Fair use / copyrights.

[Philip OKeefe]

http://www.protectfairuse.org/

 

You might want to check this out. Respond or don't as you see fit, but IMO, fair use should remain in full force and effect. I can't count how many disks of various types that I've had fail on me over the years, and if it wasn't for backup copies, I'd be out of luck...

 

Anyway, I thought I'd pass this along.

[ani]

I agree Phil, just signed off on it myself. Thanks for the heads up on this.

[mjm]

I think this is a good idea for Americans plagues by the DMCA etc.

[Duddits]

That's a very deceptive site. I know I may just be a cat, but as I understand it, there's something in the law called "Fair Use" which allows people to use copyrighted materials in various ways without having to pay anybody for it. Nothing on that site or anywhere for that matter threatens "Fair Use."

 

What that site talks about is fair use, lower case "f" lower case "u." It steals the term "Fair Use" from the law and applies it to anything it thinks may be a fair use of copyrighted material. It purposely uses the same term to cloud the issue, and make people believe that legal rights that are safe and sound are somehow under threat.

 

Now, you may, I may, we all may agree with everything that the site says, that everything it says we should be allowed to do with copyrighted music is fair use, lower case "f" lower case "u." I do agree with you that we should be allowed to make backups, etc. But we should also talk about the issue honestly, and not pretend, as the site pretends, that enforcing copyright laws that go against our notion of what is fair use is an assault on the legal rights we get through "Fair Use."

[Phil B]

Here's the federal "Fair Use" statute.

 

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

 

While it doesn't seem like making copies of music for personal use would fall under this statute, "Fair Use" for most of its life was not a statutory concept. It was a common law concept (meaning it was granted and developed by courts over time). Even today, it is the courts that generally determine the scope of fair use. I found a couple of examples in a USA Today article, all decided on the grounds of "Fair Use":

 

-- The Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that consumers could "time shift" TV programs on VCRs to view later.

-- Making cassette tapes or copies of CDs for personal use has been affirmed by court rulings, while a 1992 law allowed consumers to make limited digital copies of music, allowing for royalties to be included in the price of blank tapes and discs.

-- In 1999, a court ruled that portable digital music players could be sold and gave owners the right to move their music from PCs to the devices.

That's all "Fair Use" with capital letters. So, I don't think the site is that far off, at least not as far as you're suggesting.

[Philip OKeefe]

Here's the thing with that site - as far as I can tell, the company that is sponsoring it makes DVD duplication software, so they're hardly unbiased. However, I think the basic premise of what they're talking about (the ability to legally make backup copies of disks that you own) should fall under "Fair Use" provisions of the copyright law.

 

An example - the other day I bought a Steely Dan CD... it was one that I already owned. But because I didn't make a clone of said original disk, and because it got scratched (not by me - a client left it out of the case in a bad place), I can no longer enjoy listening to it - it suffers from playback errors. So I had to drop another $15 on something I already paid for once. Good for the Industry, and of course it's not the Industry's fault it got scratched, but I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make a backup for my own use.

 

Maybe I'm looking at things wrong here, but that's how I see it. But I did want to post the link and see what discussions developed, and I do appreciate hearing everyone's viewpoints.

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe:

it suffers from playback errors. So I had to drop another $15 on something I already paid for once. Good for the Industry, and of course it's not the Industry's fault it got scratched, but I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make a backup for my own use.

There is no reason you shouldn't be allowed to make a backup. Having to buy it twice is a load of crapola. No, the industry didn't damage your original disk, but you paid $15 for what was on the disk, not the plastic itself.

 

What if your (insert DAW of choice) CDs get scratched? Or that expensive sample library you just bought? $15 can easily be spent to replace an album. But what about the (obviously) much pricier software we all use?

[Philip OKeefe]

I agree Jeebus - we're buying a license for the embedded data, not the media that carries it... the "value" is in the data, not the physical plastic, right?

[ani]

Here's the thing with that site - as far as I can tell, the company that is sponsoring it makes DVD duplication software, so they're hardly unbiased.

The link that you provided is actually powered by Capital Advantage, which is directly linked into congressional records and current activities happening in legislation. The site hosting the information where you accessed is merely a subscriber to a service.

 

I have a freebie version of Capital Advantage available on my site, but I did check into the service at one time. For $4,000.00 a year you can customize your topics of interest to where if there is any legislation written in congress that would affect current laws, you automatically receive a notification to where you can watch the activities and vote if need be.

 

The DVD site from where you accessed is not actually the system providing the information, instead, I'm almost certain that if you look up the bill numbers being addressed on the http://thomas.loc.gov/ website, you could probably find current legislation addressing the issues. Capital Advantage provides individualized interests to those willing to pay the price. Their system automatically keeps you informed to only issues that interest you; and you select them by entering specific keywords or bills to watch.

 

For instance; without spending the moneys for the service since I don't really attempt to make any money to recoup the expenses on my site, I can find out what current bills are being reviewed in Congress at any given time by going to the Congress.org web site which is truly sponsored by Capital Advantage. Here is a page where you will eventually end up if you follow the links in...

 

http://congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/bill/

 

I usually tap into "telecommunications", "media and entertainment", "technology and science", "foreign affairs", and "trade". Of course, there are other areas where I access as well, but those are three of the biggies that help to keep me informed.