businesses? Did you know that the majority of businesss are actually self run small businesses but that 90 percent of the money goes to the giant businesses which often dont make the best product?
So you never purchased a record, watched TV show or movies, read a book, or had a dose of antibiotics in your life? All of there things are intellectual property, and they ALL benefited you,
All of these things are ideas turned into products. One man with an idea, and the societies need in general, produces a product. Not intellectual property. IN africa, they need a cure for aids, if we had the ingredients for that cure, the only thing which would stop africa from making their own version of the cure, is us refusing to give them the formula / ingredients, AND THAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!
Benifits the select few, harms the many.
The fact is that we need more intellectual property - as great literature and music, life saving drugs, and wonderful inventions that make out life easier. Places like China where the vast bulk of the population owns no intellectual property are also places where education is rare, and the average person lives at a sustenance level as a peasant on a rice paddy. Is this what you want as a world economy??
If information were hard to produce, was rare, was difficult to store, share and copy, and were limited. Then yeah it would make alot of course to reward people with money for coming up with ideas.
Problem is, all people do all their lives, is come up with ideas, thats basically what people do, they gather knowledge, then they spit new knowledge out, all their lives. We are natural information producers, so why do we need to pay for something which we do naturally? Thats equal to charging people to speak English and to use math. Yeah you should pay a price each time you need to use math.
We dont need intellectual property at all. Education is rare in china because education has a price you moron, perhaps if education were FREE, the chinese could simply get ONE copy of one of our expensive books, copy it infinite times and share it, instantly China would become more educated. They'd all have access to the information they need to progress as a nation without having to buy it from us, bill gates, etc, in the same way open source is helping them, free information of all other forms would help them develop.
When information is free, and everyone has unlimited information, meaning if we gave china all the information they need to create robots, master computers and technology, create cures etc etc, at this point its up to china to use this technology, my point is we shouldnt restrict it from them.
Did some group of people tell us "You cant learn math, its illegal, you'll have to figure it out on your own and reinvent the wheel even though we have it."
When you force china and other countries to keep reinventing the wheel, its just like the programming industry, it suffers, most programs use the same peices but they have to keep reinventing the wheel to keep from being sued, and sometimes they have to pay licenses and this keeps their programs from being as innovative and good due to most of the money going to licenses.
I suggest you open your eyes.
Re:Companies generate more revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong, We'd all run out own businesses. Ever notice the highest paid computer workers or workers in any industry, are usually independent contractors and people who run their own businesses? Did you know that the majority of businesss are actually self run small businesses but that 90 percent of the money goes to the giant businesses which often dont make the best product?
And some people would not be good at running a business as others, so they would close up their business and go to work for other people. And then some people would make worse products than others, and they would have to close their business because people don't want their inferior product, so they go to work for the people with a better product. And eventually you have large companies run by people who are better at running a business than other people. In other words, everything would go back to corporations anyway.
So you never purchased a record, watched TV show or movies, read a book, or had a dose of antibiotics in your life? All of there things are intellectual property, and they ALL benefited you,
All of these things are ideas turned into products. One man with an idea, and the societies need in general, produces a product. Not intellectual property. IN africa, they need a cure for aids, if we had the ingredients for that cure, the only thing which would stop africa from making their own version of the cure, is us refusing to give them the formula / ingredients, AND THAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!
Benifits the select few, harms the many.
except you are ignoring the fact that most of these things are a lot more than ideas. You think making a cure for a disease is just an idea? What about the thousands of cures that are tested and don't work? Those are ideas as well. The only way your scheme would work is if every idea was created with no effort. Unfortunately, here in the real world, most ideas come after millions of dollars have been spent researching it. If as soon as an idea is available, it must be given away, who is going to spend these millions of dollars on a new idea? What person or company is going to spend 100 million dollars developing a cure for AIDS if they then have to give it away and will make no money from it? The only thing that would stop us from giving Africa the cure is that no one would spend the money to develop one.
Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:4, Insightful)
Reasonable people agree that the creator of a work should compensated for his efforts, hence copyright - but it has no basis in the constitution. The real question deals with practical issues surrounding the rise of the internet. With the possibility of instaneous distribution and infinite, perfect replication, how can creators be compensated for their work? MegaCorp Inc. wants everything regulated, which is never going to happen. Slashdot types want everything free as in beer, which doesn't encourage creation. So until someone finds a decent way of paying artists aside from CDs, books, etc. people are going to keep stealing digital things because it is a better way to distribute.
As usual, the extremes on either side of the argument need to be tempered to find a workable solution. And it isn't going to be found in the Constitution.
Re:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:3)
It doesn't? Why, I though this [linux.org], this [xiph.org], and this [openbsd.org] were all free? Or do you mean they're not creative?
This is not a black/white issue, but rather a grey one. The shade of grey has yet to be determined, but both extremes are wrong. People won't stop being creative if they don't get paid, nor will people stop being creative if they do get paid. And consumers are also black/white. When Napster was at its peak, so were CD sales. Just because you get something for free doesn't mean you're not willing to pay for the same (or similar) thing. And I'd argue that a downloaded mp3 isn't the same thing as owning the CD for several reasons - one being quality.
And how many of you still *pay* for an email address when there are plenty of email addresses to be had for free?
Re:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:2)
While I'm sure all of them include some novel concepts by now, at their core they are all rip-offs of existing ideas. None of the things you mentioned are entirely new, and all of them were created because somebody didn't want to pay for the existing products.
Re:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:2)
Reasonable people agree that the creator of a work should compensated for his efforts, hence copyright - but it has no basis in the constitution.
Well, I disagree.. a creator, whether he creates lemonade, cars, or music, has only the right to attempt compensation. If you sell one glass of lemonade and everybody starts copying your recipe, that's your problem, not society's.
If we start saying he SHOULD be compensated, we'll next have to decide on the amount, and then if he doesn't get it, tax society somehow. "To each according to his need", right?
Because the Constitution clearly states that copyrights are to promote progress, even putting this phrase first in the sentence, it means that society must benefit as a necessary condition to creators having copyrights.
OF COURSE, this assumes that if we allow person-to-person copying of music, and allowing you to make copies for your own use, and allow quoting in your school reports, or whatever, that the artist will suddenly stop getting his compensation. I don't believe that is the case.
I think the problem is that the large media corps are just doing a cost-benefis analysis and seeing that lobbying congress is cheaper than developing new products and services. Since there isn't anyone making moral arguments about copyright (at least not loud enough for the general public to hear), congress just goes along.
Re:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong on two accounts. First, copyright (and patents) does have its basis in the Constitution [nara.gov]. Article I, sect 8, paragraph 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; i.e., copyright and patents. Secondly, and this is more about semantics, but in modern "creative" industries, the creator, per se, does not own the copyright; the copyright is owned by a company with which the creator has contracted. Granted the creator receives some money, but people in the industry (here the recording industry) like Courtney Love have stated [salon.com] the amount is nowhere near what Joe Sixpack believes it is. So until someone finds a decent way of paying artists aside from CDs, books, etc. people are going to keep stealing digital things because it is a better way to distribute. And that is the problem. Market forces should determine that way. My belief is that current "rampant" (according to the RIAA & MPAA) piracy is because they held a near monopoly on the distribution of music and movies. Specifically regarding the music industry, once Napster, et al, showed up, the consumer was able to exercise his/her market force by turning away from over-priced CDs. The music industry has been milking consumers with an incredibly over-priced product for over a decade (probably more, but I am giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that CDs originally were expensive to produce and a risky venture, c.f. the Betamax format). The industry cries about how much it costs to market and produce a CD, especially from an unknown artist; however, look at most of the music that the industry puts out. It's crap (IMNSHO). If the RIAA spent less time and money polishing turds (c.f., shit, c.f. most music, turn on your radio fer christ's sake) and actually trying to find and promote good artist, in addition to pricing their product more reasonably, I am sure they would have better fortunes. (And needless to say, if the content industries didn't waste so much money [opensecrets.org] buying politicians, I am sure they would have more profits.) <rant type="personal_anecdote"> The problem is that the industry didn't embrace the new technology. A personal anecdote: A few years ago when I was a sophomore at Uni, a friend introduced me to the British group Portishead [portishead.co.uk], which I believe he discovered via mp3s. I downloaded all their tracks I could find and enjoyed them enough that I shelled out the money for all their CDs that I could find. (Since they seem to be somewhat of an underground group in the US, they didn't have many albums; however, I bought what I could find.) Similar events occurred when I rediscovered Weezer (my roommate liked them, but I wasn't really into them at that time). I have since purchased their three albums, plus some (due to CD damage). Granted, I may be in the minority; however, I really fucking hate the stupidity that is evident in the industry by ignoring people like myself, people who used tools available to them to discover new music and try to give back to artist, and instead promote Corporate Fascism (hmmm, Nazi = National Socialism, how about Cozi for Corporate Socialism?). </rant> -MKDRe:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:2, Interesting)
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people would consider it an individual liberty to be able to use what they paid for in any way the choose, whether it be ripping a CD to mp3, ripping a DVD and encoding to some other format (requiring DeCSS), or just owning a computer that has an unrestricted memcpy() . It's considered a basic right to bear arms, so are you telling me it's not, to own something that can copy bits?
First, who exactly decides what "reasonable people" are? Second, copyright was originally more "reasonable" at a 7 year term, then more "reasonable people" came along and now look where we're at. Finally, "it has no basis in the constitution" is just wrong, because the Constitution is the sole source of authority for the Federal Government to make laws. If copyright didn't come from the Constitution, then it is an illegal law.
Hellooo, DMCA, SSSCA. We said the former was "never going to happen", and it did. The latter... won't pass this year, maybe. The future is not a very bright one, though.
Uh, hello, first off "Slashdot types" (of which I believe I qualify) likely want more: everything free as in liberty; free as in beer is just a nice extra. This "doesn't encourage creation"? What do you call these:
Or maybe that business model just isn't going to work anymore, so they better get a different job or find a different way to make money. There is no guaranteed individual right to make money on a given venture. The reason we originally had the copyright was to further society, not line corporate pockets. Artists can control their work, possibly making money for a short period of time, then work is returned to the public domain. That's not how it works anymore.
No. The end has already been determined. Like a Myrddraal, MegaCorp Inc. has already been killed, but they're too dumb to realize it, and it doesn't mean they're not still dangerous (see DMCA and SSSCA).
Re:Getting What You Paid For (Score:2)
Excuse me, but exactly what do you pay for when you buy a book, a CD or other copyrighted material?
The whole point of the copyright law is to determine what you paid for. To clarify what you are purchasing, the courts have separated the rights into two categories: There is the right to use something and the right to distribute it.
When you purchase a CD, you are purchasing the right to use that CD. You are not purchasing the right to distribute the music.
Your claim that people aren't getting what they paid for is totally bogus because you are getting exactly what they paid for. You purchased the rights to use the music. The courts have even extended that right, and consider your copying the music from your CD into your RIO player as simply transporting the music through space and time.
Re:Rights, fair use and what the consumer wants (Score:2)
For example, I have the right to criticize a work, since that is speech. I have the right to pull examples (quotations) from that work to support my argument, which is also protected speech. I do not have the right to copy the work verbatim, since that is someone else's speech, not mine.
The corporatist extreme - restrict everything - contradicts the first amendment. That means that the only the Slashdot extreme or a moderate position can be legal.
Public Schools should be OUTLAWED! (Score:2)
Libaries need to be outlawed too, i mean if we allow access to free books, it robs the makers of these books of money they deserve.
Oh and lets not forget, the scientists like einstien, his theory or relativity should be SOLD, not given away for free!! Scientists shouldnt release the super string theory, or the big bang theory, it should be sold in stores so only people who are rich enough to afford it can become smart scientists.
You know what? Sure you guys think I am joking, and maybe I am, but if information is controlled, Education is impossible.
How can someone learn to program without a book to teach them C?
Should the creators of C sue all of the free C tutorials all over the net?
How about open source be outlawed next?
You see how it all sounds? Thats where control of information leads to, absolutely no freedom.
Dear God almighty... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a *lot* of people have forgotten one very basic principle: the Constitution of the United States (a la Bill of Rights) is not designed to enumerate every single "right" we have as human beings. This is a very common misconception, and an extremely dangerous one at that.
Kids in school these days are being taught that the government "gives" us a set of basic rights. This is an incorrect, but unfortunately somewhat prevalent view. The government does not *give* us rights; we have these rights just as surely as we have a nose. The role of government in this case is to *protect* those rights which we already have.
Here's the problem: if you "educate" an entire generation of Americas to believe that the government gives us rights, you end up with the unfortunate consequence that we must also accept that what is given may be taken away. This tends to work out well for those in positions of power, and poorly for the average citizen.
This is one of my top reasons for wanting to spend at least a few years of my life teaching. Teachers carry a responsibility to accurately convey knowledge, and the ability to use critical thinking skills, to our soon-to-be citizens. No, I'm not saying I'm God's gift to teaching, or even that I'm right all the time (probably wrong more often than I'd like to admit). I *am* saying I'm interested in taking a stab at changing things.
Re:Dear God almighty... (Score:2)
The government does not *give* us our *inalienable* rights. However, they do grant us our alienable (is that the right word? sounds funny) rights. Stuff like rights pertaining to contract law. Contract law is not built upon inalienable rights. But it does grant (and limit) rights to individuals.
The Bill of Rights isn't there to outline every right individuals have. It is only there to outline our inalienable rights. The rest is up to the courts and lawmakers to grant or take away. If lawmakers make laws that violate our inalienable rights, the Bill of Rights allows the justice system to overrule the laws. Thus, the inalienable rights remain inalienable.
However, the government most certainly does give us rights. Just as the Bill of Rights protects our inalienable rights.
Re:Dear God almighty... (Score:3, Informative)
Your bringing up contract law is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The point of a contract is that it's an agreement between two parties. The government simply enforces legally binding contracts because if they didn't, the whole foundation of a capitalistic commerce would collapse. Contracts don't take away rights... you simply agree to waive them in exchange for something else in return.
Re:Dear God almighty... (Score:2, Flamebait)
I can't tell you how sick I get of having to explain to people that our rights are not an indulgence on the part of the government. That the government is our servant and not our master. Unfortunately there are a whole big slew of loonies,who ironically call themselves "liberals", who are hard at work trying to instill the notion that we are at the mercy of the government and that it decides what is right and what privileges we are allowed to have. The reason they do this is because they are intent upon controlling the government. Take your average left winger and ask them if they would support a government run by republicans or libertarians. He or she would naturally be very much opposed to that. Yet at the same time this same "liberal" is generally very much in favor of things like socialism. Basically anytime a "liberal" is espousing the role of government as the solution to a particular problem, they are not thinking of a government of the people, by the people, for the people. They are instead imagining a government that is defined and controlled by left-wing ideology. We defeated a nation controlled by left-wing ideology in WWII and then spent the next 40 years in a cold war with another. I fail to see how the importation and implementation of such philosophies in this country are a good idea. That being said I must also say that I am not a right-winger either. I'm a libertarian for the most part, highly distrustful of power and authority of any kind. Authority that is not accountable and vulnerable to the will of the people is tyrrany.
Anyway I really liked your post
Lee
Correct! It lists only what can be taken away! (Score:4, Insightful)
The Government does not GIVE us rights....We have them and give some up for the good of society! The government does not "start out" with all of the rights (or the right to all money either) and then "Give" them back to us.....
We start out with "All rights except these...." which we temporarily give to government at our pleasure....(at least in the old times)...that's why it's important to vote...always....
Like the presumption of innocence, this needs to be emphasized to kids in their civics classes.......
If you get the basics right, all the other stuff will fall into place.
Re:Dear God almighty... (Score:2, Interesting)
"... whether those rights are actual or percieved by the population."
This speaks straight to the core of the problem. Perception is a *huge* component of the state of any society. Unfortunately, this leads to another problem.
In most Western societies, "the people" are represented in government by a select few individuals, chosen by various methods (most being based on some implementation of voting). Those officials chosen to represent the people have a basic responsibility to do their best to understand how their constituents perceive their rights, and to endeavor to protect those rights. In reality, those who scream the loudest are usually heard the most clearly.
The average citizen already lives a complex life. Bills, children, work, school... these are all matters which people must devote mental and emotional energy to on a daily basis. At the end of the day, oftentimes very little energy is left for examining issues "on the table" in their lives as a whole. If these issues aren't perceived to directly affect us immediately, we tend to ignore them. Most people consider catching an hour's worth of the evening news, dished up by [insert prevalent television network name here], to be equivalent to staying on top of current events and issues. Families may even spend some time discussing what they've seen on the tube, which tends to result in a feeling of participation on some level.
However, this doesn't really amount to true participation. Unless phone calls, letters, emails, faxes, etc are made to government representatives (something most people would have a hard time finding time to do, even if they sincerely wanted to), the true level of participation is very low. Add to this the fact that most people don't spend a lot of time thinking through how various issues interrelate, and you get a lot of stuff slipping through the cracks.
So-called "special interest groups" (or "lobbyist groups"), however, are in the business of spinning perception. They know how to scream louder, talk faster, and generally end up influencing things more than groups of "ordinary citizens." We run into a problem here: most of these lobbyist groups are funded by corporations with motives based on finance, rather than human rights.
I'm not trying to say these groups are evil, or that corporations are messengers of the devil. I'm also not saying people are stupid, or uncaring. These are real problems, though. Audience participation is a critical aspect of government, and I believe it's something that can be taught and reinforced from an early age. I know my parents taught me how to pick up a pen and write letters to my representatives in government.
In response to the slashdot title. (Score:5, Insightful)
Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
What needs to be done is a clarification on just what exactly copyright is. As near as I can tell, this is what it should be: authors and inventors shall be rewarded with a monopoly on the sale and distribution of their respective works. Infringement of copyright then becomes a theft of market. Unfortunately, with Washington so thoroughly bought and paid for, I doublt that we'll see that kind of system any time soon.
BlackGriffen
One ray of hope... (Score:3, Interesting)
two things (Score:5, Insightful)
2. where there is a conflict between the Constitution's provision for copyrights and the First Amendment, the First Amendment should be presumed to override the original language, because the very purpose of an amendment is to modify the Constitution.
none of this means that people can copy whatever they wish and claim Fair Use. on the other hand, laws that impose criminal penalties on reasonable exercises of the First Amendment should be shot down at the earliest opportunity.
Starting off on the wrong foot (Score:5, Informative)
Since the Amendment is later, it could in principle void the Copyright Clause unless the conflict is resolved. What the USSC has held (for more than a century) is that the Copyright Clause stays under First Amendment radar only as long as copyright's impositions on speech and the Press are limited. Thus, your purchase of a copyrighted book entitles you to make "fair use" of your purchase, such as reading it to your children, quoting passages for reviews, etc.
Likewise, the copyright holder receives its compensation from the broadcaster when it allows television programs to be broadcast; at that point its control of how and when people enjoy it ceases.
I could go on, but there's really no point. The bottom line is that although the "myths" cited have their problems, the analysis "debunking" them has at least as many.
Re:Starting off on the wrong foot (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not. Copying mp3s, books, movies, whatever has nothing to do with "free speech". When you are copying an mp3, it is not you singing (speaking). When you are copying a book, it is not you that is writing. Possibly the only way you could be protected by the first amendment is to start a religion the practicing of which mandates copying of copyrighted work. If you can pull that off, you'll be all set. Otherwise, you'll just have to accept that "copyright" and "free speech" are two entirely different things, that may brush up against each other sometimes (the publishing of the DeCSS algorithm), but are otherwise largely unrelated, and certainly not in inherent conflict with each other.
Re:Starting off on the wrong foot (Score:3, Interesting)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now this clearly states I should be secure in my effects. When I purchase something, it becomes my effect. Now without breaking copyright law by withholding income to the copyright holder, I should be able to use my effects as I see fit.
We clearly have the entertainment industry worried, that's why they wrap EULA around their products. The RIAA even wants us to enforce an EULA. The federal courts has already stated that EULAs are not binding if the consumer did not see them before buying it.
So as I see it, the Entertainment industry wants to change a "Solely Owned Copyrighted Product" to a "Licensed Copyrighted Product". The "Licensed" product will require buying the same product for multiple platforms to increase profit.
The government is suppose to protect my rights and contracts. The RIAA & entertainment industry is requesting that the government outlaw "Owned Effects". Only "Licensed Effects" will be permitted. To enforce this law, everyone will use hardware and software that only supports "Licensed Effects".
We have seen the start of this with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
1st. They make it illegal to copy "Owned effects."
2nd. They make all "Owned Effects" "Licensed Effects" requiring "Licensed" equipment.
I say "They" as the bought and paid for politicians who received tons of money from the entertainment industries. You know the ones who forgot about our Constitutional Rights when the Green started flowing.
-
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced. - Frank Zappa
Umm, no, fair use is a constitutional right. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Umm, no, fair use is a constitutional right. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Umm, no, fair use is a constitutional right. (Score:2)
Free Speech does not cover freely distributing copyrighted works without cost, in mass quantities. The mass quantity is what differenciates today's issue versus that of 1976.
It is something new that needs to laws to govern its ramifications. It is just a matter of if one industry is going to be given the power to regulate others (hardware manufacturers etc.).
Re:Umm, no, fair use is a constitutional right. (Score:2)
Re:Umm, no, fair use is a constitutional right. (Score:2)
in other words, can Disney tell Sony/Yamaha/etc that they can't make cd-rw's or dvd-/+rw's anymore because it violates Disney's rights? is Nero no longer allowed to make "burning" software? is apple's imusic illegal?
(god i hope not)
Not to be picky, but... (Score:4, Informative)
The fundamental concept of the article is correct. It does not, however, go far enough. While copyright is discussed/provided for in the Constitution; the extent of the "right" (i.e., what exactly the right is) is a product solely of statutes (here, the 1976 Copyright Act).
Sources of RIghts (Score:5, Informative)
The Copyright of Act of 1976 was intended to preserve the judicially developed doctrine of fair use and "not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way." (4 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT 13.05, at 13-150 & n.7). Fair use is still very much a creature of the courts. Congress identified a list of four factors that the courts must consider, but there are no bright line rules.
The judicial origins of the doctrine lead one to ask the question, if there were no fair use doctrine, would the Constitution obligate courts to come up with one? There is a strong argument that fair use is mandated by the Constitution. It goes as follows:
U.S. CONST. art I, 8, cl. 8 reads: "The Congress shall have Power . . . [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Thus, Congress's power in creating copyright is arguably limited to those actions that promote "the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Fair use doctrine prevents copyright law from serving as a bar to progress. Thus, if courts did not recognize a fair use defense, the Copyright Act, as applied in certain cases, would be unconstitutional because it would effectively prohibit activities which the Congress has no constitutional authority to prohibit.
I like this argument better than those that rely on the First Amendment, because it does not need to reconcile conflicts among different provisions, relying instead on the copyright clause itself.
Limits of Space and Time Shiftings (Score:2, Interesting)
However, from a media studio point of view, this deprecates their backlist. Basically they build up a catalog of works and hope to extract as much future revenue as possible out of sunk costs (think director's cuts, think remix, think DVD extras). By having an alternative "source" of originals (abeit not as mutable) they lose pricing power over secondary/tertiary markets. Apple's business model doen't rely on them owning content, but on allow consumers to rip and snip, effectively bringing the studio into the house. Time and space shifting, if you extend this beyond the immediate neighbourhood via digital means (think web-radio) hurts the larger companies who rely on regional segmentation to market at different price-points. Any corporation which has a backlist of crap is basically going to be ignored despite how much they intend to push the stuff once they lose control of the distribution system.
The fact that there is civil disobediance in people not obeying the copyright law in music indicates that either the law is flawed or that there's some distortions in the market. My guess is that the advertisement business model is just not sustainable over the internet as ads effectively "dilutes" the signal-to-noise ratio when hunting for decent music. If people time-shift ads to inifinity, or space-shift popups to
Immoveable object vs irresistable force springs to mind.
LL
Re:Limits of Space and Time Shiftings (Score:2)
> I think people here are missing an important point
I think people here are missing an even more important point... namely that corporate profits are not a constitutional right either.
For that matter, even copyright isn't a constitutional right -- the constitution merely authorizes the Congress to establish a system of copyrights -- limited copyrights, at that.
The problem is that the framers of the constitution weren't omniscient, and they apparently didn't see the day when so many legislators would be 0wn3d by means of corporate funding.
At any rate, the battle isn't lost yet. We just need to get in the habit of voting for legislators who will legislate to protect the citizens' traditional rights and privileges. Once they realize that even the biggest pile of donations doesn't guarantee re-election, legislators will come around on this kind of issue.
Honestly asking: why not a right? (Score:4, Interesting)
The article was culled from a morass of court decisions, which when strung together form something of a grounding for this issue, but nothing conclusive. I think something like DigitalConsumer.org's [digitalconsumer.org] Digital Consumer Bill of Rights is in order, at least to draw the lines in the sand. However, this is about as likely to pass as a Patient Bill of Rights. Your response could be that with big money influences the little guy will never win, or maybe just that it's too complex an issue for lawmaker's to tackle right now, and they'd rather leave it up to the courts, case by case. Regardless, even a Supreme Court decision will be too specific to nail down this sector of law, and I don't think a definite answer from our government on what our Digital Rights are is an unreasonable request. I'm willing to bet, however, that "unreasonable" is just what we'll find the answer to be.
For those who want to skip the article... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user's preferred technique or in the format of the original."
---Universal v. Reimerdes
US Second Circuit Court of Appeals
You have the [legal] right to use it in a specified manner, albeit a limited one.
copyright expiration (Score:2, Interesting)
* when the copyright expires it's allowed to copy the work in question
* but assum the work is on a copy protected media like a dvd
* acording to the DMCA it's then still ilegal to use copy protection cracking software
- so how are we legaly sopoused to be able to copy a copy protected work even when the copyright has expired ?
DMCA does *not* apply to expired copyrights (Score:4, Informative)
when the copyright expires it's allowed to copy the work in question, but assum the work is on a copy protected media like a dvd, acording to the DMCA it's then still ilegal to use copy protection cracking software
Not necessarily unlawful. The DMCA (17 USC 1201 [cornell.edu]) bans only circumvention acts and devices that attack "a work protected under this title" (that is, Title 17), namely a work under either a subsisting copyright or a subsisting mask work monopoly. Works whose copyrights have expired are no longer "work[s] protected under this title." This is why the Big Seven studios haven't released much (if any) public domain content on DVDs, because in that case, somebody would be able to lawfully make or import a circumvention device designed specifically to decrypt public domain works (which also happens to work on copyrighted works, wink wink nudge nudge). And no, encoding celluloid to MPEG-2 doesn't introduce enough originality to pass the 103(b) exclusion [cornell.edu].
so how are we legaly sopoused to be able to copy a copy protected work even when the copyright has expired?
Without the Bono Act [wikipedia.com], the DMCA lacks teeth because the Mickey's Early Years DVD would contain public domain content, making DeCSS, QrPFF, and EfDTT legit.
Re:copyright expiration (Score:2)
CSS != Copy protection (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine if there was CSS for books and in order to read a particular book you had to live in the right country, be of the correct race or social group, and pay a surcharge to the book cartel every time you wanted to read it. As it stands now books are independent entities. Once a publisher prints a book and sells it, that publisher has no control over what is done with that book other than a legal right to control whether it or portions of it are copied or used in other works. You can read this book, then give it to your friend to read. The publisher can't come have you and your friend arrested because he hadn't paid for the "right" to read that book. You can smuggle books that are unpopular with an oppressive regime into that country and the words will still be legible.
The problem with CSS is not that it is a copy protection scheme, but that it is a scheme to control who uses the DVD, which has nothing to do with copy protection or copyright.
If I remember right a group of video pirates were busted here not too long ago for copying DVD's. What I heard about that case is that they were copying the entire DVD bit-for-bit whether it employed CSS or not. The copied DVD's were still encoded using CSS. So what possible use is it as a copy control scheme? None of course, but its very useful for controlling which people get to watch the DVD.
Another group that is trying to pervert copyright into content control is the "church" of scientology. They employ copyright and trade secret law in order to try and prevent anyone from knowing the truth about their "religion." The truth is that scientology is nothing more than a highly successful scam that robs people of their money, enslaves many in the "Sea Org," and destroys families by forcing those in the cult to "disconnect" from relatives who are critical. Their abuse of the legal system is legendary. Their policy of filing suits for harassment value alone is such that I'm amazed their lawyers havent' been disbarred by now. The organization's sole purpose is to sucker people out of their money that is then passed "uplines" to the likes of David Miscavige. Their use of front groups and interlocking corporations to facilitate the laundering of this money would make John Gotti weep. If you want to find out more about this kriminal kult take a trip to www.xenu.net [xenu.net] Be sure to pass this on to your friends too. The more people know the truth about this criminal organization, the fewer potential victims the cult will have to feed upon.
Lee
Re:CSS != Copy protection (Score:2)
fair use for dummies (Score:5, Insightful)
modification
destruction
reverse-engineer to make myown.
transferral to another party via resale or gift
However, what I cannot do is make cloned copies and re-distribute them as the original.
If I go to the store and purchace the latest Stephen King novel and then read it, It is completely within my right to resell that book.
I do not own the copyrighted work, the text of the work. I own the materials that make up this specific copy of the work. This gives me the right to do whatever I want with my copy of the work. I can paint all the pages blue and stick feathers on the covers. I can then sell my Stephen King case-mod.
I can even try to sell it at a price greater than my purchace price. It is my copy. I can redistribute my copy!!!
I can buy 100 copies of the book. Do the same mods as well as number them. I now sell them as a limited set.
This all should be well within my right as I am taking materials that I legally aquired and combining them. I am not, however, making "copies" of the work.
I can even sit down and try to write my own stephen king type story. (I suck. I cannot write anything near SK)
I cannot try to redistribute my cloned King as the real thing (aside from the fact that it would suck and noone would believe it was him anyway)
People are choosing to use Napster and other data sharing software to redistribute their own unmodified "copies" of the original work.
This is where the law is being broken.
I can make as many copies as I want for my own personal use. I can do whatever the heck I want with my copies. I can NOT, however, redistribute those personal copies unless they ALL go with the original.
I can make a photocopy of parts of a StephenKing book to take with me on vacation. I do this for MY PERSONAL USE. Not to redistribute. This should be legal.
I cannot redistribute my own copies without the permission of the copyright holder. Or until the copyright expires.
Lets try another analogy with Beverages.
I purchace a case of Beer(tm).
I can then do whatever I want with the liquid in the can.
I can modify it - make beer batter shrimp.
I can destroy it - pour it over a fire.
I can transfer it to someone else -
sell it at a concert for 10x price.
give it away at a party
I cannot make exact duplicates for redistribution.
(even if we had cheap materials duplication technology)
However --
I can brew my own beverage that is indistinguishable from the original. As long as I do not attempt to pass it off as the original.
It really should be that simple.
If it is not, someone please tell me where I am wrong.
Re:fair use for dummies (Score:3, Informative)
I do not own the copyrighted work, the text of the work. I own the materials that make up this specific copy of the work. This gives me the right to do whatever I want with my copy of the work. I can paint all the pages blue and stick feathers on the covers. I can then sell my Stephen King case-mod.
This is not correct. When I buy a book, I buy a copy of that book. Which means I own both the pages and the words printed on them, though its unclear that such a distinction should be made. However, because of copyright law, I cannot legally create and distribute copies of this work. Copyright law grants the author of a work a temporary (well, in theory) monopoly on the introduction of new copies into the market. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly, just like patents. Nothing more, nothing less. No ownership is involved. As the name says, it is the right to make (and distribute) a copy.
Welcome to the Machine (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to the Machine (Score:2)
And 'Corporate Citizens' are exactly what? They are the employees, stockholders and other people who are the basic constituants of a corporation. In fact a 'Corporate Citizen' is in fact just a perjorative label for a group of ordinary citizens. When a citizen breaks one of these laws he is in fact depriving another group of ordinary citizens their legal rights.
Perhaps you don't agree that these legal rights are reasonable. Fine. But don't try to beat around the issue by trying to pin some sort of stupid label on somebody.
Re:Welcome to the Machine (Score:2)
Re:Welcome to the Machine (Score:2)
So you are telling me that a 'Corporate Citizen' is not made up of it's investors and and employees, and these people are not affected by the actions of other citizens that choose to break these laws?
So far you seem to be spouting nonsense.
Example of DMCA preventing review (Score:2)
A review comment along the lines of "The grass animation in Shrek is inferior to that of Sully's fur in Monsters Inc" can not be backed up with an excerpt from a handheld camera in a cinema; therefore the DMCA is quite capable of preventing normal fair use as laid down in section 107 of Title 17 of US law. This right was not removed by the DMCA although certain judges have choosen to ignore this fact when preciding over cases where their ex-employer and long standing friends from the MPAA were prosecuting.
TWW
A word of caution (Score:4, Insightful)
You often see these is newspapers who are on one side or the other of an issue: when you do, you know the newspaper's biased.
He is missing the point by a mile. (Score:2)
Another conflict between copyright and technological copy protection measures is that the Constitution defines copyright terms to be limited; the intent was clearly that afterwards, works pass into the public domain. Technological protections undermine this, keeping copyrighted works under technological protection forever locked up.
Copyright is special privilege granted by the government with the policy goal of encouraging people to create and publish works. It is justified only by a clause in the Constitution that balances various interests against one another. If one side doesn't live up to its side of the bargain, the whole deal falls apart.
Overall, I can't figure out whether the author of that article is disingenuous or just stupid. Of course, the Constitution doesn't allow piracy. But it also doesn't allow corporate theft of the commons. The question is where the dividing line is. We can't expect much help from our current "constructionist" supreme court with that, who, by their own admission, will vote for big business in these cases to the point of absurdity. So, in that sense, yes, it is up to the legislature to put a stop to piracy--of the copyright system by big media companies.
We can stop this - really. (Score:2)
Don't buy it.
Turn off cable, DirecTV, XFM. Don't rent tapes/DVDs. Don't buy CD's. Trade around amoung your friends if you feel the need.
Remember, Intellectual Property isn't like paying rent, or eating. You can live without if for a while. I flat gar-en-tee that if you and two of your friends were to stop buying IP for even a month, Jack and Hillery would sing a very different tune.
Why don't we have the great Intellectual Property Black out? Why not pick a month, say one where all the new movies come out, and just turn off cable, direcTV and XFM, don't buy CD's, rent any tapes, or buy any kind of IP?
Look, we can do something. Insted of being arrested (like in the 60's) we can protest by keeping our hard earned in our pocket. If you slip, buy an indulgance from EFF with a like donation, or even just 10% of what you gave to Jack and Hillery to rip off your rights. Invest in a little to keep 'em.
No, what'll happen is that the whiners don't want to do anything at all about it but sit in their pitty pot and expect someone else to protect their rights. Grow up. It's time you did something to protect your rights for yourself.
It sure is! (Score:2)
There is also what the Constitution does not say. It says Congress can grant authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and inventions for a limited time. It doesn't say Congress can grant authors and inventors absolute control over their writings and inventions forever.
In case someone missed it, the MPAA now has control over on what player you can watch that DVD you purchased for all eternity. It'll be illegal to rip and encode your DVD collection to MPEG-46 two hundred years from now under the DMCA because DVD is poorly encrypted with CSS.
Is that absurd to anyone else?
What about The Ninth? (Score:5, Insightful)
One important test for this Right: The People consider that they have it. Criticism, parody and other fair uses has been viewed as a right of those derivitive creators.
My letter to the editor: (Score:3, Insightful)
With regard to the DMCA and DeCSS, I must say I disagree with your analysis. The DeCSS source code which has been prohibited from being distributed doesn't do anything. It is a few text files named '.cpp' and '.h'. It describes a process in a language appreciable to computer scientists how CSS is decrypted. A computer scientist learning about encryption would derive infinitely more value from DeCSS than a garage DVD counterfeiter.
DeCSS isn't useful in pirating DVD movies. To copy a DVD movie, if the first encrypted byte is 11001010 then, a pirated copy needs to contain exactly 11001010, not whatever that might be decrypted as.
DeCSS should in fact be legal under the DMCA. (As mentioned above, it isn't useful in pirating movies; there is no reason to decrypt them: just copy bit-for-bit.)
See Title 17 Section 1201 (f)(3):
It should be legal to play DVDs on a GPL operating system like Linux. Using the DeCSS source code, it is possible to do so. Of course, the movie studios would be pissed off if they didn't get to sell a $100K license. Perhaps that is what this is really about, money and control not copyright violations.
The DMCA effectively kills Fair Use. The DMCA says that copy protections can't be circumvented regardless of why. That effectively makes circumventing a copy protection with no intention of infringing on copyright illegal. If you read the Encryption Research exemption, it says that researchers must get permission to see if encryption protecting copyrighted materials is secure. Have independent researchers ever been required to get permission from patent holders to conduct a study on whether or not a drug is safe?
The SSSCA/CBDTPA goes even further in this deranged direction, making it illegal to be capable of committing copyright infringement. Certainly, copyright infringement isn't good, but most people in prison are there for more dangerous crimes that threaten a much larger portion of society. Like murder or rape for instance. If Congress has been empowered by the Constitution to make it illegal to be capable of committing a crime, why haven't they? Probably, because there is nothing criminal in capacity. Intent and actions can be criminal, capacity can't.
Just my two cents.
Sincerely,
Paul
SC 1, Stroligo 0 (Score:4, Informative)
OTOH, many of the uses claimed as fair use do not meet the SC's Freedom of Speech and Press constraint on copyright law.
fwiw.
Rights, the law, and our response (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that as long as our community pretends to want fair use protected for principled reasons but really just wants to go on pirating forever, we're not fooling anyone, and the lawmakers are going to push all the harder for controls. This makes legitimate fair use an innocent victim of the campaign against piracy.
I suggest that we drop the pretense and help to get the legislators focused in the right area. It is one thing to enforce laws against piracy, and entirely another to order that all computer equipment be rendered unable to make unauthorized copies. This is like outlawing machine tools because they could be used to produce Ford automobiles without the permission of Ford. Legislators the world over need to be shown how absurd this is, but we can't show them if we can't be trusted. If we're going to convince the world that the digital revolution means an end to high-valued content, we are going to have to clean up our act and become credible.
Think that's bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~suchen/download.html [ufl.edu]
Re:Think that's bad? (Score:2)
I may download some open source software for educational reasons.
Its clear that there are educational reasons to download music.
And who came up with the dumbass idea, that musicians can only make money through a middleman, as if the RIAA and record companies who really dont pay musicians anything, are the only possible system that can ever exsist?
Music can be paid for, and i'll list a few ways for the more ignorant sheep in this place..
1. Direct sales, thats right direct mp3 sales.
(How will this work? its simple, if no one buys the mp3s, the NO one has access to the music, so someone pays for access and then can become a distributor himself if he chooses but cannot charge money)
2. Sell new CDs only at concerts
(this way only the fans who go to concerts get the latest CDs, Musicians would make money from the concerts instead of the CD sales, hell musicians can decide to only play live if their cds arent selling)
3. Tshirts, DVDs, Live online music channels where musicians play music all day long live, of course you'll have to pay to access these services.
4.Musicians with millions of fans can release music, let the fans remix it, then remix that remix and tell the fans they wont release remixes of their songs and their fans songs unless they receive a certain amount of money.
I'd rather have an industry like this, where only the fans pay for the music they love, and everyone else gets it for free, than have a current industry which yes generates alot more money, but not to the musicians who deserve it, and mostly to business men in suits. Sorry but I'm interested in music because its an art, not because its a business.
Computers are the same way, thats why i support open source, just like you can have an open source movement with software, you can do the same with music.
Re:in summary, my questions (Score:2)
Why not? If you get a scratch on your car, do you bring it back to the dealer and demand a new car? Things wear out, it's a fact of life. If your CD is so badly damaged that it won't play anymore even after polishing it (the car-analogy would be "applying touch-up paint"), you have only yourself to blame.
Re:in summary, my questions (Score:3, Interesting)
What the RIAA wants is a "Let the buyer beware" environment. That in itself wouldn't be too bad, except they also want "Protect the seller at all costs" and they absolutely cannot get it both ways. If they want to screw us over, the only way I'll tolerate it is if I get to do the same to them.
Re:Free speech is a constitutional right (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not. You are free to sing any song yourself, or recite from any book. In those cases, it is YOU that is doing the speaking, and your right to speak is protected. Making copies of someone else's recorded speech is a different matter altogether, and is not covered by the first amendment at all.