Congress Must Make Clear Copyright Laws 179
WSJdpatton writes "WSJ's Walt Mossberg takes a look at what's wrong with the DMCA and DRM given the recent lawsuit brought against Google's YouTube by media giant Viacom — 'Under fair use, as most nonlawyers have understood it, you could quote this sentence in another publication without permission, though you'd need the permission of the newspaper to reprint the entire column or a large part of it. A two-minute portion of a 30-minute TV show seems like the same thing to me. But why should I have to guess about that? What consumers need is real clarity on the whole issue of what is or isn't permissible use of the digital content they have legally obtained. And that can come only from Congress. Congress is the real villain here, for having failed to pass a modern copyright law that protects average consumers, not just big content companies.'"
A non-lawyer indeed (Score:5, Informative)
I'm afraid that our friend over at WSJ misunderstands the law a bit. The length or exact portion of the copyrighted material does not matter. In fact, the key issues that a judge looks at is if the use is necessary to the contested work, and if the contested work shows enough original thought to be considered a separate entity. Direct copying of even a small snippet is very much illegal if there is no larger work around it.
For example, if I had only quoted that paragraph above and smacked the "submit" button, I'd be guilty of copyright infringement. I'd also be looked upon as a tool by the Slashdot community as a whole. But by including this commentary about the quoted work, I'm creating a greater work that requires the fair use of someone else's work. And Slashdotters get to decide whether I'm a tool or not based on the opinions I state in the larger work rather than some silly action.
It's the same for videos. Taking a 2 minute clip and copying it verbatim is pretty much copyright infringement. Using that same clip for purposes of video or text commentary, on the other hand, would be perfectly acceptable "fair use". Similarly, creating a fan trailer, a movie review video, or generally commenting on the state of whatever would also allow you to make fair use of the video clip.
However, one does need to keep in mind that a judge will consider whether the entire clip is necessary or not. If you put up the entire interview of Bill Gates on the Daily Show just to comment on how funny the cat's name portion was, you're still guilty of copyright infringement. A judge would be likely to find that you were using simplistic commentary to try and cover over your infringement, and that showing only the part dealing with the cat incident would have been sufficient to make your point.
Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to point out that the DMCA is actually a positive in this situation. (I know, I know. How could I defend Slashdot's favorite whipping boy?) The Safe Harbor and common-carrier provisions of the law ensure that sites like Youtube can exist. Without those provisions, Viacom would have a much stronger case against Youtube.
Standard Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, only an individual with an interest in the law.
IANALI - I am not a lawyer indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A non-lawyer indeed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about "entire works" or entire "mini-works"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I guilty of infringement?
If so, you've just found an "out" for anyone who wants to copy anything - just surround it with enough original, informative commentary that using the entire original is necessary.
If not, then you've used copyright laws effectively stifled my freedom to comment on your work in any meaningful. So much for the 1st amendment.
Suppose using the entire 30 second commercial IS
Re:What about "entire works" or entire "mini-works (Score:3, Informative)
Apply common sense. Is it necessary for you to show the entire ad? If it is, then you're probably in the clear. Obviously it's a case by case situation, but genericly, you'd be in the clear.
Re:What about "entire works" or entire "mini-works (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You might have an answer for that too, but it really doesn't matter. The problem is that there are a lot of situations that don't have a clear answer. Use common sense? That works great if everyone has the same "common sense", but since people have differing opinions on things, using common sense is not the answer. If it was that easy, no one would be listing counter examples to your explanation. The point is that common sense does
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not correct. You're sort of conflating two factors there. If a use is transformative, then it's typically fair. A parody is transformative, but then, so is sampling; this factor is simply whether a new work is created. The precise nature of the work (e.g. parody, etc.) is irrelevant. The other factor is effect o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about "entire works" or entire "mini-works (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, perhaps your fundamental goal is the copying, and not the commentary. However, you still do have to produce the commentary, or you don't get to copy. So, in the end, it works out the same as if your fundamental goal were the commentary.
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright violation should only be predicated on the premise that it is NOT a violation at all if the one that does the copying cannot ever benefit financially in any way. That is what real 'pirates' do. They use other people's IP to make money for themselves. A consumer copying a CD or file to their ipod or emailing a song to their friends should always be allowed. What d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Dara
Why does the larger work have to be congruent (Score:4, Interesting)
But what if you put it up with the idea of collecting comments about it? Or for use in a wholly different webpage to reference?
The concept of "larger work" is a but fuzzy where you put something up anticipating the larger work that may come later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My question was simple. Take a long time show (Lets say Stargate SG1) take no more than 2 min of footage from 30 different episodes. Edit them together into a new episode. So you designed the episode, you story boarded it, it was your idea, you collected the footage, you did the work. Who owns the copyright on it?
I figure it falls under a gray area that a judge would need to decide on.
But just for fun
Radio compilation case from decades ago (Score:2, Interesting)
Take a long time show (Lets say Stargate SG1) take no more than 2 min of footage from 30 different episodes. Edit them together into a new episode.
This is all according to something I heard on the radio years ago....
That's exactly what happened in the '40s when someone made a "compilation piece" out of a lot of songs.
The original artists wanted to pull the plug.
He wanted a free ride.
The courts split the baby.
They ruled that copyright law could not be used to stop him from creating or airing this original work, but he had to pay royalties on the pieces he used.
I'm not sure if the courts imposed a royalty agreement, left it up to the parties to negotia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if it was *only* viewable through my blog and not to the public via YouTube?
What if I modified the video clip to say "posted as an illustration of a point made a this url: www.whatever.com"?
Re:A non-lawyer indeed (Score:5, Informative)
Adding value to the original work will help on a fair use claim, but it's not essential. Heck, in the Sony Betamax decision (1984), the Supreme Court thought that time-shifting--copying an entire show--was a fair use. You're sure not adding anything there. But, a magazine's articles that included excerpts of a book by Gerald Ford about the Nixon Presidency was not a fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
i.e. If the larger work is a substantial enough work AND it depends upon the amount of infringing material in use, then that amount of infringement is "fair use". The exact length of that infringement does not matter as long as it's found to be substantively required by the larger use.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, especially in a transformative use, a court will pay attention to whether you took more than you needed to. In parody cases, for example, you have to be able to take enough of the original to remind people of the original, but you can't easily copy the entire thing and claim a parody.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you realize that you just restated exactly what I said in my original post. So indeed, you are agreeing with me. If you don't believe me, go back to my original post and read it again.
The specific case that de
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. None of the traditional four factors is more important than any other one, nor is the fair use analysis strictly mechanical. For example, time shifting in Sony had three of the factors against fair use (it used the whole work, it wasn't transformative in any way, and the work was creative in nature), but was still a fair use. In practice, of course, that fourth factor -- whether the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I am agreeing with your original post. You said that "The length or exact portion of the copyrighted material does not matter." In fact, it does matter, as the amount taken is one of the factors to consider in whether a use is fair.
As you mention, there are some fair uses, such as criticism, which hinge
Importance of Copied Portion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
:golf clap:
Well said.
Alas, too few people understand the idea of context. No wonder they're clamoring (as in the WSJ article) for an impossibly concise general rule that says something like "30 seconds but not 31 seconds".
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose another party ("The Distributor") publishes those clips and commentary on its website (such as youtube).
Suppose someone else ("The Programmer") writes software to piece together all 45 clips, and then output a full reconstruction of the TV show.
Suppose another person ("The User") takes The Programmer's software and runs it, recreating the show
Easy (Score:2)
Fair Use. The is significant original work in relation to the fair use work, and the larger work depends on the fair use work.
If the distributor owns the rights or has permission, then he's clear. Otherwise, he's violating the copyright. Sim
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point, and this is what I was trying to say in my post, and another responder to your post said the same thing.
You said before that the 45 individual "larger works" which have
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand what you mean by "outside" your work. The fair use chunk you used still belongs to the original copyright holder. Your work surrounding that one minute belongs to you. You may distribute the one minute in each of your works as long as those works show a need for that
Re: (Score:2)
Riddle me this... (Score:3, Interesting)
There's currently a fiasco [arstechnica.com] regarding whether or not a Ms Wendy Seltzer could put that video up on YouTube. A lot of people say that she it is a fair use to do so, since she is doing it for the educational purposes.
But, I wonder, what about everyone ELSE who views the video, outside the educational context?
The greater implication is that, given your statement about c
Re:Riddle me this... (Score:5, Informative)
Now, to answer your question. (To the best of my ability.) And that answer is in the form of a question, "Why did she pick the NFL Legal clip in specific?"
If you consider that question in detail, it should become obvious that the Legal clip shouldn't be copyrightable material. After all, it's a statement of fact. Why can't we share statements of fact? The answer is that we can freely share statements of fact. Copyrights are only provided for creative works. An impassioned speech given on the events of the Revolutionary War would be considered a creative work that derives from factual events. So it's copyrightable, though anyone is free to relate those facts in their own words. On the other hand, a statement of fact document in a legal case is pure fact, and is not a copyrightable work. (Not that such a limitation has stopped lawyers from trying to claim it's creative.)
So looked at as a whole, Ms. Seltzer's act was a very calculated maneuver intended to expose the problems with Viacom's position while simultaneuosly ensuring minimal legal liability. That's why she's the law professor, and I'm just a guy on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose I create a larger work. A piece of this larger work is hosted by YouTube. When the YouTube video is in the context of my larger work, it qualifies under your definition as a fair use. (I realize there are other factors to determine fair use; control for them for a moment)
Now, what about the YouTube video on its own, outside the context of the larger work in which I hav
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, judges can be unpredictable. A judge might agree that
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the key issues that a judge looks at is if the use is necessary to the contested work, and if the contested work shows enough original thought to be considered a separate entity.
True, but that's not the whole story.
Here is the fair use provision in its entirety, as written in Title 17, Section 107 of the US Code:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Judges are instructed by this section to look at all four of the factors, and not just whether the surrounding commentary constitutes an "original work", although that's the most prolific use of fair use (quotations, citations, commentary, criticism, etc.).
I'm not sure whether abandonware can be considered fair use under criterion 4; I would imagine the alleged infringer
Re: (Score:2)
To determine whether or not a use is fair requires the evaluation of the four factors of fair use, which include the purpose of the use, the amount of the work used, the nature of the work used, and the effect on the market. Each of these is equally important (although some will argue that the fourth is more important, the courts seem to be moving away from that viewpoint).
In some cases, the use of the entire work is not infringing. In some cases, th
Examples of Situations (Score:2)
But will they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I naive to believe that someday, some day, the US will have a congress that's for the people?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress is hardly qualified (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright lawyers seem to be on one side or the other of the "bribed by content creators" fence.
The EFF is hardly a nonpartisan source of opinion.
So that leaves the question, who is qualified to make these sort of determinations as to what form copyright laws should take?
A good number of
Re: (Score:2)
I think recent (the last decade) legislation has shown that Congress is hardly qualified to make that kind of determination
Congress has a long history of attempting to give itself powers outside of its jurisdiction such as "Act of 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise" [nytimes.com]. The DMCA is what happens when the SCOTUS doesn't impose those limitations for a century or more [articlev.com].
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yeah, it's true. The EFF is on the side of freedom, which is what this country was supposed to be about. How terrible!
Re: (Score:2)
So would I.
The constitution talks a lot about freedom, and the bill of rights talks about how an enumeration of certain rights should not be taken to exclude other rights, but in practice, any right not explicitly protected will be denied, and "the establishment" will seek to take most of what is left
You're not supposed to say that. (Score:2)
It's become apparent over my short 25 years that asking congress to do anything is worthless, no matter who's in charge, They are like a mini version of the UN, a lot of talk a lot of work, and something might get done a couple years after the first discussion begins.
And you're right about the Copyright lawyers being biased (hell any law they write will be written in such a way that both sides will still be needed for years to come. AKA Active lawyers
Re: (Score:2)
Thankfully, I think this will never happen. Artificial price ceilings (and floors) almost always, if not always, cause a net harm to the economy. A price cap can also cap supply, because once the actual price hits the price cap, increased demand doesn't affect the price. The producer doesn't have as much incentive to increase production capacity, rivals don't have as much incentive to enter the market, so you get artif
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Squeaky wheel gets greased (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Squeaky wheel gets greased (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would the capitalists run crying to when somebody stole their precious "intellectual property" without big government? Hell, intellectual property only exists due to government. Don't be surprised when those with a vested interest spend large amounts time and money trying to bend the law in their favor.
The more laws that exist, the greater the reward for controlling the law. If you want capitalists to have less powerm, have fewer laws not more.
Re: (Score:2)
How is a "common man" supposed to decipher a law that is not based on "common" sense? Laws should be based on common sense, easily interpreted, and not require lawyers to figure out. Let's do away with the entire lawyer profession, it's time to move on and make things better.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope (Score:2)
Everytime someone breaks copyright law, they vote.
If the number of people who complain that congress doesn't work for them actually got involved the laws would change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The big companies get to lobby 24/7 and 365 if they want. Consumers only get to lobby every four years...
What? Consumers (or citizens, as they prefer to be called) lobby all the time. Usually they get together in groups to be heard.
AARP [wikipedia.org]
NAACP [wikipedia.org]
ACLU [wikipedia.org]
Common Cause [wikipedia.org]
Planetary Society [wikipedia.org]
NRA [wikipedia.org]
Free Software Foundation [wikipedia.org]
If group lobbying isn't your style, try the direct [senate.gov] approach [house.gov].
You can have any copyright law you want. (Score:2, Funny)
Already been done; where was he 10yrs ago? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US Constitution is pretty clear about fair use; it's the bribed congress that has allowed intellectual property to become seemingly permanent for the benefit of IP aggregating organizations.
Does it matter that a self-aggregandizing WSJ columnist has now finally also asked for clarity that this is newsworthy? St Walt is going to get all of those lobbyists out of the pockets of Congress? I hardly think so.
Mark me up as flamebait, but he does clarity no great favor by asking for it, especially so late in the game. It's like asking Bush to remove troops from Iraq. The come-lately's have no guts.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you'll find fair use mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
You are looking at statutory or judge-made law.
Politicians vote the interests of their constituents. The Kansan wheat and corn. The Texan oil, gas and cattle.
The information and entertainment industries are important to New York, California, Flor
Re: (Score:2)
Then, if you believe that politicians vote the interests of their constituents, then I'm sorry for your blindness, and hope one day they find a cure for your malady. It really is a miracle that you're able to get slashdot content read to you, what with this handicap slowing you down.
Finally, we don't disagree that the ent
Re: (Score:2)
Be right first or don't bother being right at all.
Feel free to ignore this (Score:2, Insightful)
google logo? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google owns YouTube.
the real villian is not congress (Score:2)
When you watcha DVD there will be an official and clear copyright message, usually follwed by another 'notice' created by the industry.
This creats confusion.
Come on, Walt (Score:5, Interesting)
How frigging naive can you be? The Congress that passed the DMCA without opposition, that passed the "No Electronic Theft Act", the Congress which has been extending the scope and duration of copyright for decades, the Congress which is fully in the pocket of the xxAAs, THAT Congress is going to pass a new copyright law which protects the little guy?
No, Walt, that just ain't going to happen. When the other side suggests that the answer is just to follow the law and if you don't like it, get the law changed, I know that's just gloating over the power they have. When someone who opposes the status quo says it, and it's not credible that they are really that naive, I have to wonder what is going on. Are they so afraid to believe the system is broken that they cling to ineffective measures? At what point, Walt, will you say "To hell with it, the system's broke, raise the Jolly Roger and copy away"? Never? Then you may as well throw your lot in with the xxAAs.
There's FOUR solutions:
1) Suffer loudly. Follow the restrictions and complain about them. Unless you're a major public figure, nobody gives a shit about your complaints, so if you do this, the xxAAs win.
2) Suffer in silence. Follow the restrictions and don't complain about them. This is the xxAAs favorite solution. Equivalent to 1 if you aren't somebody big.
3) Pirate loudly. Violate the restrictions openly and notoriously. Best case, you get what you want but otherwise nothing changes. Worst case, you lose your freedom and your life savings, and your name becomes a word to scare other would-be pirates with -- the xxAAs win with that. And no one who hears about it who matters supports your case -- civil disobedience does not work when the issue is esoteric, and even less so when your opponents are the media.
4) Pirate in silence. Violate the restrictions and try not to get caught. Same outcomes as 3) above, only the worst case is less likely.
The outcome where the copyright laws are changed for the better and those irritating digital restrictions go away? Sorry, that outcome is simply not available. No matter how many times Don Quixtote tilts at the windmill, the windmill still stands. The only way to get rid of the restrictions is self-help, and that means violating the law.
And as for "steal the stuff"? Just because they bought a law doesn't make it "stealing". I'll give them the term "piracy", because everyone knows the difference between piracy on the high seas and copyright violation. But calling it "stealing" isn't intended as metaphor; it's intended to actually blur the distinction.
You Forgot a couple (Score:3, Insightful)
5) Circumvent them by only buying music from independent labels who distribute without DRM or with a creative commons license and watch as the bastards flail helplessly trying to sue you for not breaking any copyrights.
6) Write and perform your own music.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the "let them eat cake" solution. The RIAA would love that... "Don't like the army of restrictions we bought? Then perform the music yourself." (at which point ASCAP steps in and says "Make sure it isn't any of OURS. Or share any notes with ours, for that matter.")
It's not acceptable, any more than it would be for the major carmakers to decide to put restrictions on how you could use your car, and put you in jail if you violated them. "Build your own car" is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there is one more, which I have been engaging in for the better part of ten years now, since I was thirteen:
Do not buy it, do not watch it, do not listen to it. I decided long ago that they could go shovel their shit to someone else. They effectively do not exist to me. I support independent, local, and DIY bands. I only go to local punk or indie shows, and will never pay more than thirty dollars for one. I support my local independent record shop, which (surprise) sti
We already have a very good, precise law (Score:3, Informative)
Larger issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
The summary asks "Why should I have to guess about that?" But this is hardly the only area where statutes on the books are virtually incomprehensible, if they can even be easily accessed, by a nonlawyer.
A quick offtopic example is when my driver's license was suspended, and the judge said it would be suspended for 90 days. Fine. To me, that meant that on day 91, it was no longer suspended, and I could drive. Long story short, I got caught driving on day 92 and arrested for driving on a suspended license -- because I hadn't paid a "reinstatement fee". Now, how was I supposed to know about that? When I posed this question to the court I was told only that "it's the law".
I realize there will always be certain circumstances or specific areas where laws need to get detailed and intense, but for the majority of things the average citizen is going to do, there is a problem if that average citizen cannot comply with the law because he cannot access it or cannot understand it.
fair use is not goverened by percentage (Score:2)
Re:fair use is not governed by percentage (Score:2)
Consider:
- take a 2 minute clip of someone's song / video and work it into a satire*. Fair use? Sure, you say.
- take an 8 second sample from someone else's CD and use it as part of a song your wrote for your own album. Fair use? Hmm maybe not... See Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Brothers Records [wikipedia.org]
Examples like this demonstrate why copyright law is so confusing. Congress needs to put forth some effort
Unfortunately the YouTube Case Has Some Merit (Score:2)
This is unfortunate because there is great
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let us examine this more closely. The "reporter out in the field" has been paid. The program has been paid for. By the advertising placed on the original broadcast of the material.
Since there is little value on old newscasts (do you really want to watch last years news?) EXCEPT to people doing critical analysis (or, in some cases nostalgia), the money MUST have come "up front
Re: (Score:2)
I take it that you learned business in a dotbomb start up. The web site was paid for by the investors, why does the site have to make money? It was already paid for upfront.
Investors who bought that idea lost all of their money.
In the world of writing, a great deal of stuff comes from freelancers. These people throw their
Upfront Payments (Score:2)
It is true that copyright debate is often dominated by the massive firms with gigantic libaries. These people want to protect their powerbase. The debate on copyright needs to be driven y what we want in the future. Of course, there is no future when nothing is do
Get rid of Copyright Law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No copyright? No GPL.
No copyright? You will see zero investment in anything new and the last 20 years endlessly recycled. What is cheaper than cutting together Rocky IV and Independence Day for something really funny? Why
To Congress, It Is About Money, Not Culture (Score:3, Insightful)
The replies have all been to the effect of "we hear your concerns, but media companies are a huge percentage of our (USA) GDP and we won't do anything to hurt that." Which obviously implies "media companies" give us a lot of money and their lobbyists have more ready access to our offices and restaurants and golf courses on Capital Hill than you.
So until it can be shown to our Congress-people that bad copyright laws (from the POV of the citizen) and legally unbreakable DRM costs more money than the alternative we're stuck with it.
This isn't about "fair use" (Score:2)
Unfortunately, what is more likely to come out of congress is tougher laws to "educate" people about copyright restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, do we want a "culture of mixups" or a culture of creativity? While I might think it the height of humor and artistry to take a well-known song and combine it with a silly video does this not affect the original creator?
I see the "culture of mixups" as a path of laziness and sloth. People "bor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who never produced anything creative. All art (well, all anything) is based on something "borrowed". If I make a scifi movie, I am going to be borrow from all past scifi, even if I don't directly make a ship called enterprise commanded by a bald guy who likes Shakespeare. You would find it very hard to make something without "borrowing"
copyright may stifle creativity (Score:2)
Some ideas:
1) Unless the author explicitly claims copyright, the work should be public domain
2) A work should enter into public domain a fixed number of years after first publication
Reg. 1: Creative
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
They sure as hell were gonna make sure that's clear as crystal.
Your content, your rules?? Within limits (Score:5, Insightful)
I can parody it.
I can use it in satire.
I can use it, with limits, for educational purposes.
In some cases I can make backups.
If I've purchased it on a media and never broken the seal, I can usually resell it under the doctrine of first sale. In some cases, such as a book, this applies even after I've read the book.
I can wait for the copyright to expire and do pretty much whatever I want with it.
I've left a few things off the list, researching copyright law is left as an exercise to the reader.
Why the hell should the government... (Score:2, Interesting)
it has nothing to do with your intrinsic rights. it's about net worth to society. in theory, you're more likely to create since you're more likely to author something original.
in reality - if congress limited copyright protection to 5 years - producers would still profit enough to keep producing. and more importantly - those ideas could get reused faster. ie, higher networth to society.
you as an individual don't mean jack.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Where to start?
Your model of "content", as something some people produce and other people consume, is nonsense. Art and science build on previous art and science, and feed on the store of public domain knowledge and "content". Lock all "content" away indefinitely, and the producers suffer.
It isn't based on Constitutional law, either. The Constitution permits Congress to set up temporary monopolies for the purpose of encouraging people to do things. A copyright law explicitly on the basis of "my con
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the hell should the consumers get any right to content I create?
Why the hell should YOU get any right to the content you create?
In the USA, copyright is a social contract which is intended to promote content creation -- by providing a profit motive -- so that the rest of us can then beneficially consume it. In short, in the USA, copyright exists at the pleasure of the people. If at any time the costs associated with copyright outweigh the benefits derived from it, it is the people's right to abolish it altogether.
In the USA, anyway, copyright is a privilege, its poor
Re:My content, my rules (Score:5, Informative)
Compare to a natural right; you cannot sell or purchase the right to free speech. Similarly, the government cannot take it away because it does not grant it.
The Constituion is pretty clear. It grants the Congress the ability to create copyright. Congress grants you that privilege, in exchange for it being public sometime later.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even more to the point, "It grants the Congress the ability to create copyright for a specific purpose, that is 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts'". A strict reading might even suggest that copyright on works of creative arts (is a sitcom a "useful art"?) is unconstitutional. The constitution only mentions "authors and inventors", not artists, musicians, poets or art
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you choose to share that idea with somebody else, then you are either explicitly or implicitly assigning rights to that person. Perhaps you have an explicit contract with that person specifying what they can do with your idea. If so, then that contract is binding. Copyright law can be thought of as the default license agreement for content if you do not have an explicit contract with the consumer. You can
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Because society as a whole benefits from the wide distribution of ideas,
2) Because your work relies, in its turn, on concepts and ideas created by others. Every creative act relies on other people's works and ideas to one degree or another.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respec
Re:My content, my rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, once your "content" is displayed/performed/exposed, you can't take it back. Therein lies the biggest motivation for the whole of copyright legislation. Without it, we as a society would end up being a bunch of information hoarders. There would be no open exchange of ideas. There would be no derivative works. Information would be exchanged under contract and NDA between interested parties. There would become a horrible social rift between the information-haves and the information-have-nots.
Copyright is a contract between you, the content producer, and "we the people." In exchange for a short-term monopoly, complete with "force of law" coverage, you agree to contribute said production to the "we the people" at the end of the term. During the short-term monopoly, it's up to you to make a buck (or not.) There's no guarantee of profits. You aren't entitled to anything other than fair treatment under the law.
Unfortunately, the **AA and their ilk are in material breach of this contract. Many works should have entered the public domain by now, but through lobbying and outright bribery, the content distribution cartels have stolen that content from the people. And yes, "stolen" is the correct word to use here, because I am deprived of access to the content. I've also paid taxes supporting the copyright enforcement during the term of the original agreement, so I'm out financially as well.
Finally, you're not obligated to participate in the copyright program. You're welcome to hoard information in your vault. You're also welcome to produce a work that is contributed directly into the public domain without restriction. You shouldn't expect compensation in either case. The current crop of content dstributors seem to think that they're entitled to something. They're not.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a world of difference between content producers/distributors and content creators. And the content distributors are IMHO much more of a leech on society than people who pirate content without paying for it. At least the pirates are being honest about what they are doing (well... sort of).
Classic example: Billy Joel [wikipedia.org]. Note especially the "Piano Man" album of his. He was locked into an exclusive contract that prohibited him from being able to perform commer