Fair Use Worth More Than Copyright To Economy

Dotnaught writes "The Computer and Communications Industry Association — a trade group representing Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, among others — has issued a report (PDF) that finds fair use exceptions add more than $4.5 trillion in revenue to the U.S. economy and add more value to the U.S. economy than copyright industries contribute. "Recent studies indicate that the value added to the U.S. economy by copyright industries amounts to $1.3 trillion.", said CCIA President and CEO Ed Black. The value added to the U.S. economy by the fair use amounts to $2.2 trillion."

Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan too

[Eugenia Loli]

I wrote an article [gnomefiles.org] about the lack of fair use being a consumer right last week. In particular, I mentioned that even 90% Creative Commons licensed music is very restrictive for videographers -- which was a surprise to me when I found out. Unless you only use the CC-BY license (only 60 albums exist in that license), you can't "sync" audio and video legally for free for your own projects. And that's for the CC music we are talking about (and two of the Board of Directors of CC agreed with my conclusions). I don't even want to start thinking how bad it will become if RIAA starts suing the actual users on youtube who sync their HOME videos with their music. In other words, IMO, fair use should be expanded to become a consumer right, at least for personal pre-specified usage (I am not endorsing piracy here and I do believe that commercial vendors should continue licensing for professional usage).

Capitalist is not pro-economy

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Companies work for themselves, not for the benefit of the economy at large. Look at all the negative effort that MS puts into body-slamming competition. How can that really be good for the economy as a whole? Sure, if they just competed by making better products that would be a Good Thing.

Even within many companies, different business units will compete for the same cusomers and make competing products (wasting company resources in duplicated efforts). Rather than try improve the whole company's position, business unit managers will crush eachother to get ahead.

Basically it is the old story: you get what you reward. Competitors get rewarded (directly or via Wall St) by beating eachother up, not by their contribution to the economy at large.

Article summary lacks consistancy!

[chebucto]

finds fair use exceptions add more than $4.5 trillion in revenue to the U.S. economy ... The value added to the U.S. economy by the fair use amounts to $2.2 trillion.

Is $4.5t a different number than $2.2t, or am I stupid?

Fair use is all good and well, but

[Trevin]

What about the value of putting previously copyrighted works in the public domain? That's the criteria we really need to get our hands on to convince the legislators to reduce copyright terms.

This article is FUD

[Garwulf]

I hate to say it, but having taken a look at the article and the report, there are very serious issues with the methodology of the article. This report certainly does not indicate what the article suggests - quite frankly, the article is FUD.

But, I'm not going to just make the claim, I'm going to back it up. There are some very suspicious omissions and problems (excluding the terrible math in the article):

1. "Fair Use" industries are defined in great detail (albeit in charts that are sideways, making them unnecessarily difficult to read), with each industry used itemized. However, nowhere are "Copyright" industries defined or itemized. We simply do not have the other side of the comparison. For that matter, the report itself doesn't even make a comparison. Nowhere in the front or back matter did I find anything comparing the monetary value of fair use to the monetary value of copyright. The report makes a statement about fair use and backs it up. The article does no such thing, and does not source its statements about copyright-related industries.

2. This report lists several industries as "Fair Use" industries which are arguably dependent on copyright as well, meaning that in a comparison they must be counted on both sides. They are:

- Internet publishing and broadcasting
- Software publishers
- Radio & television broadcasting (counted twice in table 1)
- Printing and related support activities
- Newspaper publishers
- Directory, mailing list, and other publishers (for some reason, described exactly the same as "newspaper publishers" - who edited this?)
- Other publishers (apparently, these are the OTHER other publishers - yes, it makes my head hurt too)
- Motion Picture and Video Industries
- Sound Recording Industries
- Performing Arts Companies
- Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures
- Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers

Frankly, with the abuse like that which is taking place under the RIAA, and the poorly thought out sections of the DMCA, I can see how a report like this can be handy for legislators (although headache-inducing to read online), but the article is just FUD. For a comparison, copyright-dependent industries need to be defined, otherwise you're just pulling numbers out of the air.

Re:Good Idea, Wrong Model

[chromatic]

First, fair use will only occur if original works are created and original works will only be created if people have some chance of earning a living from them.

I've had seven books published and never expected to make a living off of any or all of them. That doesn't mean I look the other way when someone violates my copyright, but creation is not solely a matter of financial recompense for me. I'm not the only person who feels that way, either.

Re:I don't get it

[Dr_Barnowl]

He's talking about the ageing population of Western nations. The reduced birth rates and increased longevity means that an increasing fraction of the population are at an age where they are retired from work and thus no longer contributing to the economy. Worse still (from an economic viewpoint) this segment also costs the economy large amounts of welfare.

While automation is a wonderful thing, there are some things that are still the province of humans. Personal care is one of those things. But with a reduced number of young people participating in the economy, there are a reduced number of potential carers. With a reduced amount of production, there is less real wealth to provide for this care. A pension fund doesn't mean squat - it's just money. Without actual production, money is worthless.

Japan is well aware of this problem and is trying to compensate with things like robotic beds for the elderly.

Re:I don't get it

[Rocketship Underpant]

"if I sit down and program a new photo editing program, what fucking 'natural freedoms' am I denying you if I tell you that you cant have the fruits of my labour for free? "

There's no need to be offensive. What you tell me I can and cannot do with my own computer and Internet connection is irrelevant.

"To insist that you do is communism, you realise that right?"

You appear confused. Communism is a system that uses violent aggression to negate one's right to physical property. If you tell me what I may or may not do with the data on my own hard disk, and whom I may send that data to, that's closer to Communism. A non-belief in copyright is entirely peaceful and non-violent, the very opposite of Communism.

"What natural freedom do you have to get free Hollywood movies?"

Again you miss the point. Hollywood Studios have every right to keep their movies locked in a vault, instead of broadcasting them all over the place, if they don't want anything copied or shared. Ah, but they want special treatment from the government that will let them sell me a DVD, and then tell me what I can and cannot do with my own physical property -- the DVD.

"grow up."

I am grown up enough not engage in ad hominem attacks or replace logic with vulgarities. How about you?

Re:I don't get it

[The One and Only]

A mortgaged house you live in, in economist terms, is a liability and not an asset even though the poor have been taught to think this way.

The house itself is an asset. The mortgage is the liability.

A mortgaged house you rent where the rent is greater than the mortgage is an asset with positive cash flow on your financial report.

Yes, and a house whose mortgage is paid off is an asset with zero cash flow and no offsetting liabilities.

Money in hand is a liability because it loses value over time.

Cash money maybe, but invested money gains value over time. And it still isn't a liability--it's an asset, albeit one that changes in value. Please don't use technical terms without knowing what they mean. I think your main mistake is confusing assets with equity--equity is the difference between assets and liabilities, and represents net wealth in a way. So unless you're one of those trendy morons who gets an "interest-only" mortgage (or whatever they call that scam), even paying off your mortgage builds equity and grows your wealth, albeit not as effectively as buying the house cash money.