Print

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

[George]

Fair use on attack from the entertainment industry.

LA Times

[terrymcmanus]

I think the first thing I would like to comment on is the rather wide shot at the "moguls" copyright serves. In fact copyright serves everyone. It is there for the protection of the poor as well as the rich and under the law, the wealth or lack thereof  is not held against anyone who claims copyright. It seems however that the proponents of "fair use" , (read: "free use") would throw out copyright because some people who are wealthy profit from it. It is not a good argument.

As for the copy protection devices or software or whatever gizmo the Majors keep trying to sneak in, (You think they would learn by now!), it is another attempt to extend the boundaries of copyright. The wonderful thing about the law is that it is flexible and it is that flexibility that both sides in the copyright issue keep testing. The proponents of a strict interpretation keep trying to gather more real estate under the guise of protecting their borders. The advcocates of free use keep trying to take other people's property to build their own castles on.

I think the law has done an admirable job so far of balancing interests and the less I hear from either side about how they are taking umbrage while trying to pick pockets, the happier I will be.

[Isaac]

I think the first thing I would like to comment on is the rather wide shot at the "moguls" copyright serves. In fact copyright serves everyone. It is there for the protection of the poor as well as the rich and under the law, the wealth or lack thereof  is not held against anyone who claims copyright. It seems however that the proponents of "fair use" , (read: "free use") would throw out copyright because some people who are wealthy profit from it. It is not a good argument.

That's a rather wide, and unfair shot at proponents of fair use.   It's a bit unfortunate, but true that many attempts to legitimately preserve rights allowed under copyright also interfere with legitimate uses, allowabe under fair use, but having minimal impact on the copyright holders right to exploit their works.

[JimIvey]

I think Isaac's right.  But, to illustrate, consider that movie reviews couldn't include clips of the movies or mention the plot or characters in too much detail.  That's all "fair use" -- for specific purposes of discussion, critique, etc.

More importantly and fundamentally, copyright laws exist not for the few (copyright holders themselves) but for the many, for those whose culture is expected to grow as the creative works, coaxed out into the public eye by the lure of copyright protection, eventually fall into public domain and become part of the vernacular of society, serving as resources for further creative work.  The "classic" example is the heavy use of classical music in the cartoons I used to watch as a child on Saturday mornings -- used because it was public domain.

When copyright laws insufficiently benefit the public at large, expect to see the pendulum swing back the other way.

Regards.