Playing with "fair use"...
Feb. 15th, 2006 03:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpI have always understood the "fair use" provision of the copyright law to be what one might call an "objective standard," in the sense that, if making one copy of something for personal use is considered "fair use," then making one copy for personal use of anything that's copyrighted conforms to the law.
Via the EFF web site, it turns out that RIAA and its cohort believe that, on the contrary, fair use is something that the copyright holder can grant or withhold, at whim. In a filing on DMCA rule-making, the RIAA states:
Makes sense, given the bloodsucking nature of industry higher-ups. In the past, we've seen blanket surcharges imposed for the benefit of the entertainment industry on the cost of audio and video tape cassettes to "compensate" said industry for the use of such media to store copyrighted material, whether it is actually used for that purpose or not, and I seem to recall there are some jurisdications today in which citizens pay a similar premium whenever they buy storage media such as hard drives.
I get the feeling that all of this labyrinthine maneuvering about copyright could be avoided, and a great deal of trouble saved, simply by decreeing that the recording industry can take any amount of money, from anyone, at any time, for any reason. (In addition, it really must be embarrassing for the Senators and Representatives representing the entertainment industry in Congress to have to repeatedly employ tactics such as amendments to emergency spending bills in order to sneak the "broadcast flag" into law.)
But even if my suggestion were to come to pass, I'm not at all sure the entertainment industry would be satisfied with such constraints.
Cheers...
Via the EFF web site, it turns out that RIAA and its cohort believe that, on the contrary, fair use is something that the copyright holder can grant or withhold, at whim. In a filing on DMCA rule-making, the RIAA states:
Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization.Wow. Apparently, if a copyright owner deemed that ripping a CD to an iPod was not fair use, you couldn't legally do it. (In that case, of course, I suppose you'd have no choice but to buy another version of the cuts you had already bought on the CD, cuts that have been officially blessed for use on an iPod, and specifically your iPod.)
Makes sense, given the bloodsucking nature of industry higher-ups. In the past, we've seen blanket surcharges imposed for the benefit of the entertainment industry on the cost of audio and video tape cassettes to "compensate" said industry for the use of such media to store copyrighted material, whether it is actually used for that purpose or not, and I seem to recall there are some jurisdications today in which citizens pay a similar premium whenever they buy storage media such as hard drives.
I get the feeling that all of this labyrinthine maneuvering about copyright could be avoided, and a great deal of trouble saved, simply by decreeing that the recording industry can take any amount of money, from anyone, at any time, for any reason. (In addition, it really must be embarrassing for the Senators and Representatives representing the entertainment industry in Congress to have to repeatedly employ tactics such as amendments to emergency spending bills in order to sneak the "broadcast flag" into law.)
But even if my suggestion were to come to pass, I'm not at all sure the entertainment industry would be satisfied with such constraints.
Cheers...
