The end of 'fair use?' (bad news if you like VCRs)

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I'm worried...Hatch, in the lame duck session, is trying to get a bill pushed thru starting this week.

Quote

The Senate might vote on HR2391, the Intellectual Property Protection Act, a comprehensive bill that opponents charge could make many users of peer-to-peer networks, digital-music players and other products criminally liable for copyright infringement. The bill would also undo centuries of 'fair use' -- the principle that gives Americans the right to use small samples of the works of others without having to ask permission or pay."

From what I have read in Newsweek and WIRED (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65704,00.html)on this - if this passes it will effect all VCRs, DVRs, MP3 players, iTunes, cameras, camcorders, CD/DVD burners....or make it illegal to skip over your commercials while using a Tivo.

Quote

The bill lumps together several pending copyright bills including HR4077, the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act, which would criminally punish a person who "infringes a copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement." Critics charge the vague language could apply to a person who uses the popular Apple iTunes music-sharing application.

Quote

More from Wired: "The groups that lined up against the bill include the Consumer Electronics Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the American Conservative Union and public-interest advocacy group Public Knowledge, which hosted a press briefing on Friday as the opening salvo of its campaign to stop passage. The groups are calling for the Senate to postpone consideration of the bill until at least next year, when there would be more time for hearings and debate. In addition, the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) chairmanship of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will expire next year, with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) in line to take over the committee. Bill opponents hope Specter would take a different approach to copyright law than Hatch, who has been an advocate of several bills that have rankled public-interest, technology and consumer-electronics camps. The entertainment industry has been lobbying hard for quick Senate passage during the lame-duck session, with opponents gearing up for a tough fight."

Quote

Hollywood's involvement has even irked the American Conservative Union, which holds considerable sway with conservative Republicans in Congress. The ACU plans a major print ad campaign this week to oppose the bill, mainly because some provisions would require the Justice Department to file civil copyright lawsuits on behalf of the entertainment industry.

"It's just plain wrong to make the Department of Justice Hollywood's law firm," said Stacie Rumenap, ACU's deputy director.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[storm1977 0]

Bad news IMO....

I have a question... Would I legally be allowed to make
copies of music I purchased for back-ups?

THe argument could be made that the CDs degrade through time, and I have the right to protect my purchase correct?

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I have a question... Would I legally be allowed to make
copies of music I purchased for back-ups?

That's specifically why the Fair Use laws exist now. So if they're trying to get rid of it, my guess is no.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

I have a question... Would I legally be allowed to make
copies of music I purchased for back-ups?

That's specifically why the Fair Use laws exist now. So if they're trying to get rid of it, my guess is no.

Than that is BS!!!
This just promotes the industry to make shit quility
products so we are forced to buy more!!!!!
I call BS!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I have a question... Would I legally be allowed to make
copies of music I purchased for back-ups?

Dpesn't sound like it. " comprehensive bill that opponents charge could make many users of peer-to-peer networks, digital-music players and other products criminally liable for copyright infringement." Notice that they are bitching about "peer-to-peer" networks.

also, "criminally punish a person who "infringes a copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement."

Sounds to me like backing up is not a problem, but if you are passing out copies to people, look out.

Also, wouldnt' you be pissed if some rapper took the most important 3 seconds of your song, repeated it, andmade millions without paying you a dime?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Also, wouldnt' you be pissed if some rapper took the most important 3 seconds of your song, repeated it, andmade millions without paying you a dime?

No...that's stupid. Every note combination that exists has already been played. So a few seconds of any song has a 100% chance of being found in a pre-existing song.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

I have a question... Would I legally be allowed to make
copies of music I purchased for back-ups?

Dpesn't sound like it. " comprehensive bill that opponents charge could make many users of peer-to-peer networks, digital-music players and other products criminally liable for copyright infringement." Notice that they are bitching about "peer-to-peer" networks.

also, "criminally punish a person who "infringes a copyright by ... offering for distribution to the public by electronic means, with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement."

Sounds to me like backing up is not a problem, but if you are passing out copies to people, look out.

Also, wouldnt' you be pissed if some rapper took the most important 3 seconds of your song, repeated it, andmade millions without paying you a dime?

yeah, I agree when sampling, royalties need to be payed...

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Sounds to me like backing up is not a problem

Originally it was meant to go after P2P networks, but Hatch doesn't understand the technology and he is being pushed by Hollywood. They have led him to believe that all fair use needs to be changed to prevent any form of P2P new technology can bring.

Therefore, backing up is not what the bill is designed for, however it can restrict it with the language they are using. Bascially they are trying to use a nuke to kill a fly without any concern of the damage it will cause.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[PhillyKev 0]

Somone should lobby Hatch to get behind the ban on Dihydrogen Monoxide. It's killing people for crying out loud!!! Think of the children!!!!

[Guest]

Hatch is a toady of the media establishment.

What they really want is to make consumers pay, and pay, and pay.

IP and copyright laws have already been bent and twisted into perverted shells of their former meanings.

Take a look at the Electronic Frontier Foundation position on this issue - it is also my own.

mh

[Guest]

Quote

Bad news IMO....

I have a question... Would I legally be allowed to make
copies of music I purchased for back-ups?

No, you would be expected to purchase another.

mh

.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Also, wouldnt' you be pissed if some rapper took the most important 3 seconds of your song, repeated it, andmade millions without paying you a dime?

No...that's stupid. Every note combination that exists has already been played. So a few seconds of any song has a 100% chance of being found in a pre-existing song.

I call bs. Listen to the first two seconds of "Under Pressure" by Queen and say, "Hmmm. I don't think that's 'Under Pressure' by Queen. It could be Ice, Ice Baby, so Queen shouldn't get a dime for it."

PK, you're smart, but the statement you've made is a stretch that would make a GWB torture memo writer proud...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Bad news IMO....

I have a question... Would I legally be allowed to make
copies of music I purchased for back-ups?

No, you would be expected to purchase another.

mh

.

Wrong. Look at the language - "with reckless disregard of the risk of further infringement." This is not mere negligence, any more than a street racer who broadsides another car is negligent. "I didn't mean to kill them. It was an accident."

If your activities in copying songs rises to the level of a complete disregard for the risks of others copying and distributing it, then you've got a penalty. If, like me, yo've copied it onto your harddrive to listen to it, I don't see much risk that I'll get pinched for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

I stand by my statement that any riff in existence can be found in more than one song. Your example is only valid if only well known songs should be protected in this manner. Because I could find similarities in any other song but because the first song might not be as well known, no one would ever know it.

Come on, the opening to under pressure is:

D D D D D D A

Do you really think that constitutes original intellectual property?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

D D D D D D A

And all computer programs are nothing more than letters or number, the permutations of which are found trillions of times throughout the world.

In fact, the words found in literature are all in the dictionary, and someone, somewhere has used a combination of words that others make money on.

Again, your point lacks merit.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

You're proving my point. Or should your examples be used to file law suits?

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it has no merit. I don't think a string of 6 of the same note, followed by one different one constitutes original intellectual property.

If it's half the song, sure. Or a verse...yep. But not 3 seconds/7 notes. If I start a book with the words "Call me Ichabod" you immediately think of Moby Dick, right? But what that be a valid suit for infringement?

[billvon 3,120]

>In fact, the words found in literature are all in the dictionary, and
> someone, somewhere has used a combination of words that others
>make money on.

Agreed. But it sure would be silly to sue Stephen King because he used the words "it was the best of times" or the name "Carrie" - even though someone else used those first. The copyright applies to the entire work, not tiny fragments of it used other places.

[lawrocket 3]

If that's what it is all about, kevin, then why can you so readily recognize a song after three seconds? Smoke on the Water? Whip It? My funny Valentine? Beethoven's 5th?

Why can you differentiate between those songs? Could it be that those notes were done in a unique way?

If I wrote a story, repeating "quoth the raven, 'Nevermore'" would that be more or less original that Poe?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I have a question... Would I legally be allowed to make
copies of music I purchased for back-ups?

THe argument could be made that the CDs degrade through time, and I have the right to protect my purchase correct?

While the legislation is supposed to stop inappropriate use, its means has aimed at preventing the technology to do either from existing. Fortunately for us, other countries continue to allow it and we can download the software there.

Earlier in the year Hatch suggested the creation of spyware software that would hunt and destroy 'bad' computers.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If that's what it is all about, kevin, then why can you so readily recognize a song after three seconds? Smoke on the Water? Whip It? My funny Valentine? Beethoven's 5th?

part of that is playing the percentages. Pick the most popular choice. But there are some that open very similarly. And in the middle, lots of repetition.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why can you differentiate between those songs? Could it be that those notes were done in a unique way?

Because those songs, as a whole, are famous, and therefore when you hear a portion of them, you recognize it. Haven't you ever heard the first few notes of a song, thought it was something but it turns out is was something else? You probably thought it was the more famous song at first. Does that prove that the more famous song was written first? Or that this newer song was based on the older song because the start of it sounds the same? Nope...it's coincidence not theft. And if it's not coincidence, and it's intentional then it is acknowledgment not theft.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If it's half the song, sure. Or a verse...yep. But not 3 seconds/7 notes. If I start a book with the words "Call me Ichabod" you immediately think of Moby Dick, right? But what that be a valid suit for infringement?

Actually, I would think of the Headless Horseman, not Moby Dick. You'd have to title it Call me Ishmael, wouldn't you?

However, I agree with you that while D D D DD D A is recognizable, and it makes Vanilla Ice a rip off artist, I don't think it qualifies as outside fair use.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Ron 10]

Quote

If I start a book with the words "Call me Ichabod" you immediately think of Moby Dick, right?

Nope, I think of Sleepy Hollow and a headless horseman...

Damn...Kennedy beat me to it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

I intentionally changed the name, guys. To demonstrate that 3 words can make you immediately think of a famous literary work. Thank you for further proving my point.

Who should sue me? Melville's estate or Irving's?

[Guest]

Quote

Earlier in the year Hatch suggested the creation of spyware software that would hunt and destroy 'bad' computers.

Pretty soon, if the industry and back-stabbers like Hatch have their way, it'll be impossible to own a computer or computer parts that aren't compliant with a computer-industry identification / authentication / encryption standard.

Hardware, firmware, software, add-ons, plug-ins, patches, accessories, etc. won't work unless they comply.

This of course means that alternative hardware (like Crusoe-based systems) or software (like Linux), lacking the industry's "tags" simply will not work.

mh

.