How The Monkeys & Copyright Debate Explains Why Congress Shouldn't Rush To Approve PROTECT IP
from the it's-not-that-simple dept
This week's episode of WNYC's On the Media might interest a bunch of you (though, hopefully most of you already listen to the show). First off, it has two of my favorite tech/legal commentators on other segments -- Joe Mullin on Righthaven's self destruction and Tim Lee on the "six strikes" agreement (which I still argue is more properly labeled "five strikes," but no one else agrees). And then (blatant self promotion) it has a short segment with me talking about why PROTECT IP is bad news... in which host Bob Garfield does a nice job bringing the story back around to the monkeys and their copyright woes.The key point that we discuss is that, contrary to what some supporters of PROTECT IP would have you believe, determining what is, definitively, infringing is not as easy as they believe. They keep saying not to worry about PROTECT IP because it "only" applies to "rogue sites," or "sites dedicated to infringing activities." But all of that presumes it's easy to define what is a rogue site. But it's not. And that's proved by the fact that the list of "sites dedicated to infringing activities" put together by WPP/GroupM, with help from Universal Music, Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros., includes tons of perfectly legitimate sites, including the Internet Archive, Vimeo, Vibe Magazine and a bunch of hip hop blogs. It also includes 50 Cent's personal website... even though he's a Universal Music artist!
It's further highlighted by a stroll through history, and a look at the list of things the industry has previously declared as infringing, including the player piano, radio, the photocopier, cable TV, the VCR, cassette tapes, the DVR, the mp3 player and YouTube, among many other things. Frankly, the industry has a dismally poor track record in figuring out what's really dedicated to infringing activities and separating that from what's the next major platform for growth.
And where do the monkeys fit into all of this? Well, as Bob Garfield pointed out, it's this kind of confusion over copyright law, where some people insist that it's simple to understand this stuff, that leads to bad, overly-generalized legislation like PROTECT IP. Either that, or he was making a comment about the simian nature of our elected officials. Or maybe both. Either way, if you want to take a listen, get the podcast here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, copyright, monkeys, protect ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We cannot possibly comprehend the sheer number of innocent laser printers that will be disconnected from the internet after only their third or fourth strike, because they unfortunately will not be capable of completing the required course/presentation on copyright that kicks in around that point in order to get back onto the internet.
This will be far more punishing to the laser printers than it will be for us.
Won't somebody think of the laser printers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But she's in a bad mood....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure. I'd think it'd have to be at least a hundred million spacebucks, but with all the inflation due to oxygen being scarce, who can tell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice Interview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice Interview
Thanks!
One small clarification, btw, PRO IP was the last act, approved a few years ago. This one is PROTECT IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no podcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no podcast
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715
if you hatez teh apples im sure you can find others with a little poking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
Again, I'm only pointing out the obvious and inevitable trend.
As to the monkeys, all that remains certain is that Mike didn't make it, therefore has no right to use it. Didn't just pop out of thin air into the public domain. Says nothing who does "own" the image: my point is that Mike grabs onto it to for his own interests, and that's objectionable in itself. -- Maybe you guys would understand the principle if you'd ever actually produced anything that others wanted to steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
The monkeys?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
Actually, no. That'd be a far easier problem to deal with, actually, if ProtectIP just blatantly ramped up the draconian measures on copyright and counterfeits. What it does instead, and this is the sneaky part, is ramp up the punishments specifically, while leaving the suspected parties ambiguous and open to interpretation. The reason for all this is clear: get the bill passed then overuse it in ways you told everyone it wouldn't be. It isn't a bug, it's a feature....
"As to the monkeys, all that remains certain is that Mike didn't make it, therefore has no right to use it."
No, but that statement alone DOES make one thing certain, and that's that you don't understand what Fair Use is or how it works. Fair Use is codified law providing for the use of things that one does not make or even own the copyright on. And that's how it should be, for purposes of commentary, parody etc.
Look, I know we've gone back and forth on each other here, but I'd be happier if you were a productive member of the site. To do that, you've got to have at least a basic understanding of this stuff, and making blanket statements like the one above are just REALLY wrong....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
No, but that statement alone DOES make one thing certain, and that's that you don't understand what Fair Use is or how it works.
Two things actually - he doen't understand the rules about which types of work are eligible for copyright and which go straight to the public domain either...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
Who is "you guys"?
This is a nonsense statement. You claim to know the identity of every person reading your comment, everything they've every produced, and that no one would want to steal any of the products that you don't know what they are made by the people that you don't know who they are.
Congratulations, you're winner!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
Yes. It did. That's how non-human creation of works takes place. The fact that you can't fathom it is, frankly, troubling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
As to the monkeys, all that remains certain is that Mike didn't make it, therefore has no right to use it.
It's becoming obvious that there is no such thing as fair use on your planet. I am beginning to wonder if there is oxygen.
Didn't just pop out of thin air into the public domain.
Um, based on all the logical arguments I have read on this, yes, that is basically what did happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
Sorry - that's pretty much exactly what it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
Well if that isn't arrogant presumption, I don't know what is. Apparently you're saying that anybody who disagrees with you cannot possibly be in a position to know.
I write software for a living. Nothing you'd be interested in, but it is a creative endeavor and I get paid for it and it is protected under Copyright law. My boss would be very unhappy if our competitors were to start selling products based on my code without paying for it.
It's been a while, but used to be I'd write as a hobby, too. Most of the stuff I explicitly gave away as Public Domain. Note: If I give something away as Public Domain, you are allowed to use it, without limitation, for profit or not as you choose, without permission and without owning the copyright.
There's some code up on my blog that people are allowed to copy and use. (You wouldn't be interested in that either, probably.) It took me a lot of time and effort to get it working. I think I kept the copyright on that but all I ask is that I get credit for my work. Even if it's just in the source code. I figured, hey, if I put that much work into it, somebody should get some use out of it. Next time somebody wants a bitwise divide function in assembly for a PIC16 micro, a web search should turn it up.
I'd rather give it away than throw it away.
"Mike grabs onto it to for his own interests, and that's objectionable in itself."
Since the photos are in the Public Domain, it's not. Even if they are under copyright, Mike's use of them is covered under Fair Use. So far I haven't seen a cogent argument for them being under copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
you know that computer you're one?you didn't make it so you have no right be using it right now, get off it and stop trolling this blog you didn't make either nor have rights to and wasting the bandwidth you also didn't make and no rights to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
sorry, you don't have a profile, could you link to your site? i'd like to see if anything you've produced is worth stealing...err, pirating... uh, infringing? copying without consent.
whatever it is called these days.
oh and steal my stuff and pass it around, please. i didn't write it so it would be lost in a drawer and never seen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, logically, PROTECT IP should resolve these ambiguities,
By your definition, You're using words...Did you create them? No. Why are you using them without permission then?
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Each of the cases cited in the article here come with a reasonable explanation. Obviously, piling them all together and acting like the represent a large majority of the copyright field (rather than a very small number of cases on the very edge of the law, contract law, etc) is probably good for getting the choir to yell "hell yeah", but makes the rest of us guffaw.
I personally hope the monkey kicks your legal ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, you sure can make a monkey of this site with such a great grasp on reality and technology with your assertions!
A banana for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But that can't happen now, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nothing worth stealing
True I didn't make it, but I did work for the money that I spent to pay for it. I keep it nice and clean and ( I presume) Attractive. I even locked it up. they cut the lock off and stole it. even the lock. (I rode it to work daily, ya know to keep in shape and not molest the environment)My Boss was pissed when he found it it was stolen. I (again presumed) "they" needed it more then I did, I walked to work the next day. My Boss replaced the bike and upgraded it. My 60$ bike is now a 100$ bike, I lock it in the back now. I did not scream at other bike riders, I did not demand all other bike riders pay me to ride their bikes. I didn't even get upset. Funny how when "things" and Money" are not the main focus of life how nice it really can be, I still and have always smiled all day at work. I take care of sick people all day, some die, some get better and go home. Funny how nice life can be when you are not "out to get" the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PROTECT IP will cut off access to affordable meds
Over a million Americans depend on safe, online international pharmacies to access their needed medications at affordable prices. PROTECT IP could cut off this virtual lifeline. For this reason, the RxRights Coalition is encouraging consumers to send letters to President Obama and Congress urging them to state their opposition to the PROTECT IP Act. For more information or to voice your concern, visit www.RxRights.org.
Lee Graczyk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where exactly do you think "most of us" live that would put "most of us" inside the reception footprint of WNYC?
I, for one, can't ever recall running across that station on my car's dial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]