What do basically all of these groups have in common? They either a) provide products or services that will be mandated by the Act or b) lobby/represent those companies. This isn't proof that we do or don't need some sort of cybersecurity legislation, but it sheds some light on why "everyone" supports it - "everyone" stands to increase budgets or make money.
Same story for the hearings in February. You have DHS (wins the turf war under the CSA12), Stewart Baker (works for law firm that will get tons of work under the Act), Microsoft (will get tons of money securing networks), Tom Ridge (on behalf of US Chamber of Commerce).
I was there and saw the talk. There was a lot of what she said that I disagree with, but the linked article badly misinterpreted what she said.
What Shira was referring to was the fact that while your Cable internet account may be cut off, you are not banned from using work, library, internet cafe, iphone, etc... "Account" means "internet service account" not "user account on a PC".
It is important to be accurate when discrediting the RIAA and IFPI - they say plenty that makes no sense. Getting what they say wrong makes the actually silly stuff they say harder to successfully fight.
Harry Fox, here we come. Yes, the songs would be based off of copyrighted works, but compulsory licensing for "covers" have been around since the 1909 Act.
To me, this is an "electronic cover" and would cost whoever made such recreations about $.09/copy. Not free but certainly manageable if you wanted to use the system to release "concerts" by known artists.
There are 2 copyrights usually at issue with songs- the melody/lyrics/etc.. (song writer) and the sound recording made and distributed (record company).
This would likely not infringe the sound recording copyrights of record companies. Record execs would likely fight this vigorously and if needed get Congress to step in to "save the children", but as the Copyright Act is written if you re-create a song rather than copy it, you are in the clear with regards to the record companies. You still need to clear the song writer copyright though - which is where Harry Fox Agency comes in.
Another example of why the 19th century approach we take to copyright makes no sense.
Incidentally, the argument Mike references fails because it just grows copies. So the "copy" becomes, say, the collective RAM of 25 routers and switches. But it is still a copy. The problem is that courts have interpreted "fixed" _really_ loosely to include any fixation for any amount of time, even if transient. Of course, nowhere else in law or common sense does "fixed" include momentary, intentionally transient positions. If Shaq is running and Ming runs into him charging down the lane, it is not charging because Shaq's location is not fixed.
Not true - Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings the 2nd circuit said a 1.2 second duration in a buffer is of "transient duration" and not fixed.
The main problem here is that copyright is being applied with a 19th century solution to 21st century problems. "Copies" are not how we should be thinking about digital manifestations of works.
Data is duplicated every time it is accessed - that's just how computers work. We should be thinking about copyright in terms of access or another concept that is not tied to physical distribution of a physical good. Until then we will have endless problems trying to apply copyright law to the digital world that will result in judicial fictions and band-aid approaches that get in the way and help no one.
Why the rush? Simple: $$
What do basically all of these groups have in common? They either a) provide products or services that will be mandated by the Act or b) lobby/represent those companies. This isn't proof that we do or don't need some sort of cybersecurity legislation, but it sheds some light on why "everyone" supports it - "everyone" stands to increase budgets or make money.
Same story for the hearings in February. You have DHS (wins the turf war under the CSA12), Stewart Baker (works for law firm that will get tons of work under the Act), Microsoft (will get tons of money securing networks), Tom Ridge (on behalf of US Chamber of Commerce).
That isn't an accurate representation of what she said
What Shira was referring to was the fact that while your Cable internet account may be cut off, you are not banned from using work, library, internet cafe, iphone, etc... "Account" means "internet service account" not "user account on a PC".
It is important to be accurate when discrediting the RIAA and IFPI - they say plenty that makes no sense. Getting what they say wrong makes the actually silly stuff they say harder to successfully fight.
Good ol' compulsory license
To me, this is an "electronic cover" and would cost whoever made such recreations about $.09/copy. Not free but certainly manageable if you wanted to use the system to release "concerts" by known artists.
There are 2 copyrights usually at issue with songs- the melody/lyrics/etc.. (song writer) and the sound recording made and distributed (record company).
This would likely not infringe the sound recording copyrights of record companies. Record execs would likely fight this vigorously and if needed get Congress to step in to "save the children", but as the Copyright Act is written if you re-create a song rather than copy it, you are in the clear with regards to the record companies. You still need to clear the song writer copyright though - which is where Harry Fox Agency comes in.
Another example of why the 19th century approach we take to copyright makes no sense.
Re: Re: Copies
AndyB’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt