Some Thoughts on Copyright

[JoeHill]

Stephen wrote: 

> The copyright debate has been interesting, but clearly polarized. Most 
> here are on the “fair use” side.

Haven't noticed much polarization myself...biggest disagreement I've seen so
far was regarding the playability of 78 RPM discs :-D

> But what, really, is fair use?
> 
> On a mailing list I subscribe to, someone posted a link to a video on 
> You tube. The video was made by someone who took slices of Star Trek 
> video and put them in a sequence that went well with a Jefferson 
> Airplane song, White Rabbit.
> 
> I posted that this was a violation of copyright, but the OP claimed it 
> was “fair use” and posted a link to a definition of fair use.
> 
> I called them on it, quoting from the site they linked to. Fair use is 
> limited to using small portions of a copyrighted work, for the purpose 
> of a review and other specific uses.

This has nothing to do with what fair use advocates on here have been
discussing. It may or may not fall under the fair use provisions to do with
satirical works, but that's for a lawyer or judge to decide.

> When I was in university, 35 years ago, we were given a photocopy of a 
> book. And not a text book.
> 
> Is that considered “fair use”?

Nnnnnnnnno. And I don't think anyone on here would say it was. That sounds
like a pretty clear violation, unless special permission was given.

Making a copy of a DVD I own to play on my iPod is a lot different than making
a copy of a textbook to pass out to 30 other people.
 
> Many people have the opinion that if they buy something, they have the 
> right to use what they buy in any way that they please.

That's not what fair use advocates are saying at all. Fair use means fair use,
ie. within reasonable boundaries. No one on here, or anywhere that I have seen,
has ever argued that fair use means 'any way that they please'.

I think that the examples that people have written about on here are pretty
clear cut. If I own a song or CD, I think it is _ridiculous_ for someone to
argue that I should have to pay for three copies of said song so I can play it
in my car, on my iPod, and in my CD player. It's just really stupid.

> Now, I am a serious photographer. I hope to someday sell my photographs. 
> Would a buyer of one of my photographs have the “right” to scan the 
> photograph into digital form, and do some digital manipulation to it, 
> then post it to a web site?
> 
> I have sold the photograph. I have retained copyright.
> 
> Does the buyer have the “right” to make a “backup” copy of the photograph?

Of course. Why would you want to stop him/her? They want to look at your photo,
that's it. What's the damage, you want them to pay for each time they put the
photo in a different device...or frame? ;)

I had a thought today, and perhaps it's a bit too much hyperbole, but it goes
something like this:

Artists should be more concerned with how many people _enjoy_ their work than
with how many pay for it. If enough people enjoy your work your success is
guaranteed.

Also, I think it's important to remember why this bill, and this issue, are so
important _specifically_ to the members of this list: the provisions in this
bill to do with circumvention of DRM schemes run completely counter to the
spirit and mechanics of open source software, and should be resisted with all
due force. DRM is nothing more than an assault on free speech and creativity,
to protect the banal and destructive status quo that would see us all as
consumers of Brittany Spears and Microsoft, and should never, ever, be codified
into any law.

-- 
JoeHill
++++++++++++++++++++
Bender: Oh... your... God.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20080827/f1df11b0/attachment.sig>