Perhaps to keep the topic slightly more in line with what Harold is arguing, let us examine it from the opposite side. If I were to post the entire lyrics for the same song on my own personal site, would it be something that you would consider a big deal?
I recognize that people are trying to take this and extrapolate it out to actually downloading copyrighted material (and I would argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't the same as stealing. There's a distinction to be made, but that's for another post). I do not think that your comment can be drawn out to that point.
However, I think they make a valid point in noting that simply saying "it wasn't for commercial use" opens you up for a series of problems with other things. Remember the issue with the group wanting to show the last episode of Battlestar Galactica on a big screen? It wasn't for commercial purpose, yet this was a big deal. You note:
"A total lack of understanding on all sides here. Where do I start?
I think it is clear that the guys trying to put this event on knew they were working in the grey. Getting someone to "agree to look the other way" is pretty much a worthless argument, you should get them to look the other way ON PAPER. The rights holder in Canada, Space (cable channel) might have been a better place to go, get them on board and then they will work harder with NBC / Universal to get things worked out.
It's just one of those things where they went about it the wrong way, and the results are what you see.
NBC / Universal comes off looking bad, but in the end, it's the guys who started at the wrong place that screwed it up."
I concede that you point out NBC does end up looking bad, but these guys were not interested in any commercial gain. I also recognize that it was for a commercial purpose.
My intention is not to trap you in your comments, but to note that the big players do consider it a serious offense when people infringe, even when it isn't for commercial purposes. However, we are waving our hands on this issue and saying if it isn't for commercial gain, why does it matter for them to infringe? I believe, and others can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, that is the crux of everyone "getting riled up".
The distinction about how copyright holders want to protect their content just like physical property (by forcing an artificial scarcity) yet they demand extra protection that physical property doesn't support (i.e. not being able to resell, or double-dipping) is an interesting point.
Copyright holders need to recognize that intellectual property is a different beast than physical property. And as such it must be treated differently. You don't get to pick and choose the parts that you like of different systems (claim it is stealing like physical property, yet expect the rights to the goods to persist past the point of sale). It must be one or the other, and by trying to take the best of both worlds, copyright holders are clearly showing their distaste for the rights of the consumer.
I find it interesting that the argument presented by Cotton's side employs the technique of claiming that fair use is extremely complex. It would seem to me that if something is complicated and requires a case-by-case examination of each instance, that the law itself should require a modification.
His note that fair use remains the same now as it did prior to the information age seems to indicate either a distinct lack of understanding of the current environment, or a willful ignorance of the changes that will inevitably occur in hopes to cling to the current business model, stubbornly resisting change.
Wu's suggestion for an alternative definition to fair use seems very realistic and grounded in the emerging technology. While I am hesitant to let emerging trends dictate changes in laws, there does come a point where the existing policies need to change to allow for continued innovation and change, instead of stifling it.
RSS
Twitter
Re: (as Cyrus)
Perhaps to keep the topic slightly more in line with what Harold is arguing, let us examine it from the opposite side. If I were to post the entire lyrics for the same song on my own personal site, would it be something that you would consider a big deal?
I recognize that people are trying to take this and extrapolate it out to actually downloading copyrighted material (and I would argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't the same as stealing. There's a distinction to be made, but that's for another post). I do not think that your comment can be drawn out to that point.
However, I think they make a valid point in noting that simply saying "it wasn't for commercial use" opens you up for a series of problems with other things. Remember the issue with the group wanting to show the last episode of Battlestar Galactica on a big screen? It wasn't for commercial purpose, yet this was a big deal. You note:
"A total lack of understanding on all sides here. Where do I start?
I think it is clear that the guys trying to put this event on knew they were working in the grey. Getting someone to "agree to look the other way" is pretty much a worthless argument, you should get them to look the other way ON PAPER. The rights holder in Canada, Space (cable channel) might have been a better place to go, get them on board and then they will work harder with NBC / Universal to get things worked out.
It's just one of those things where they went about it the wrong way, and the results are what you see.
NBC / Universal comes off looking bad, but in the end, it's the guys who started at the wrong place that screwed it up."
For reference purposes, it is article http://techdirt.com/articles/20090319/1844414186.shtml#comments, comment #21.
I concede that you point out NBC does end up looking bad, but these guys were not interested in any commercial gain. I also recognize that it was for a commercial purpose.
My intention is not to trap you in your comments, but to note that the big players do consider it a serious offense when people infringe, even when it isn't for commercial purposes. However, we are waving our hands on this issue and saying if it isn't for commercial gain, why does it matter for them to infringe? I believe, and others can certainly correct me if I'm wrong, that is the crux of everyone "getting riled up".
Look at it this way (as Cyrus Keck)
The distinction about how copyright holders want to protect their content just like physical property (by forcing an artificial scarcity) yet they demand extra protection that physical property doesn't support (i.e. not being able to resell, or double-dipping) is an interesting point.
Copyright holders need to recognize that intellectual property is a different beast than physical property. And as such it must be treated differently. You don't get to pick and choose the parts that you like of different systems (claim it is stealing like physical property, yet expect the rights to the goods to persist past the point of sale). It must be one or the other, and by trying to take the best of both worlds, copyright holders are clearly showing their distaste for the rights of the consumer.
Is labeling something complex a sufficient argumen (as Cyrus Keck)
I find it interesting that the argument presented by Cotton's side employs the technique of claiming that fair use is extremely complex. It would seem to me that if something is complicated and requires a case-by-case examination of each instance, that the law itself should require a modification.
His note that fair use remains the same now as it did prior to the information age seems to indicate either a distinct lack of understanding of the current environment, or a willful ignorance of the changes that will inevitably occur in hopes to cling to the current business model, stubbornly resisting change.
Wu's suggestion for an alternative definition to fair use seems very realistic and grounded in the emerging technology. While I am hesitant to let emerging trends dictate changes in laws, there does come a point where the existing policies need to change to allow for continued innovation and change, instead of stifling it.