Warner Music Forces Lessig Presentation Offline 196
An anonymous reader writes "Larry Lessig, known (hopefully) to everyone around here as a defender of all things having to do with consumer rights and fair use rights when it comes to copyright, is now on the receiving end of a DMCA takedown notice from Warner Music, who apparently claimed that one of Lessig's famous presentations violated on their copyright. Lessig has said that he's absolutely planning on fighting this, and has asked someone to send Warner Music a copy of US copyright law that deals with 'fair use.'"
Reader daemonburrito notes that the (rehosted) "video remains available at the time of this submission."
Whooooh! They picked the WRONG guy for this one! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lessig is probably the most knowledgeable person on the planet when it comes to US law on fair use.
Ooooh they're gonna get creamed. And I will be laughing like a drain!!
Re:Whooooh! They picked the WRONG guy for this one (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, and he's already had his ass handed to him court at least once.
Difference between theory and practice and all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and he's already had his ass handed to him court at least once.
Difference between theory and practice and all.
Sigh.
References please.
How Lessig Lost the Big One (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How Lessig Lost the Big One (Score:5, Informative)
The commerce clause and the copyright clause are two of the enumerated powers. The cases you cite deal with the commerce clause. So, I don't see how.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Losing a case doesn't always mean the lawyer "totally blew" it.
I'll be glad to see Ginsburg leave the SCOTUS so she doesn't get the chance to f-up copyright law anymore than she already has. See also: New York Times v. Tasini
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whooooh! They picked the WRONG guy for this one (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.cnet.com/Supreme-Court-nixes-copyright-challenge/2100-1023_3-980792.html [cnet.com]
Lessig argued that repeated extensions were unconstitutional because they ran afoul of the Constitution's "limited times" requirement and also conflicted with the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech.
But just moments into Lessig's opening remarks, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor interrupted and noted Congress had repeatedly extended the duration on copyrights, with no intervention before by the Supreme Court. What, O'Connor asked, is different about this case?
Lessig then continued to ramble on and the supremes continued to roll their eyes and wonder what the hell he was on about. He later said that, in retrospect, he should have shut up at that point and addressed the point made.
Re:Whooooh! They picked the WRONG guy for this one (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't blame Lessig for ignoring her though, when reading the minutes of the case, I think its pretty cleat Sandra was attempting to derail his argument with a tangent.
Further more, if what you said was true, this just shows that judges had already made up their mind on the case and never cared about Lessig's argument to begin with.
Re:Whooooh! They picked the WRONG guy for this one (Score:5, Informative)
Justices have for decades attempted to derail arguments with tangents, and they do it to both sides. Liberal justices will demand justification from attorneys representing a liberal side just as conservative justices will do with those representing a conservative point, and all question^W grill the representatives on the points while bringing up seemingly unrelated points, interrupting them at their pleasure. It takes nerves of steel to stand up in front of the Supreme Court, because they do know what they're talking about and they absolutely will cut off the unprepared at the knees, and continue moving up until there's nothing left, and woe unto the attorney who gets combative with the justices.
Remember that the justices have already read a great deal of case information by the time that oral debates have started, so they are often already leaning in one direction or another. However, there's also a great deal of work that goes on afterward as the justices debate the case internally, one of the reasons that the opinions take so long to come out in most cases. This is mostly a secret process, but there have been indications from some justices that a few debates have escalated to serious arguments with logic sometimes being tossed out the window. Traditions have developed over time to deal with those circumstances and allow the justices to at least end each term with civility, if not going home each night or weekend with some friendliness.
Re:Whooooh! They picked the WRONG guy for this one (Score:5, Funny)
Lessig then continued to ramble on and the supremes continued to roll their eyes and wonder what the hell he was on about.
then the supremes said; "Stop! In the name of love, before you break my heart. Think it over."
I believe that part was removed from the official dialogue on the record.
Re:Whooooh! They picked the WRONG guy for this one (Score:5, Funny)
I believe that part was removed from the official dialogue on the record.
After a DMCA takedown request, no doubt.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That case was not about the fair use provisions already on the books; it was about the limits of the enumerated power of Congress to establish copyright, which is not a question here. In all probability, he will hand Warner's ass back to them, as this sort of matter is probably well-explored, whereas the scope of Congress' power was not.
Re: (Score:2)
Eldred v Ashcroft?
Re:Whooooh! They picked the WRONG guy for this one (Score:4, Funny)
Lessig is probably the most knowledgeable person on the planet when it comes to US law on fair use.
But apparently not good at communication?
and has asked someone to send Warner Music a copy of US copyright law that deals with 'fair use.'
Did they take down his email, fax line and ban him from the post office too?
Re: (Score:2)
how does a drain laugh?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory, perhaps - although I doubt it. In practice, he has the savant tendency to disregard that the law is implemented by humans, and the one thing that humans can't stand is a wise ass.
Per Mr. Lessig's request, copy and paste: (Score:5, Informative)
WMG contact form: http://www.wmg.com/contact [wmg.com]
----
Sect. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USCS Sects. 106, 106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Thanks for the law text (Score:4, Insightful)
According to TFA, the presentation has been reposted here: http://blip.tv/file/1937322 [blip.tv]
After watching the first three minutes, my impression is that
(1) Should be clearly in favor of Mr. Lessig. Nonprofit, political speech, should have pretty strong First Amendment protection. One can argue if he really needs the photos (see point 2), but the character of the use doesn't get much more fair.
(2) He uses photographs that are probably copyrighted as backdrops for his lecture
(3) Depends on the source(s) - many small samples or all from one source?
(4) I don't see how the use of some photos in this lecture can substantially hurt the sale of the original collections. Especially since the "subtitles" get in the way of reusing the photos from the lecture elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
(2) He uses photographs that are probably copyrighted as backdrops for his lecture
I'm no lawyer, but I know that's common practice in academia - to use copyrighted material in lectures. So I guess it's legal, because every prof and assistant prof is doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Lessig's a very clever man, watch the presentation and think about it ;) http://blip.tv/file/1937322 [blip.tv]
It's Like Steve Irwin Poking a Stingray! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be under the NEVER category.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh he poked plenty of stingrays before one got him. Purely coincidental that it was a stingray that got him - I'm sure everyone (even the people that liked him) would have preferred him to have been eaten by a crocodile if they had to choose what animal killed him.
Re: (Score:2)
Pick Your Battles Wisely (Score:5, Informative)
Larry: Non-free Audio Fair Use for music constitutes 10% or 30 seconds of a song (which ever is shorter) and it must be in a low enough quality (didn't investigate the audio on this video to find out if it satisfied Ogg quality of 0 rule). For the rest of the 15 minutes I saw you looked fine but this stuck out at me. Pick your battles wisely and adhere to this rule next time.
Re:Pick Your Battles Wisely (Score:5, Insightful)
Larry: Non-free Audio Fair Use for music constitutes 10% or 30 seconds of a song (which ever is shorter) and it must be in a low enough quality (didn't investigate the audio on this video to find out if it satisfied Ogg quality of 0 rule).
[Citation needed].
It's certainly case law if that's even true, and I'm skeptical that it's a universal rule even if true. The statues place no such requirements, and, in fact, there are many times when using an ENTIRE work would be considered fair use.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ugh, very well. They're referred to as "portion limits" and the safe range has always been 10%-ish. Check out what Stanford advises it's students [stanford.edu] (and this is in academia, mind you):
up to 10% or 1,000 words, whichever is less, of a copyrighted text work. For example, an entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet, or five poems by different poets from any anthology.
up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual musical work.
up to 10% or three minutes, whichever is less, of a copyrighted motion media work (for example, an animation, video or film image).
a photograph or illustration may be used in its entirety but no more than five images by an artist or photographer may be reproduced. When using photographs and illustrations from a published collective work, no more than 10% or 15 images, whichever is less. Or,
up to 10% or 2,500 fields or cell entries, whichever is less, from a copyrighted database or data table may be reproduced. A field entry is defined as a specific item of information, such as a name or Social Security number in a record of a database file. A cell entry is defined as the intersection where a row and a column meet on a spreadsheet.
I'm sorry but what Mr. Lessig did from 11:00-11:49 was in my mind a ballsy use of a song ... about 35% of that song was used. That's a big warning bell to me.
Good luck to him, I hope there aren't other infractions later on. Wikipedia uses the 10% rule, that's how I know about it. I'm not a lawyer and I'll punch you if
Re:Pick Your Battles Wisely (Score:5, Informative)
PROPOSED Academic guidelines from Stanford University are not the Law of this land. Good thing you're not a lawyer. If you were your clients would be suing you for malpractice.
I still have my soul, IANAL, etc...
Re:Pick Your Battles Wisely (Score:5, Funny)
Very good catch. Maybe Lessig should Talk with this Stanford law professor [stanford.edu] about the rules and get some clarification.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's nothing more than a safe harbor. To really find out whether something is fair use, you have to evaluate all four factors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [wikipedia.org]
Only one of the elements is how much was taken.
I'm not going to do a full analysis. Indeed, even if I did, a court's analysis would probably look much different.
The truth is that most people cannot afford to pay the lawyers to go to court and make the fair use argument to find out whether something is fair use or not.
So most people stick with
Re: (Score:2)
up to 10% or 1,000 words, whichever is less, of a copyrighted text work. For example, an entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet, or five poems by different poets from any anthology.
up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual musical work.
What if that song is Freebird?
Re: (Score:2)
Percentage has no necessary relation to the "amount and substantiality" analysis of fair use. That's why it's amount _and_ substantiality. If you copy the "heart" of a work, even if it makes up only 1% of the entire work, your use can be found infringing.
There is case law on this; the one that comes to mind is something about a newspaper that had published the really juicy bits of a forthcoming book. I don't remember the name off the top of my head, and I've no time to look it up. Use your googling skills.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pick Your Battles Wisely (Score:5, Funny)
"Ma na ma na" is one of those songs that just really stick in your head. It plays and re-plays, over and over again. Probably by the time this Warner stooge finished thinking about Lessig's presentation he had already listened to it in his head for at least 30 minutes. That's an unlicensed full-length (and then some) copy.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ma na ma na"
Do doo do-do-do!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pick your battles wisely and adhere to this rule next time.
What rule? The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107 makes no mention of any kind of 30 second rule.
Re:Pick Your Battles Wisely (Score:5, Informative)
Firstly, IANAL.
However,
From my own analsys of the codified fair use doctrine, the proportion of the copyrighted work that is used for a fair use purpose is not explicitly stated excepting that it must not be in it's entierety, and should therefor satisfy as long as the proportion is not "In it's entierety"- Since the copyrighted work is a clip from the original muppet show, and the muppet show episode being longer than 2:29 minutes, I fail to see the reason why this is not fair use.
Additionally,
There is not a qualifier for quality in the codified body concerning fair use, thus the quality argument is insubstantiated as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't say that either. It says that the portion used is a factor to be considered in determining fair use, it doesn't say, in the statute, which way that factor weighs. Which makes sense; there are circumstances where using the whole work would probably weigh in favor of fair use, where using selected po
Re: (Score:2)
Since the copyrighted work is a clip from the original muppet show, and the muppet show episode being longer than 2:29 minutes, I fail to see the reason why this is not fair use.
Exactly. The sketch was a component of a half-hour television show, and was never created as a standalone work. Songs that are individual tracks on a CD or released as singles certainly are intended to be performed as a standalone work, but back in 1976 or whenever, I doubt Jim Henson and his crew thought of the show as a compilation of independent works.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
At some point they did.
The Muppet Show: Music, Mayhem, and More! - The 25th Anniversary Collection
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00006IZP8
Track Listings ...
1. The Muppet Show Theme - featuring The Muppets
2. Mahna Mahna/Lullaby Of Birdland - featuring Mahna Mahna & The Two Snowths
3. There's A New Sound - featuring Scooter
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt Jim Henson and his crew thought of the show as a compilation of independent works.
isn't that kinda the definition of a variety show?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, there are set numbers on how much of a work can be used? Because I seem to recall (as noted above) that the law doesn't give specific numbers, but only that whether a use is fair must take into account how much of the work is used. It also includes criteria such as the type of use, how it impacts the market for that work, and whether it is commercial or not. If there is case law that sets precedent for this, you might be well to include those references to back up your numbers.
Re:Pick Your Battles Wisely (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong.
What is fair use and what is not fair use is determined based on the facts of each individual case. Something that is fair use in one instanceâ"say a parodyâ"might well not be fair use in another like a movie review.
There are guidelines, much like the one quoted. However they are only guidelines and are in no way binding on courts unless they have been cited in a superior court case.
Re: (Score:2)
You sir are an idiot. Lessig is possibly the most knowledgable person on the planet regarding US Copyright law, especially in it's relation to fair use.
Your lecturing tone, in addressing Lessig, is only showing your ignorance.
-J
look harder...dig deeper...find FACTS... (Score:5, Interesting)
FYI... The 'ma na ma na' song IS NOT MUPPETS, or JIM HENSON, but was written in 1968 for an Italian Porn movie and has been in several movies since then. The muppets used it LOOOOONG after its creation, while that does not ensure that Warner doesn't own it now.
http://www.geocities.com/pieroumiliani/ [geocities.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
written in 1968 for an Italian Porn movie and has been in several movies since then.
My lady and I recently started renting the occasional muppet show DVD from netfux and occasionally there are some real gems. From memory, Rolf: Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. There's something kind of irresistablish about 'em. We grin and bear it 'cause the nights are long... let's hope that something better comes along! And of course, the classic Muppet rendition of Lydia the Tattooed Lady was mostly lost on me as a child...
that does not ensure that Warner doesn't own it now.
The idea that they can own something that has become an indelible par
Re: (Score:2)
If he used the recording made for the Muppet Show, the copyright for that rendition would be held by whoever holds the Muppet Show copyrights (and I'd be surprised if that was Warner Bros.... might be Disney, or Henson's estate, though).
Re: (Score:2)
The parent post is precisely on target. The grandparent post is mostly accurate (I'm not sure I'd use the word porn for this case, but otherwise on target), but irrelevant. Also, saying that "It's not Muppets" is silly because clearly the Muppets have performed the song. Generally speaking, the Muppet players mostly performed songs written by others (including "Rainbow Connection"). Only a few of the songs they did were written by Muppet writers.
In this video, Lessig included an Anime Music Video which
Parent gave prove of interesting geocities pages! (Score:3, Interesting)
Geocities is dying, such valuable information would be lost forever if not archived at all...
This site is the example of what the Internet really is... or was?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks for linking to the original video. I hadn't seen or heard that in a while. Kind of ironic how you lecture Larry about what fair use guidelines are (notwithstanding whether you are or are not correct), but you have directly referenced the work in it's entirety that would have even less going towards it regarding fair use. While I understand that you probably didn't post the video, don't you find what you did a little bit hypocritical at some level?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) The Muppet Show is owned by Disney at this point, not Warner Music (see note later)
2) As other commenters have pointed out, there is no bright line test for what constitutes fair use (like 10% or 30 seconds)
3) You're an idiot to lecture Larry Lessig on the boundaries of fair use. He helped write the copyright law and knows as much about it as pretty well anyone in the country.
Beyond that, I'm still trying to figure out what Warner Music objected to. I've gotten through the portion of the video with all
Re: (Score:2)
The recent Inspector Gadget movie was by Disney. The original series was by DIC Entertainment, which these days is also a wholly owned property of Disney. So unless WB managed to weasel a deal for rights to remix it, I think it is pretty safe to say they don't own it.
That said, I think it would be rather funny if it turned out it was an unlicensed remix and Disney filed an amicus brief on the side of Lessig.... :-D
Re: (Score:2)
They (WMG) seem thing they own it. See this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wMHcpMmV9g [youtube.com]
Notice the reason why their is no audio...
Re: (Score:2)
There. Not their. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it will always be the Swedish Chef song for me ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY_Yf4zz-yo [youtube.com]
Lessig (Score:3, Insightful)
Larry Lessig, also known as the guy who defended Obama's vote on the FISA bill, saying, among other things [lessig.org]:
(emphasis mine)
I'm afraid I lost a lot of the (considerable) respect I had for the guy up until that point.
Lessig is a moderate (Score:5, Interesting)
Lessig is not against copyright. He's a fundamental advocate of copyright, "especially in the digital era", he just thinks it is "out of sync" and "needs an update".
Whereas people like me are advocates of just scrapping the whole damn thing because the potential benefits of doing so are way more interesting than the deprecated business models that it will finally put to bed.. and because I believe it is fundamentally the right thing to do, from a "you don't tell me what I can and can't do and I'll do the same" sense of what right means.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is fundamental misthinking about copyright. Copyright doesn't exist to protect corporate interests. It exists to protect author
Re:Lessig is a moderate (Score:5, Insightful)
This is fundamental misthinking about copyright. Copyright (in the United States) doesn't exist to protect authors, it exists to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8) To the extent it fails to do that -- or, a fortiori, impedes such progress -- it is because the rules of copyright are poorly crafted from the perspective of the Constitutional basis of Congress's power to grant copyrights in the first place, and need to be reformed to serve that purpose.
Re:Lessig is a moderate (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright might work if the section after the part you quoted was applied ("by securing for limited times").
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. We ought to go back to the timeframes set back in the beginning or to two times that time and leave it alone. 14-28 years should be more than enough for most situations- but we have monied interests such as Disney doing everything they can to protect things like Mickey Mouse and making a mockery of the law as it was intended to be.
Re:Lessig is a moderate (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would an amount of time that was deemed sufficient protection over 200 years ago when the printing press was a novel creation be ANYWHERE CLOSE to what protection is needed today?
Two or three times what it was then? Try 1/3 to 1/10 of the original time. We now have bestsellers that, in their first week, sell into the seven digit numbers - not of profit - but of units. Five years of protection would arguably be too much with modern technology and distribution methods.
Anything more - ANYTHING - and you're caving into the mindset that the xxAA wants you to be in. Our goal should not be parity with the original length of protection, but significant shortening thereof.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is fundamental misthinking about copyright. Copyright (in the United States) doesn't exist to protect authors, it exists to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 8)
This is fundamental misleading about copyright. You replaced the comma with something to make it seem like that line stopped without mentioning author's rights: "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
It is about their right, and their right is compatible with the best interest of the nation, hence the preamble.
Re: (Score:2)
It is about their right, and their right is compatible with the best interest of the nation, hence the preamble.
Their right to exploit it for a limited time, yes. Their right to exploit it for the period of time currently guaranteed by law, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Authors already have the exclusive right to their writings. They wrote it. All they need do is not distribute it.
If someone who had never heard of copyright was reading that sentence of the constitution they would think that the founders were trying to say that the government can't bust into your writing room and take your writings. And when you consider that this is exactly what governments were doing before the revolution, it makes a lot of sense.
And the whole "limited times" part is basically saying,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Read the writings of the authors of that text, and you'll understand that they didn't consider authors to have any sort of inherent rights. The difference is actually visible right in that line, in the choice of the word "securing", rather than "guaranteeing". That word implies that the government is granting or providing the rights in question, whereas the other things we think of as rights were thought by the framers to be God-given, or natural, and which government should preserve or guarantee, never,
Re: (Score:2)
This is fundamental misleading about copyright. You replaced the comma with something to make it seem like that line stopped without mentioning author's rights: "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
It is about their right, and their right is compatible with the best interest of the nation, hence the preamble.
Not at all. It was considered that the public domain is the proper location for those works, and thus everybody has the right to those works. However, since that encourages people to keep trade secrets and to generally not publish their works, then in order to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts," congress grants this "exclusive right." Note that this power does not exist prior to congress legislating it, and congress can only legislate such a thing because that power is enumerated in th
copyright intended to grow the public domain? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can one read the constitution as saying:
i.e. it's purpose is to grow the public domain, the rest is just mechanism and a choice about how to trade off public good against private good.
The copyrighteous act like a kid who is hap
You don't need copyright to fight plagiarism (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright doesn't exist to protect corporate interests. It exists to protect authors... it's the same thing that keeps you from writing a book (or whatever), changing a few things, and publishing it under their name.
No, you don't need copyright for that. All you need is anti-fraud laws, because plagiarism is a form of fraud. Abolishing copyright wouldn't suddenly make it legal to lie to your customers.
Any open source license out there---GPL, BSD, Apache, MPL, CC, etc---are built on copyright.
Many of us believe that the most useful part of those licenses is the way they use copyright against itself, giving users (and other developers) back the rights that copyright law took away in the first place. Without copyright, there wouldn't be much need for those licenses; if someone didn't give you source code, you co
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. It protects the interest of public domain by ensuring that in exchange for a TEMPORARY (limited time) duration of a monopoly on distribution of that work, it will become public domain for the public good. It is to protect the public interest by encouraging the continued development of useful arts and sciences.
Re: (Score:2)
"It exists to protect authors... it's the same thing that keeps you from writing a book (or whatever), changing a few things, and publishing it under their name."
You don't need *copyright* law to accomplish this.
A law against plagiarism and fraud could handle it while still allowing anyone to make copies of anything they lawfully had in their possession. That people use copyright law for this purpose today does not mean that copyright law is needed for this job.
"But, if you want to tell me that my works mus
Re: (Score:2)
None of the "social aspects" you mentioned are remotely related to copyright. The problem with copyright is that it focuses on copying as the fundamental unit of regulation. This is insane in this day and age of cheap ubiquitous copying. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works that would otherwise not be created. If that's your goal then restricting copying is exactly the wrong way to go about it. It's like saying your goal is to go skiing and restricting the falling of snow.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An alternative to copyright would be some sort of exclusive right to sell.
The work could be put in the public domain, but only the author would have the right to package and sell that work.
That would give incentive, as the only persons permitted to profit off the work would be the original author, but I don't know that the incentive would be as high as the original copyright term of 14 years exclusive right to copy.
Beyond that, I don't see how you could encourage the production of creative works.
Re: (Score:2)
The work could be put in the public domain, but only the author would have the right to package and sell that work.
Which still has all the culture-killing features with respect to derivative works as the current system.
The only approach that addresses all of the modern problems with copyright is to charge for creation instead of distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
you suggestion is very similar to the 'creative commons non-commercial' model. i wish more people would release work under that model, but most artists i talk to don't even know it exists.
Beyond that, I don't see how you could encourage the production of creative works.
but you don't have to! even without artificial means of encouragement for producing creative works, people will still create things. this may seem rather counter intuitive after listening to the lawyers, but people who love music actually enjoy making music. they find it to be 'fun' and 'rewarding' for its own sake.
digit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas people like me are advocates of just scrapping the whole damn thing because the potential benefits of doing so are way more interesting
What would be these "potential benefits" compared to a moderate copyright law (aka. 10-20 year term, allow non-commercial use)? The only difference I see is that no copyright would make it trivial for cooperations to exploit the authors even more, by taking the authors work, slapping their company name on it, changing it to fit their need, distributing it via their channels and all that without the author ever seeing a dime. I am pretty sure that that would piss of quite a handful of artists and not exactly
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, really? Companies that make physical products have no such guarantees.. and yet they keep churning out product. In fact, the only restriction on copy-a-like competition is in brand names. I can legally make handbags that look similar to designer products, but I may not sell them labeled as such. Now, think about it for a minute, how is Walmart going to sell copies of books/movies/music/etc if they're not allowed to label them? How's that going to work? "I'll have a mystery DVD please." For some
Re: (Score:2)
thats crap and you know it... ever hear of Patents?
Patents expire. (Score:2)
thats crap and you know it... ever hear of Patents?
Patents expire 20 years after filing. Trademarks don't expire, and in practice neither do copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
I didnt say there doesnt need to be any reform, Copyright needs to be more in line with patents, or a "pay to protect" scheme, where in order to keep a copyright, you need to pay a fee after the initial free period
Re: (Score:2)
So why not just hire goons to go around and threaten everyone who competes with you. I mean, that's basically what you want the government to do. Why do you think legitimizing anti-competitive behavior is a good thing?
Re: (Score:2)
The GP was assuming a Patent didn't apply. Most designs cannot be patented because they are either A.) Not unique enough, or B.) Don't significantly improve an existing Patent. The specific criterea are more involved than that, but that is basically it.
There is no patent on a regular style handbag, the companies that make variations on that design must compete in the market based on quality and/or price.
There are a hell of a lot of pieces of literature and media that should be in the same category as that
Re: (Score:2)
What benefits are there to ensure that creators know ahead of time that there will be no means of ensuring at least the opportunity to recoup ones investment?
If you insist on sticking to the deprecated business model in which you record first and ask for money later, you can use the ransom model: "I've recorded a song. I'll release it once I've received $X."
Or you can ditch that model and move on to selling your labor - something that can't be copied or taken without your permission. "I have an idea for a song. I'll record and release it once I've received $X." And then if people don't want to pay, you don't have to invest your time in something that provides no
Copyright Warzone (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Automatic claiming? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a really good chance this resulted from automatic claiming tools that make use of things like acoustic fingerprints. YouTube or a filtering partner will have a catalog of Warner tracks that new uploads are checked against. Warner may not even have known about this until it blew up. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
Re:Automatic claiming? (Score:5, Insightful)
I got hit with that once, doing a documentary on Austin's air-guitar competitions. I thought that 10-15 second clips, recorded through an analog hole - a microphone placed not near the speakers, but near the air guitar stage (I was more interested in capturing the grunting and movement of the performers than a picture-perfect rendition of old 80s tunes) ... point is, I thought that'd be fine.
Time Warner, as a whole, just doesn't get technology. CNN thinks "holograms" are a great way to tell the news, they want to put caps on broadband, and they are so worried about protecting "their copyrights" that they don't understand how or why people buy music, and what they use it for.
Every business that they run that has any technological background at all is running itself into the ground because they want to sell you something first, then TELL you how THEY want you to use it, and are willing to go to absurd lengths to make sure that you only use it in the manner that they wanted you to - not the reason you bought it in the first place.
This is why they'll sue auto repair companies playing CDs for employees to listen to at work, why they'll knock on people doing anime fun conversions, why they'll knock on air guitar guys.
It's also why they'll offer broadband but put in caps so people can't use it, why they'll offer news programs but only present one or two sides of a multifaceted issue...
What can I say? They're crappy.
Life Lessig err Lessons (Score:3, Funny)
I learned a long time ago there are two types of people at a bar:
Those you can fuck with.
Those you don't fuck with.
Now I am no genius, I admit that, but I have gotten pretty good at sizing up people. There are just some people you don't fuck with. For instance fat guys with tattoos of cartoon characters. THERE IS A REASON THEY HAVEN'T HAD THEIR ASS BEAT AT THE BAR AND YOU DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT WHY!
They just fucked with the wrong guy. So I am going to discretely walk out of the bar and go to my car because when the fight starts, its never the two guy that are fighting that concerns me, its the stupid shit their friends do.
And I can clearly say, I am a hell of a lot more afraid of Lessig supports then I am of the Media Mafia. Lessig has waaaay more supporters and waaay more "digital firepower." This calls for a "Don't you know who I am" moment?
Needless to say, they went after the wrong guy on this. It's like going up and punching baby Jesus in the face... you're just gonna piss everyone off doing that no matter who they are. You just don't punch baby Jesusessss...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was a lawyer for Warner, and my boss said I should try to legally stop Lessig from talking, my reaction would be "COOL! I get to go up against Lessig." It is entirely possible they knew exactly who they were going against, and wanted to make a public example. Do you know how cutthroat the music industry is? Do you think these guys are easily intimidated?
Here are the relevant bits: (Score:2)
The bits that may have caused them to go apeshit probably starts at 9:07 in the video [blip.tv] under the heading "Remix"
It starts with a clip from The Grey Album and then moves onto various other remixes
-1 Redundant (Score:5, Interesting)
Reader daemonburrito notes that the (rehosted) "video remains available at the time of this submission."
What I'm about to say is, I'm sure, redundant. I'm saying it anyway:
Warner,
I am pulling a copy right now. It's going in my mystical hidden repository of stuff fools think they can stop me from seeing.
Here's how this rule works: You try to suppress it, I will get it, and I will keep it forever. That is possible because we are better at this than you are. We will always be better at this than you are. The best among us will never work for you, so you will always epic fail. You cannot stop us. Every time you try to kick us, you are going to get a couple broken toes, and we will just get more ornery.
You know, I don't violate copyright because I haven't made up my mind about it yet. I gotta tell you though, it gets more tempting every time you pull some shit like this.
And if you think you can stop me (let alone the next generation of tech naturals) from watching whatever we want, whenever we want, on whatever platform we want, well, you are really stupid. The more you fight, the more practice we get, and the harder we laugh when we pee on your leg.
Try being nice to your customers some time. It might not do you much good, but it won't do you as much harm as what you're doing now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try being nice to your customers some time. It might not do you much good, but it won't do you as much harm as what you're doing now.
Makes sense, unless you view every illegal download as a lost sale. Once you have an entrenched view that says more downloads equals more lost profit, it's hard to break free. Which VP is going to stick his neck out for this issue? If sales go up by 20% but copyright-infringing downloads go up by 40% guess how they'll view it?
Don't support corporations that use these type of tactics, but don't expect them to change either. Raising awareness and ensuring your government doesn't continue to erode your rights
My advice to Larry Lessig (Score:2)
... take no prisoners. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. Do not deal out of court. Get that judgment and force them to lose their way all the way to SCOTUS.
Mod Warner up +10 Funny.. (Score:2)
Ah, the perils of broad brush litigation..
This is a risk implied in doing things in volume, it is statistically a given that you will eventually hit someone you should really, REALLY avoided in your legal abuse. Small aside question: has anyone heard of a judge being sued yet? No? Given the "quality" of their research I think there must be *some* sort of end filtering taking place. Anyway, back on topic.
I think this mistake is akin to jumping in shark infested waters while bleeding from an over-vigorous
What if Lessig did want the notice (Score:3, Interesting)
His presentation may be willingfully at the fringe between Fair Use and Copyright violation.
He may want to have this case brought to court and use the opportunity to show his whole presentation to the court in order to educate the judges.