5 ms·

Honestly it doesn't matter that it isn't breaking the law. Because even the if the RIAA can't bribe the judge and jury to liberally interpret the laws on the bo

Honestly it doesn't matter that it isn't breaking the law. Because even the if the RIAA can't bribe the judge and jury to liberally interpret the laws on the books, they will freely and openly bribe congress to create new laws to replace the ones that were previously not effective. Advocates for open source software and cryptography and right-to-repair and non-draconian copyright/patent protections need to do the things that their opponents do: they need to pony up the cash to do some real lobbying. Otherwise they get stuck in the same perpetual trap of trying to defend their status, one individual situation at a time, against the overapplication of laws that were poorly conceived to begin with. Sad, but the only language that congress talks is money.

dredmorbius 6y ago
There may be a shift in the winds of copyright. The list of firms one might presume to have strong-copyright interests opposing SOPA, or more notably, shifting stance, comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_official_stances_on_the_SOPA_and_PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_off... And yes, I'm strongly encouraging such thinking.
gamblor956 6y ago
They don't need to bribe anyone. The laws already support the copyright holders. This is really going to shock you: The Constitution explicitly grants creators and inventors "exclusive rights." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ) Fair use is a statutory construct of Congress.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Fair Use is presumed in the A1.S8.C8 justification for exclusive rights: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Again, Not only is Fair Use presumed, but it provides the basis under which such rights should be granted. More discussion at Cornell's LII: Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways, but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been adopted in section 107... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 (Notes)
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, fair use is not "presumed." Exclusive use by the creator is presumed, since the text of the Constitution literally says "exclusive rights." At the time the Constitution was written, society profited when people sold their inventions or creative works. And the purpose of patent law was to reward people for inventing or creating by allowing them to recoup the costs of inventing and creating. There was no fair use exception back then; courts were extremely harsh on copyright and patent law offenders. It wasn't until Congress codified "fair use" into the law in the 1970s. https://msu.edu/~mcgrat71/Writing/Fair_Use_Rife.pdf https://msu.edu/~mcgrat71/Writing/Fair_Use_Rife.pdf
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Do you have a copy of Nimmer handy?
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright." -- Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015), Ninth Circuit. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12567649168680108221 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=125676491686801...

dredmorbius 6y ago

There may be a shift in the winds of copyright. The list of firms one might presume to have strong-copyright interests opposing SOPA, or more notably, shifting stance, comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_official_stances_on_the_SOPA_and_PIPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_off... And yes, I'm strongly encouraging such thinking.

gamblor956 6y ago

They don't need to bribe anyone. The laws already support the copyright holders. This is really going to shock you: The Constitution explicitly grants creators and inventors "exclusive rights." (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ) Fair use is a statutory construct of Congress.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Fair Use is presumed in the A1.S8.C8 justification for exclusive rights: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Again, Not only is Fair Use presumed, but it provides the basis under which such rights should be granted. More discussion at Cornell's LII: Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways, but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been adopted in section 107... https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 (Notes)
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, fair use is not "presumed." Exclusive use by the creator is presumed, since the text of the Constitution literally says "exclusive rights." At the time the Constitution was written, society profited when people sold their inventions or creative works. And the purpose of patent law was to reward people for inventing or creating by allowing them to recoup the costs of inventing and creating. There was no fair use exception back then; courts were extremely harsh on copyright and patent law offenders. It wasn't until Congress codified "fair use" into the law in the 1970s. https://msu.edu/~mcgrat71/Writing/Fair_Use_Rife.pdf https://msu.edu/~mcgrat71/Writing/Fair_Use_Rife.pdf
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Do you have a copy of Nimmer handy?
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright." -- Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015), Ninth Circuit. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12567649168680108221 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=125676491686801...