Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nobody]

"You are of course entitled to your opinion of Justice Scalia which I do not share. Killing living creatures for  fun and preaching compassionate fascisim from the bench does not fall into my definition of good."

I wanted to avoid getting political, but as I see it, only a socialist would call Scalia a fascist ;-)

http://www.tfp.org/what_we_think/fascism.html

The feeling I get from your posts is that you would like to expunge ALL fair use, and right of first sale -- all use of copyrighted material beyond what you would explicitly authorize. This is what shrink-wrap licenses together with DMCA do. Greedy. Egomaniacal.

Btw socialists usually side with state's rights over individual rights. The IRS can take my wages. The state can take my physical property in the name of immanent domain. Why should the government not be able to put limits on your exclusive rights to your intellectual property?

Remember that it was Congressional Republicans, and Scalia's Supreme Court, who extended copyright protection for you.

As for hunters, as I said, I'm not one, but animals are treated much more inhumanely in other areas of our society. Remember that, the next time you choose to accept an animal-tested prescription from your M.D., put on a pair of shoes, or have that next outdoor barbeque.

*In full disclosure, I am probably one of the more animal-compassionate people around, particularly of my political ideology, but I, unlike you, must stop short of calling Scalia evil (the opposite of good) simply because he hunts. I didn't know he did until you brought it up. People are raised in different environments. I am sure he doesn't do it out of cruelty or anger.

[nobody]

"particularly of my political ideology"

Upon re-reading my statement, that isn't really accurate. There are hunters in both parties. There are cruel people in both parties. Whether or not anyone believes hunting is cruel, I am not endorsing it, just offering perspective. I am not encouraging cruelty either way.

[Isaac]

In the US at least, fair use does include in some cases the right to make complete copies of works.  For example taping of over the air video programming for the purposes of time shifting was found by the Supreme Court to be non infringing use justifying the manufacture and sale of video recording machines.

Also there seems little dispute that shifting of the physical media for music (for example downloading CD tracks into an mp3 player) is viewed as fair use.  More than likely in the US ripping vinly records to a computer for non commercia, personal use is fair use.

Not to mention the Audio Home Recording Act which authorizes all personal use analog copying of music and at least some digital copying using royalty paid media or digital recorders.

All of that is to say that copyright law (in at least some countries) allows a significant amount of verbatim complete copying.  DRM is not the black and white issue that some try to paint or that some would rather that it were.  I agree that the ease and accuracy of digital copying does tilt the balance towards the infringers, but IMO the DMCA and the matching provisions in the EUCD go to far in the opposite direction.

[eric stasik]

dear nobody,

i missed your comments. i will reply in two posts due to the length of my response.

1. socialists

socialists are not big believers in private property. the taxes i pay in my adopted home are a constant reminder of this.

i should like to point out that i am an american citizen and a nominal republican who has watched with horror at what the current batch of so-called republicans has done to the grand old party and to the country i love.

the voting rights act ensured black americans had the right to vote, but unfortunately it did not guarantee that these votes would be counted. 180,000 votes from majority minority districts in florida were not counted in the 2000 election. justice scalia - whom you obviously admire - made sure these votes never got counted so his duck hunting buddy could take over the reigns of power by a margin of 527 votes in a single florida district.

remember it was josef stalin who said “i don’t care who votes as long as i get to do the counting.”

no, i do not admire justice scalia.

and i am not either an admirer of Republican politics even if we may agree on some aspects of copyright. i don't quite agree with the Sonny Bono extensions, and the non-subpoena aspects of the DMCA are troubling - but compared to lying about WMDs, starting a war that America didn't need to fight, and creating massive deficits these are minor issues.

i live in sweden despite a political system which i do not support. there is more to life than money and politics. as i look upon the sun's evening rays illuminating the clouds that hang in the cobalt blue midnight skies above my home in stockholm i could care less about wealth. bill gates - who looks out over the traffic on the I-90 floating bridge - doesn't have anything i want.

if these views make me a socialist in your eyes, then so be it. :-)

more to follow.

[eric stasik]

part two.

2) fair use

i am a supporter of private property. i believe inventors and authors have a right to their inventions and original creations. i oppose fair use rules that would effectively rob these people of their creations.

fair use extremists who claim rights to make exact copies of digital works expose inventors and authors to enormous risks that jeopardize their right to own that which they created.

an analog tape copy of a CD is fair use. it allows you to play the music in your car, but the substandard tape copy does not undermine the value of the CD.

a photocopy of a page of a book is fair use. it allows the public access to printed works without undermining the value of the printed bound book.

mr. clark i have no problem with laws you mentioned that permit analog copies. DRM does not prevent anyone from making analog copies of digital works.

what DRM does do is prevent someone from making a digital copy of a digital work.

making an exact digital copy of a CD is not fair use. when i can download and burn a copy of a CD that has the exact same sound quality as the one sold in the stores, i don't need to buy one.

making exact digital copies undermines the value of an artist's digital product. it not only undermines the value, it renders the artist's work completely worthless to him.

fair use according to nobody's definition takes private property away from inventors and authors. fair use as nobody would like to see it forces artists to donate the fruits of the labors to public use without compensation.

nobody's idea of fair use values the rights of the masses over the rights of the individual. it destroys private property in the name of the greater good.

this, my friend, is socialism.

nobody, has it occured to you that there is a reason why the free culture movement is vigorously supported by the far left? it's not about free culture - it is about the culture of free.  

i oppose it and i will continue to oppose it.

ms. fisher has a right to protect her ownership of her creations. anyone who wants to use fair use arguments to take from ms fisher what is rightfully and legally hers will have to go through my arguments first.

someone has to stand up for authors, artists and inventors or they will become as rare as honest republicans.

/rant

kind regards,

eric stasik

[Isaac]

part two.

2) fair use

i am a supporter of private property. i believe inventors and authors have a right to their inventions and original creations. i oppose fair use rules that would effectively rob these people of their creations.

fair use extremists who claim rights to make exact copies of digital works expose inventors and authors to enormous risks that jeopardize their right to own that which they created.

an analog tape copy of a CD is fair use. it allows you to play the music in your car, but the substandard tape copy does not undermine the value of the CD.

a photocopy of a page of a book is fair use. it allows the public access to printed works without undermining the value of the printed bound book.

mr. clark i have no problem with laws you mentioned that permit analog copies. DRM does not prevent anyone from making analog copies of digital works.


/rant

kind regards,

eric stasik

Fair enough.  I simply meant to point out a couple of places where your opinion of what the law is was not correct.   Exact digital copies made with AHRA compliant machines are allowed by law in the US even though strictly speaking they should not be considered fair use.  They are instead copies for which by statute no infringement action can be brought.  There are other digital copies that are allowed by law as well including backup copies of software (see 17 USC 117).   The Diamond Rio court opinion suggests that digital downloading of music into mp3 players is fair use.

As you correctly point out, fair use and other legitimate digital copies do create the possibility for abuse of the works of artists and authors.  The same is also true for analog copies to only a slightly lesser extent.  But that negative consequence happens only when fair use provisions are abused.  Copying a CD you have purchased so that you can play it in your car without risking damaging does not deprive the creator of a sale, but giving the copy to a friend does.  But then so does selling the original at a used CD store.   Sure we could change the law so that used copies of books and music cannot be sold or loaned out by public libraries, but is that the proper place to attack the problem?   Not in my opinion.

I respect your well reasoned opinion about what the law should be, but I disagree with it.  I certainly don't believe that artists should be prohibited from using DRM (except in the of the RIAA which negotiated the AHRA royalty fees in exchange for allowing copying).  However, I don't feel that preventing all fair use copying in order to get at the illegal non fair use copying is the way to go.

I also think it does artists a disservice to pretend that possible negative reaction to copy protection does not exists except in the minds of thieves and infringers.

[eric stasik]

Mr. Clark,

"Copying a CD you have purchased so that you can play it in your car without risking damaging does not deprive the creator of a sale, but giving the copy to a friend does."

No one ever argued that they had the right to play vinyl albums on the 8-track in their car, yet this is exactly what you want to do with CDs - make an exact copy of the product that you bought.

I believe that the risk that this exposes the copyright owner to trumps any right of fair use.

The thing is this - when you buy a CD you are not buying the content - you are buying an expression of the content. That is, you are paying for the encoded disk - not the underlying music. Your purhase gives you  no right to the content - only to the expression.

Similarly, when you bought a vinyl album you did not pay for the rights to the master.

What fair use advocates are now claiming is a right to the master for the price of a copy. By claiming a "fair use" right to make a digital copy to be played on any platform you are in effect demanding a right to the content - and not just the expression that you paid for. I think this is a key difference - and a vital one to the copyright owner.

The problem of back-ups could be solved by simply returning the damaged disk to the manufacturer in return for a replacement. If you surrender one copy for another there is no problem, but the unfettered ability to make unlimited copies without ever surrendering the original presents a real danger to digital content owners.

I do not advocate changing the laws so that used books and CDs cannot be sold - this is hyperbolic rhetoric - what I oppose is giving someone the ability to make a letter perfect copy without surrendering the original.

When I loan you a book, I might deprive the copyright owner of a sale, but I also deprive myself of the my original for as long as you have it. I am all for file sharing - put it in an envelope and mail it.

This is fair use under existing law. What you and others seem to be advocating is a vastly expanded right of fair use while claiming that it's just plain old fashioned brown paper fair use. This is a (perhaps intentional) misrepresentation of what you are really arguing for.

At the same time you paint the main parts of the DMCA as some new draconian law when in large part all it does it attempt to restore the reasonable balance of fair use.

Like Lawrence Lessig who paints himself as a moderate which calling eveyone else an extemist when it is he who is advocating the extreme position, it's clever politial rhetoric. But I'm not biuying it and I don't think anyone else should.

We can agree to disagree and I respect your opinion - I just think it the curtains need to be drawn back from your arguments so that they may be debated in the light of day.

I enjoyed this exchange and I am grateful for your considerate approach. I regret that my passion about this issue makes it harder for me to be as thoughtful.

Regards,

Eric Stasík

P.S. ( I edited this to correct some very bad spelling and grammatical errors. That'll teach me to type in the dark.) D.S.

[Isaac]

Mr. Clark,

"Copying a CD you have purchased so that you can play it in your car without risking damaging does not deprive the creator of a sale, but giving the copy to a friend does."

No one ever argued that they had the right to play vinyl albums on the 8-track in their car, yet this is exactly what you want to do with CDs - make an exact copy of the product that you bought.

The problem of back-ups could be solved by simply returning the damaged disk to the manufacturer in return for a replacement. If you surrender one copy for another there is no problem, but the unfettered ability to make unlimited copies without ever surrendering the original presents a real danger to digital content owners.

I do not advocate changing the laws so that used books and CDs cannot be sold - this is hyperbolic rhetoric - what I oppose is giving someone the ability to make a letter perfect copy without surrendering the original.

When I loan you a book, I might deprive the copyright owner of a sale, but I also deprive myself of the my original for as long as you have it. I am all for file sharing - put it in an envelope and mail it.

This is fair use under existing law. What you and others seem to be advocating is a vastly expanded right of fair use while claiming that it's just plain old fashioned brown paper fair use. This is a (perhaps intentional) misrepresentation of what you are really arguing for.

At the same time you paint the main parts of the DMCA as some new draconian law when in large part all it does it attempt to restore the reasonable balance of fair use.

Like Lawrence Lessig who paints himself as a moderate which calling eveyone else an extemist when it is he who is advocating the extreme position, it's clever politial rhetoric. But I'm not biuying it and I don't think anyone else should.

We can agree to disagree and I respect your opinion - I just think it the curtains need to be drawn back from your arguments so that they may be debated in the light of day.

I enjoyed this exchange and I am grateful for your considerate approach. I regret that my passion about this issue makes it harder for me to be as thoughtful.

Regards,

Eric Stasík

P.S. ( I edited this to correct some very bad spelling and grammatical errors. That'll teach me to type in the dark.) D.S.

I think you're mistaken about the state of current law.    Backup copies of software are statutorily allowed for owners of copies.   I don't need to justify it based on whether or not the vendor could or will send me a new copy.   Congress has already weighed the two arguments and decided for us.

So yes, I feel you are misrepresenting my argument.   But at least you are honest about it...

Further, given the technological impossibility of playing albums in an 8-track player, I really don't see the point in your observation that nobody has asked to do so.

I think it is you who are advocating for changes in the law.
Fair use and other legal exceptions to the copyright holder's rights are not as limited as you argue, nor are they all artifacts of some pre digital age.

[nobody]

On Bush: "lying about WMDs"

Exaggerating, maybe. We all know some were there.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2004/n05172004_200405174.html

On FL election: "made sure these votes never got counted"

Several press groups and other groups were given access and did their own counts/analysis and proved that statement to be irrelevant.

Those characterizations tell me you are not even a marginal Repubican ;-)

As for the IP issues, I wanted to mention the time/space shifting and backup issues, but Mr. Clark said it better that I would have.