5 ms·

The 7 words that could improve Copyright

63 points by CoryOndrejka 17y ago

anigbrowl 17y ago
Interesting, but as a content creator I can't help feeling it alludes to cases but fails to set any standards for how to handle them. For example, just now I'm thinking about the costs of getting a release to shoot video in a private location (a shopping center). It would make my film look more interesting but hurt its budget. If I shoot by stealth (not so hard with modern cameras) they would have a copyright complaint against the film and could sue for damages. The copyright claim subsists in the interior architecture, configuration and decoration of the building. But what if I release my film for free, just to say 'hey look at my film (and consider investing in the next one)'. The analogy would be using an allegedly proprietary algorithm in a piece of open-source code, I suppose. There's an indirect commercial gain on my part (if it proves popular), but should the IP owner have a claim on a free work? The proposal does include a threshold of whether such a violation does harm to a business, or is likely to. Unfortunately, that puts the defendant in such a case in the position of having to prove a negative, ie that the complainant's allegations of likely harm are unreasonable. If my shopping center scene involved a successful pickpocket, they would have a good claim, but suppose they just complain that I made it look drab or old-fashioned?
- sabat 17y ago
  The fact that we've gotten so far into this ridiculousness that the interior of a building that is open to the public is somehow considered "protected by copyright" is preposterous. This is not at all what the founders had in mind.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- inerte 17y ago
  What's fun about the law system is that each case is open to interpretation, because of its particular circumstances. If, for example, you trade emails with the film crew saying you couldn't get permission to shoot but was going stealth anyway, and you use the mall as a location this week and in a couple days you send funding requests using only this particular movie, and the mall has a central role (as in Mallrats), then yes, you're using the mall as part of a (soon to be) commercial venture. But if your mall movie was filmed 5 years ago (and now the mall went through a reform), was just a gathering place because the actress lives 5 minutes away from it, and the movie using it is just part of your portfolio of dozen, than I don't think any law system would judge against you. The law is not a tech spec. Finding the balance between the two extreme examples above is the whole purpose of a government branch :) Edit: The mall case would probably pend to a trademark side, but the point remains. Law is hard, let's go shopping! (just not on the same mall as the movie)
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  Here's info about a documentary film not wanting to get pay performance rights simply to include a ringtone of one of the students sounding. I had thought there had been a recent change in law or at least that the consensus opinion on this (which I disagree with) is that the use in Mad Hot Ballroom (see links) was fair use (incidental) and didn't require rights holders consent. My view is that if the ringtone (building in your case) is incidental then you can film without it or use a non copyright soundtrack edit (different building) and it won't matter. It bothered me that I couldn't remember the details so I looked it up and found "copyright law"+"amy sewell" turned up these: http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2005/06/fair_use_use_it.html http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2005/06/fair_use_use_it.htm... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/movies/16rams.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/movies/16rams.html http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/1422248/Copyfraud-Is-Stealing-the-Public-Domain?from=rss http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/1422248/Copyfraud-Is...
dkimball 17y ago
I like the idea, always provided that "personal and noncommercial use" is interpreted as "transfer to iPod, reading to one's children, burning CDs for personal use, writing fan fiction, etc." and not as "Napster." We have the problem that our popular culture is all under copyright, and this would do a lot to resolve that -- not impeding the profits of the creators of the works in question, but simultaneously not dampening cultural expression or exposure to the culture. This sounds particularly appealing as an aspiring content creator: finally a legal standard that neither requires pursuing creators of fan fiction, fan mods, and so on, nor creates a risk of accidentally losing copyright over one's own works! @anigbrowl: I agree that there's a potential issue with sufficiently negative use of material under the expanded fair use rules; but then again, philosophies, governments and religions aren't given legal protection from rotten eggs. A creative work, too (even the architecture of a mall), becomes part of the culture; other members of the culture have the right to react negatively as well as positively to it.
Silhouette 17y ago
Could the objections about personal, non-commercial use not be overcome by adding (or replacing "personal" with) a qualifier such as "private" or "without redistribution"? Surely the point is that if someone has legally obtained a legitimate copy of a work, it is reasonable for them to enjoy it as they see fit in private, without being under any obligation to pay for it repeatedly rather than format shift, back-up etc? Redistribution to others is obviously contrary to the basic principle of copyright, and shouldn't be covered, but for once this is a black-and-white issue and could be easily and unambiguously coded into the law.
- jbert 17y ago
  It's not obvious that redistribution is against copyright, e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine It seems to me (from First Sale Doctrine) that copyright protects against increasing the number of copies, not passing copies around. Prior to easy copying, these would have been the same thing (copying a book being difficult), but it's worth thinking about the distinction for digital media.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    I think there is a communication failure here. Redistribution in this context would mean using ones copy to create further copies. If the number of copies you bought is the number you sold then you're simply further distributed the originals (allowed by First-Sale). The draftees would need to add a note in the interpretations section of the legislation to avoid such a discrepancy.
  - wmf 17y ago
    That reminds me of another bug in US copyright law: apparently there is consensus that first sale does not apply to "pure digital" works that are not delivered on physical media. There's some argument that making a copy and deleting the original is different from selling the original.
  - Silhouette 17y ago
    Fair point, the word "redistribution" probably isn't the right one. As you say, it is the generation of additional copies that pass to others that is against the spirit of copyright, not merely transferring the original copy in its entirety.
mrcharles 17y ago
What are the seven words? Today I am lazy.
- sachinag 17y ago
  "incidental uses, non-consumptive uses, and personal, non-commercial uses."
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    >This week, it released the first of these reform ideas (PDF) focusing on the principle of fair use. In addition to "criticism" and "news reporting" and the rest of the items in the fair use preamble, the CRA proposes the addition of three more: "incidental uses, non-consumptive uses, and personal, non-commercial uses." They might sound minor, but these suggestions are bound to provoke controversy. As you say it is "and personal, non-commercial uses.". This drafting fails as it is not clear if the last clause is a disjunct or not. The article's author misquotes this through out as "personal and non-commercial". There are differences between his version and the draft quoted. Bear with me. If activity denies a business of revenue which they otherwise rightly would receive then it is arguably commercial. Hence a "personal" use could be format shifting, say. But if the business offered (or were going to offer!) the work in that format then the personal use would not be "personal and non-commercial". tl;dr the wording is subtly ambiguous and needs clearing up
  - zalew 17y ago
    i got better 7 words - humanity can work well with no copyrights
    - sketerpot 17y ago
      I'm not sure where the right balance lies, but here are another seven words: Copyright must reform, or face irrelevance. Soon. We've got a generation of people who are actively contemptuous of copyright law, and backed up with capable technology. If the system doesn't become more reasonable, people will turn more and more to straight-up piracy instead of trying to obey the law.

63 points by CoryOndrejka 17y ago

Interesting, but as a content creator I can't help feeling it alludes to cases but fails to set any standards for how to handle them. For example, just now I'm thinking about the costs of getting a release to shoot video in a private location (a shopping center). It would make my film look more interesting but hurt its budget. If I shoot by stealth (not so hard with modern cameras) they would have a copyright complaint against the film and could sue for damages. The copyright claim subsists in the interior architecture, configuration and decoration of the building. But what if I release my film for free, just to say 'hey look at my film (and consider investing in the next one)'. The analogy would be using an allegedly proprietary algorithm in a piece of open-source code, I suppose. There's an indirect commercial gain on my part (if it proves popular), but should the IP owner have a claim on a free work? The proposal does include a threshold of whether such a violation does harm to a business, or is likely to. Unfortunately, that puts the defendant in such a case in the position of having to prove a negative, ie that the complainant's allegations of likely harm are unreasonable. If my shopping center scene involved a successful pickpocket, they would have a good claim, but suppose they just complain that I made it look drab or old-fashioned?

sabat 17y ago
The fact that we've gotten so far into this ridiculousness that the interior of a building that is open to the public is somehow considered "protected by copyright" is preposterous. This is not at all what the founders had in mind.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
inerte 17y ago
What's fun about the law system is that each case is open to interpretation, because of its particular circumstances. If, for example, you trade emails with the film crew saying you couldn't get permission to shoot but was going stealth anyway, and you use the mall as a location this week and in a couple days you send funding requests using only this particular movie, and the mall has a central role (as in Mallrats), then yes, you're using the mall as part of a (soon to be) commercial venture. But if your mall movie was filmed 5 years ago (and now the mall went through a reform), was just a gathering place because the actress lives 5 minutes away from it, and the movie using it is just part of your portfolio of dozen, than I don't think any law system would judge against you. The law is not a tech spec. Finding the balance between the two extreme examples above is the whole purpose of a government branch :) Edit: The mall case would probably pend to a trademark side, but the point remains. Law is hard, let's go shopping! (just not on the same mall as the movie)
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
Here's info about a documentary film not wanting to get pay performance rights simply to include a ringtone of one of the students sounding. I had thought there had been a recent change in law or at least that the consensus opinion on this (which I disagree with) is that the use in Mad Hot Ballroom (see links) was fair use (incidental) and didn't require rights holders consent. My view is that if the ringtone (building in your case) is incidental then you can film without it or use a non copyright soundtrack edit (different building) and it won't matter. It bothered me that I couldn't remember the details so I looked it up and found "copyright law"+"amy sewell" turned up these: http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2005/06/fair_use_use_it.html http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2005/06/fair_use_use_it.htm... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/movies/16rams.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/movies/16rams.html http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/1422248/Copyfraud-Is-Stealing-the-Public-Domain?from=rss http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/26/1422248/Copyfraud-Is...

dkimball 17y ago

I like the idea, always provided that "personal and noncommercial use" is interpreted as "transfer to iPod, reading to one's children, burning CDs for personal use, writing fan fiction, etc." and not as "Napster." We have the problem that our popular culture is all under copyright, and this would do a lot to resolve that -- not impeding the profits of the creators of the works in question, but simultaneously not dampening cultural expression or exposure to the culture. This sounds particularly appealing as an aspiring content creator: finally a legal standard that neither requires pursuing creators of fan fiction, fan mods, and so on, nor creates a risk of accidentally losing copyright over one's own works! @anigbrowl: I agree that there's a potential issue with sufficiently negative use of material under the expanded fair use rules; but then again, philosophies, governments and religions aren't given legal protection from rotten eggs. A creative work, too (even the architecture of a mall), becomes part of the culture; other members of the culture have the right to react negatively as well as positively to it.

Silhouette 17y ago

Could the objections about personal, non-commercial use not be overcome by adding (or replacing "personal" with) a qualifier such as "private" or "without redistribution"? Surely the point is that if someone has legally obtained a legitimate copy of a work, it is reasonable for them to enjoy it as they see fit in private, without being under any obligation to pay for it repeatedly rather than format shift, back-up etc? Redistribution to others is obviously contrary to the basic principle of copyright, and shouldn't be covered, but for once this is a black-and-white issue and could be easily and unambiguously coded into the law.

jbert 17y ago
It's not obvious that redistribution is against copyright, e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine It seems to me (from First Sale Doctrine) that copyright protects against increasing the number of copies, not passing copies around. Prior to easy copying, these would have been the same thing (copying a book being difficult), but it's worth thinking about the distinction for digital media.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  I think there is a communication failure here. Redistribution in this context would mean using ones copy to create further copies. If the number of copies you bought is the number you sold then you're simply further distributed the originals (allowed by First-Sale). The draftees would need to add a note in the interpretations section of the legislation to avoid such a discrepancy.
- wmf 17y ago
  That reminds me of another bug in US copyright law: apparently there is consensus that first sale does not apply to "pure digital" works that are not delivered on physical media. There's some argument that making a copy and deleting the original is different from selling the original.
- Silhouette 17y ago
  Fair point, the word "redistribution" probably isn't the right one. As you say, it is the generation of additional copies that pass to others that is against the spirit of copyright, not merely transferring the original copy in its entirety.

mrcharles 17y ago

What are the seven words? Today I am lazy.

sachinag 17y ago
"incidental uses, non-consumptive uses, and personal, non-commercial uses."
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  >This week, it released the first of these reform ideas (PDF) focusing on the principle of fair use. In addition to "criticism" and "news reporting" and the rest of the items in the fair use preamble, the CRA proposes the addition of three more: "incidental uses, non-consumptive uses, and personal, non-commercial uses." They might sound minor, but these suggestions are bound to provoke controversy. As you say it is "and personal, non-commercial uses.". This drafting fails as it is not clear if the last clause is a disjunct or not. The article's author misquotes this through out as "personal and non-commercial". There are differences between his version and the draft quoted. Bear with me. If activity denies a business of revenue which they otherwise rightly would receive then it is arguably commercial. Hence a "personal" use could be format shifting, say. But if the business offered (or were going to offer!) the work in that format then the personal use would not be "personal and non-commercial". tl;dr the wording is subtly ambiguous and needs clearing up
- zalew 17y ago
  i got better 7 words - humanity can work well with no copyrights
  - sketerpot 17y ago
    I'm not sure where the right balance lies, but here are another seven words: Copyright must reform, or face irrelevance. Soon. We've got a generation of people who are actively contemptuous of copyright law, and backed up with capable technology. If the system doesn't become more reasonable, people will turn more and more to straight-up piracy instead of trying to obey the law.