You favour the little guy having his day in court when his claim is frivolous? Are you against laws that protect us from vexatious litigation? Laws that allow for costs and fees against frivolous claims? Summary judgment? Malicious prosecution laws?
If so, then, you're what one might call "litigious." In other words, you think that court is the best place to bring any and all arguments, often without vetting them in advance. You're also what the rest of the world considers a drain on the system--you would cost defendants in meritless lawsuits money, and also drain the public fisc that pays for these suits.
Just because someone is relatively smaller than his adversary in a given dispute does not automatically confer laudable "little-guy" status on him. For that, he has to also have justice favoring him.
There are groups and courses (which may have been discussed here previously, so forgive me if I'm duplicating) dedicated to establishing best practices for educators and researchers who want to stay on the right side of copyright law by ensuring that their uses are fair. Some good links are:
I know that, on its face, this thing looks like it's giving rights to every performer in everything that could be argued a performance. And I know that there's no precedent for things like this being implemented in a restrained fashion. But I'm going out on a limb here and am going to argue that the rights this thing is concerned with are live music, with perhaps a nod to live theater just to keep this all heady. I mean, right, though? Isn't this whole thing to stop (1) concert-goers from using their phones to record concert footage of Katy Perry and (2) then send it to their friends? That seems like the root and really the whole of it to me. I'm way less worried about some chick from a party suing me because she's dancing in the corner of a video I post. There are things that concern me and things that don't--and that one don't.
What do concern me, though, is the idea that one of the very few absolute requirements for a work to be protectible by copyright is being eaten by this proposal--fixation. The paradigmatic examples of works not covered by copyright for lack of fixation--improvisational dance, a speech not written down--these things would now be covered by this proposal and exclusive rights given to and regarding unfixed expressions. Coming next--no need for expression:
"The haver of an idea shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing, as regards the idea: (i) the broadcasting and communication to the public of the idea, except where the idea has already been fixed in a tangible medium of expression; and (ii) the fixation of that idea in a tangible medium of expression."
Utter fail. And, in fact, check out any litigation with the name "Lego" in it and you'll see your failure. Lego has won 300 of 301 UDRP proceedings against URLs using the word "Lego," despite many of those being accurate descriptions of hose sites' contents and not infringing trademark uses. But I digress into trademark. Only fair, since you folded in patents without saying so.
But to back up, your use of "exact" is wrong: copyright reserves not only the making of exact copies to the holder, but also to the making of "derivative works"--in other words, works that incorporate the original in some way. Do you know the "Air Pirates" case? Check it out. I actually think you know this stuff, but are playing dumb--that you're trying to paint a happier face on your side of things than it deserves.
And to go with your building/bricks analogy: when your "building" is a song, and your "bricks" are, let's say, short sequences of notes--unavoidable in the making of a song, usually--then do you still rely on your imaginary copyright scholar to say you're safe using those "bricks?" How many notes equals a brick?
Please don't try to oversimplify to make kids pet the bear. It's a bear.
Man, I almost fell for this one. Ok, actually, I'm going to go ahead and fall for it. How about this: the courts also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott. The courts gave us Bush v. Gore. The courts gave us Citizens United. The courts gave us all sorts of wonderful case law. But check it out: fair use is not a court-made doctrine: it's codified federal law. You know: the kind that our elected representatives make? The courts are not a legislative body, and while they may have a large impact on IP law, 17 USC Sec. 107 exists--oh, and those courts you love have read "transformative" right into it. So...transformative use isn't exactly my "argument," mate. It's the law.
And I'm sorry you hate the idea of having people who know what they're doing pass on a given topic for the benefit of the Constitution--it seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me.
I know, I know: I got trolled. But it was worth it.
YOu were sampled by Young MC? Whoa--who are you? See, here's something kind of worth noting. You felt the need to mention someone famous to bolster your own self here. Chances are i have no idea who you are. Last time I saw Young MC, he was the act in "Contagion" at the corporate-event scene. So...yeah...certain things run their course and then they're resuscitated by someone in a new and transformative way. Like Young MC sampling your work--whoever you are. Hey, look at it this way: Young MC probably got paid for his appearance in Contagion--why don't you try something like that if you need some money? While you're doing that, I'm going to go ahead and finish my mashup of "Bust a Move" and "Milkshake," and I'm not going to pay anyone a fucking cent.
Why does the phrase "transformative use" almost never get brought up in this context? It's dead-up under the "Purpose and Character of The Use" prong of a fair use defense, and yet it's almost always only alluded to with words like "mashup" that limit it. A mashup is only one kind of sampling. And legal sampling is when the new use is transformative--that is, it creates an entirely new work from the use of the old one.
When you listen to Paul's Boutique, do you laugh when you hear a particular sample? Well, then, why don't you laugh when you hear the full-length song featuring that snippet? Because it's DIFFERENT in the new context, that's why: it's been TRANSFORMED. If you're playing someone else's music just to play it, that's not transformative. If you're sampling, that's transformative. If you can't come up with your own hook and need someone else's to make your track any good, that's not transformative. If you're creating a collage with your work and the work of others, that's transformative. And what do we need now?
People who are skilled in the art to pass on whether a use qualifies. You know: just like in patent law, where we allow people who at least theoretically know what they're talking about to make determinations? What a concept--actually pinning this stuff down and allowing allowable use so that the Constitution's justification for these laws is upheld.
On the post: Author Discovers Assassin's Creed Uses Same Cliche'd SciFi Trope As His Book... Sues For Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If so, then, you're what one might call "litigious." In other words, you think that court is the best place to bring any and all arguments, often without vetting them in advance. You're also what the rest of the world considers a drain on the system--you would cost defendants in meritless lawsuits money, and also drain the public fisc that pays for these suits.
Just because someone is relatively smaller than his adversary in a given dispute does not automatically confer laudable "little-guy" status on him. For that, he has to also have justice favoring him.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Reclaiming fair use
http://www.ithaca.edu/looksharp/
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/related-mat erials/codes/code-best-practices-fair-use-media-literacy-education
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Just Won't Quit: Pushing New Monopoly Rights For Performers Through Sneaky Treaty Agreement
Not sure your read of this proposal is right.
What do concern me, though, is the idea that one of the very few absolute requirements for a work to be protectible by copyright is being eaten by this proposal--fixation. The paradigmatic examples of works not covered by copyright for lack of fixation--improvisational dance, a speech not written down--these things would now be covered by this proposal and exclusive rights given to and regarding unfixed expressions. Coming next--no need for expression:
"The haver of an idea shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing, as regards the idea: (i) the broadcasting and communication to the public of the idea, except where the idea has already been fixed in a tangible medium of expression; and (ii) the fixation of that idea in a tangible medium of expression."
On the post: Copyright Maximalists Just Won't Quit: Pushing New Monopoly Rights For Performers Through Sneaky Treaty Agreement
Re: Re: Re: One more time
But to back up, your use of "exact" is wrong: copyright reserves not only the making of exact copies to the holder, but also to the making of "derivative works"--in other words, works that incorporate the original in some way. Do you know the "Air Pirates" case? Check it out. I actually think you know this stuff, but are playing dumb--that you're trying to paint a happier face on your side of things than it deserves.
And to go with your building/bricks analogy: when your "building" is a song, and your "bricks" are, let's say, short sequences of notes--unavoidable in the making of a song, usually--then do you still rely on your imaginary copyright scholar to say you're safe using those "bricks?" How many notes equals a brick?
Please don't try to oversimplify to make kids pet the bear. It's a bear.
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?
And I'm sorry you hate the idea of having people who know what they're doing pass on a given topic for the benefit of the Constitution--it seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me.
I know, I know: I got trolled. But it was worth it.
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?
Transformative, anyone...?
When you listen to Paul's Boutique, do you laugh when you hear a particular sample? Well, then, why don't you laugh when you hear the full-length song featuring that snippet? Because it's DIFFERENT in the new context, that's why: it's been TRANSFORMED. If you're playing someone else's music just to play it, that's not transformative. If you're sampling, that's transformative. If you can't come up with your own hook and need someone else's to make your track any good, that's not transformative. If you're creating a collage with your work and the work of others, that's transformative. And what do we need now?
People who are skilled in the art to pass on whether a use qualifies. You know: just like in patent law, where we allow people who at least theoretically know what they're talking about to make determinations? What a concept--actually pinning this stuff down and allowing allowable use so that the Constitution's justification for these laws is upheld.
On the post: Gene Weingarten Shows How To Respond To Bogus Trademark Threats: Stetson(R) Hats Suck
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Patent Troll Lodsys: All We Want Is 0.575% Of The Entire Mobile In-App Payment Ecosystem, Is That So Wrong?
sadly...
Next >>