Companies tossing aside consumers' freedoms

The San Jose Mercury News ^ | Sunday, January 18, 2004 | Dan Gillmor

[Willie Green]

The digital revolution has been all about empowering people, to use technology in ways that broaden our horizons and our freedom. So when the tech industry began moving into consumer electronics, there were reasons to expect great things.

The consumer electronics companies, by and large, have sold closed boxes that deliberately limit customers' options. This is by tradition, in part for simplicity and ease of use, but also to placate an entertainment industry that tramples customers' rights in the name of curbing copyright infringement.

[lentulusgracchus]

There is no such thing as "fair use" in the software business. You want to use a piece of software, you buy a license.

Oh, by the way, I've copyrighted logic, algebra, and analytical geometry. I'll be working up billing applications soon and you can expect my invoice for their use. It's been a pleasure doing business with you!

[DMCA]

That section of copyright law applies to most, if not all, copyrighted materials, including music, audio, video and small sections of source code. It does not apply only to printed works.

I suggest you read the law before you state what it says.

[lentulusgracchus]

Try again.

Not to worry, I've got plenty of money to spread around the floor of Congress (like Bo Pilgrim did the Texas senate, trotting around delivering his envelopes of money to the startled senators while they sat at their desks), so I expect them to see things my way soon. Too bad you don't have enough money to lobby against me -- like they say, money talks.

[sinkspur]

That section of copyright law applies to most, if not all, copyrighted materials, including music, audio, video and small sections of source code

It applies not at all to source code. I'm in the software business, and there is no "fair use" of any of our software unless we grant permission.

Also, exactly how does one "fair use" music? And how does one control the individual who copies music and distributes it to his friends for free?

Theft, in other words.

[sinkspur]

Your replies are nonsensical. Try again.

[DMCA]

I will answer your points in reverse order.

How do 'fair use' music? Easy, use it in a classroom for teaching or a short segment on a news program. Things like that.

It applies to most, if not all, copyrighted materials. If you keep the source code secure than that makes it impossible, but if the source code is released it is allowable to use it if you follow the fair use guidelines.

Fair use of computer programs is prohibited not by law, but by they fact that most computer programs function as one unit that you can not take small portions out of and still have them function.

Seeing as how I derive income from the production of copyrighted works I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me a thief.

[sinkspur]

Seeing as how I derive income from the production of copyrighted works I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me a thief.

I didn't call you a thief.

I labeled those people thieves who take copyrighted works, copy them without the owner's permission, and either resell them or give them away for free.

That's theft.

[sinkspur]

How do 'fair use' music? Easy, use it in a classroom for teaching or a short segment on a news program. Things like that.

Fine. You don't need to copy it to do that. A school district can afford a CD, as can a news station.

[DMCA]

The Napster mentality has infected even sane adults, it appears.

That is what you said in a previous post to me, isn't that callng me a thief?

[DMCA]

Do you think that a news stations should have to buy a cd for every song that they play? Including those that are playing in the background during live news reports?

[BlazingArizona]

Unless you invented air, you can't copyright it. And, you didn't invent it.

Besides, everybody knows that SCO claims to have the patent on air.

[Smokin' Joe]

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:"

Provided they were not on someone's payroll when they invented, wrote, or discovered whatever. Then they just get wages.

When I am done working a well, (wellsite geologist), I write a report, have logs of the wellbore I have generated, and these are reproduced for my client. The state invariably gets a copy, the report is then a 'public' document, coppied by others and SOLD by them for a profit. I get squat beyond my initial compensation. Were there to be a copyright case, my employer would have first claim, not me.

Reality is that authors and discoverers usually end up sucking hind teat.

I do not begrudge these people their intellectual property rights, but with a 1 and a 4 year-old in my house, I'd sure like to copy the CD's and DVD's so the copy could get trashed if they get their grubbies on it and not the copy I paid for.

Otherwise, I'll take my chances at pawn shops and yard sales. It is a lot cheaper.`

[garbanzo]

Patents only last seventeen years, but copyrights last pretty much forever now.

This is the key point. Thanks to the Supreme Court, any "limit" is permissible as long as the word "perpetual" isn't used. Personally, I think 40 years is way too long. Twenty is about enough - the work is probably going to make most of the money it'll ever make within that time frame.

[sinkspur]

Do you think that a news stations should have to buy a cd for every song that they play? Including those that are playing in the background during live news reports?

Knowing some folks in radio, also, I know that they either use promotional music that is given to them or they pay fees to ASCAP to cover the music they play.

[drlevy88]

There is probably no "fair use" of copies of music either

BZZZT! WRONG! Try parody, for just one example. You are copying someone else's tune into your own song.

[sinkspur]

BZZZT! WRONG! Try parody, for just one example. You are copying someone else's tune into your own song.

Wrong. Just try that without their permission.

You simply cannot take someone else's property and use it without their permission or without paying them for it.

Period.

[webstersII]

"...This does not mean "until the heat death of the universe"..."

"Congrats! You are the winner of the 'Pliny-The-Elder' award for the most arcane reference on tonites forum, B-A!"

Au contraire. I thought that phrase summed up the point nicely. Copyrights were not intended to be in perpetuity. Right now they serve to enrich the original copyright holder AND his estate for a long time, which was not the intent of copyrights to begin with.

[DMCA]

The USPTO disagrees with you.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

[sinkspur]

OK. I stand corrected.

[BlueNgold]

Big bad evil companies daring to try to make a profit and trying to use technology to protect their work product. Bad corporations! Bad! Now go to your rooms!