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.

[sinkspur]

If you do mind, tell the companies that restrict your rights why you're not going to be their customer anymore

This guy's nothing more than a common thief.

He thinks that a company that protects its copyright is "restricting your rights."

Must be a cap-turned-around adolescent (no matter his physical age) who's infected by Napster.

Everything's free.

[tahiti]

"...to placate an entertainment industry that tramples customers' rights in the name of curbing copyright infringement."

What? Customer's rights?

Wrong.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8,

"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:"

That is the right that is being protected from infringement and rightfully so.

[BkBinder]

If HP also restricts customers' ``fair use'' rights -- the ability to make personal copies and quote from others' works -- guess that's someone else's problem.

You could make a good arguement that the various entertainment companies don't have any more respect for consumer rights than the "Napster" generation has for copyrights.

[sinkspur]

You could make a good arguement that the various entertainment companies don't have any more respect for consumer rights than the "Napster" generation has for copyrights.

No I couldn't. Maybe you'd like to try because the guy who wrote this article failed miserably.

[BkBinder]

Posit that when I purchase a copy of intellectual property I have the right to maintain possesion of said property in its original condition (unlike a material object that suffers wear). I therefore should be able to create for my own use copies of that material provided I do not offer those copies to others for any reason.

Efforts by the entertainment industry, not to mention software producers, to prevent copying of material obviates this consumer right. Both industries are trying to transition to a point were the consumer is only leasing the intellectual property. They are also trying to extend the copyright into perpetuity, as in the case of Disney, which would be contrary to "...securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

That said, I do not purchase tapes, CD's, DVD's. I feel absolutely no need to encourage irresponsible corporate behavior that puts profit ahead of what I consider decency. Software I buy only when I must and I avoid as much as possible the companies that I consider rapacious.

I doubt that this is a convincing arguement for you. Indeed, it was not intended to be an arguement at all. I suspect that on the topic of theft of intellectual rights, you and I will agree on most points.

[sinkspur]

I doubt that this is a convincing arguement for you.

It's not, and I'll tell you why.

For every honest person like you, who will reproduce intellectual property ONLY for his own use, there are fifteen scoundrels who reproduce intellectual property and pass it around like candy to their friends, or even sell it, thereby benefitting from the work of others.

IOW, the abuse of others has lead to these electronic restrictions that, unfortunately, affect good people like you.

[Elliott Jackalope]

You're not the only one who is upset with our current copyright laws. I was looking into the idea of getting into the business of making DVD's out of old, obscure movies and selling them through fanzines like Filmfax and others. Then I researched the current copyright laws. Holy Moley! You would not believe how those laws have been changed over the last ten years!

Bottom line: There is no such thing as "public domain" any longer, with the exception of movies made before 1927. Anything after that is pretty much off limits. This means that if you or I make a copy of a movie made in 1935, and sell it to someone else, we are taking the risk of being sued for a LOT of money.

Think about it. Patents only last seventeen years, but copyrights last pretty much forever now. Isn't that special?

Don't get me wrong, I think that people who make movies should own them for a long time. I would have no problem with copyrights lasting up to forty years. But after that they should go into the public domain. As it is now there really is no such thing as "public domain" any longer.

I'll give you an example. Remember the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" (1947)? That's a public domain movie, right? Wrong. It was considered to be public domain for a long time, but then some lawyers filed suit, and got a ruling based upon a technicality that reverted the copyright back to the original owners. So now if you want to show "It's a Wonderful Life" you have to pay royalties. This is for a movie made in 1947! A fifty-seven year old movie! Give me a break!

[BlazingArizona]

"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:"

Note the phrase "for limited times". This does not mean "unto the heat death of the universe".

[DMCA]

I hope you understand that if this technology is fully implemented it will have a very negative effect on sites like freerepublic. Any site that wish its text to not be copied at all will just flag it and BAM! the OS will not allow it to be posted to FR.

In other words, this tech doesn't distinguish between legitimate fair use rights and illegal copying. It attempts to stop all copying.

[sinkspur]

In other words, this tech doesn't distinguish between legitimate fair use rights and illegal copying. It attempts to stop all copying.

Some copying has been abused. I've seen posting on this site that was lifted, in its entirety, from a billable section of a website. That's theft.

Abuses are what lead to draconian measures.

If we have to go to links alone, we'll survive.

[gonzo]

"...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!

As soon as we get it painted, (ran out of argent again, dammit) we'll mail it to your last known address................FRegards

[templar]

Efforts by the entertainment industry, not to mention software producers, to prevent copying of material obviates this consumer right.

Other than your own assertion, what makes you think you have this 'right'? If you really want to maintain copyright material in it's original condition, put it ina safe deposit box and don't use it. Other than that, unless the copyright holder specifies otherwise, you have purchased one copy of the material as licensed by it's copyright holder for the duration of it's usefull lifespan.

[Ciexyz]

btt

[DMCA]

So the abuse of the law by some means that it should be made illegal for all?

Isn't that the argument that the gun grabbers use? Isn't it better in a free society to go after the abusers than penalize the entire population?

[sinkspur]

So the abuse of the law by some means that it should be made illegal for all?

If I own a piece of intellectual property, I will be happy if its use is restricted by whatever means.

Why do you think you have a right to use what belongs to somebody else?

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

[DMCA]

This.

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 107.

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1)

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2)

the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3)

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4)

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

[sinkspur]

But how do I know what is "fair use"? Napster has ruined the music industry, and has spurred electronics makers to take these drastic measures.

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

None of these electronic devices affects printed material, as far as I can tell. Unlike a printed piece, however, the owner of a piece of music cannot tell when a copy is made, or what its eventual use is.

There is probably no "fair use" of copies of music either, like software.

You want it, you buy it.

[lentulusgracchus]

Must be a cap-turned-around adolescent (no matter his physical age) who's infected by Napster. Everything's free.

Yeah, people like that are scum.

By the way, I'll be invoicing you monthly for the air you breathe. I've copyrighted it, and actually breathing it and exchanging your stinky carbon-dioxide molecules for my pristine oxygen molecules doesn't fall within "fair use".

For planning purposes, just so you'll know, I'll be billing $40/month per individual, $500/month for corporate and industrial use, and $10/month (a concessory rate) for children and pets.

My terms are 30 days net. Please pay promptly, or I'll auction off your house.

[sinkspur]

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

Try again.