http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/ Engadget Comments for Know Your Rights: Why is copyright law so screwed up? http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2010 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
Off topic, I found ot how to write in japanese on my macbook! はじみまして！]]>Oct 5th 2007 7:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 11:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 7th 2007 6:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 6th 2007 2:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 6th 2007 9:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 6th 2007 12:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 6th 2007 12:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
If they ruined your life, as well as your family, what would you do?]]>Oct 5th 2007 7:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 6th 2007 10:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
]]>Oct 9th 2007 4:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 11:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
The *original* intent of copyrights as stated in the Court of Queen Anne (where the first copyright was created) and as is actually stated in most copyright acts (the US as well) is to give creators *limited* monopoly in order to promote the creation of new works.

It was never intended to be unlimited in time and scope.

On the 'duration' end, originally a copyright lasted 30 years and could not be transferred to someone else. Now (partially because corporations are now considered persons in a limited way), copyrights can be transferred to businesses who might live far, far longer than the original creator of a given work. This is important because now a copyright lasts the life of the creator plus 75 years.

As well, creators (or rather, corporations who have become copyright owners, mostly) has lobbied successfully for the extension of copyright from the original to long over 75 years, with the possibility (as long as Disney is in business) of extending that indefinitely. (The US SSC noted that they felt there was no implicit restriction on the length of a copyright.)

On the 'control' side, copyrights have never excluded copying without permission. Title 15 section 506 spells out the hook that everyone misses: the copying may NOT be for financial gain, nor may be damage the value of the original work significantly - which is a legal grey area that the N.E.T. (No Electronic Theft) partially cleared up by establishing an upper limit of value and number of copies that constitute damaging the original work. It is still, however, not zero.

In most other countries who are members of the Berne or Universal Copyright Conventions, the 'escape clause' is even simple. The Canadian copyright law (Bill C-41, section 42) allows any personal copying with three limits: the two previous given, and a restriction on the copying of photoplates which I believe has been withdrawn.

Canada goes even further. In exchange for the Digital Media Levy, Bill C-43 Sections 68 and 80 make it clear that the duplication of music for personal use - even of music you do not own - is legal. Similarly, downloading files for *personal* use in Canada is legal (a Canadian SSC judge essentially ruled on that, much to the chagrin of the music and movie industry...)

Now, in the case of the lady who allegedly posted some music on Kazaa - well, that's the break line, even here in Canada. Downloading is legal because you're not in violation of C-42 Section 42. But UPloading isn't legal because it causes a situation which can violate the 'no significant damage' rule.

Clearly, the copyright act was never intended to be a blunt force legal instrument nor is it unassailable. Consumers should get involved in this process and make sure their needs are represented as strongly (if not more strongly - 'Of the people, by the people, for the people?' - that's all people, not just businessmen and there are more of us than them).]]>Oct 5th 2007 7:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
nice comment!]]>Oct 5th 2007 8:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 8:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 11:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The most important part of that clause is "limited times", because having ideas shift into the public domain after not too long a time is also vital to the progress of science and useful arts, by allowing others to easily build new ideas on top of the old ones. But copyright has been extended over and over again, from the original 14 years to the current obscene life + 95 years. Most recently at the urging of one giant hypocritical company who wants to prevent their precious Mouse from becoming public domain, while they keep producing movies of stories taken from the public domain. And the MPAA, who testified to Congress that "limited times" means "forever minus one day".

Copyright law isn't too badly broken, but the current term of copyright is BS and needs to be fixed.
]]>Oct 6th 2007 4:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 6th 2007 8:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 6th 2007 1:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-5182641.html?tag=nefd_pop ), he cited a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision ( http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc013.wpd.html ), where the Supreme Court found that "The Law Society [of Upper Canada] did not authorize copyright infringement by providing self-service photocopiers for use by its patrons in the Great Library. While authorization can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement." The judgement is that simply by offering music on a shared drive for others to copy is analogous to offering use of equipment which could be used in an infringing manner.]]>Oct 7th 2007 1:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
An ever-increasing number of unlicensed downloads are taking place in private homes all over the world. According to recent data, over twelve million people are simultaneously sharing 1.08 billion music, movie, and software files on the Internet at any given moment.

Imagine a person or child sitting down in front of a Television with a remote and selecting a few dozen channels or video on demand selections and finding out later that they have committed copyright infringement and are being asked to pay several hundred thousand dollars in fines. What makes this even worse is there is really no way to determine if a certain piece of content is appropriate for use, copyrighted or not, until the damage is already done.
A typical internet user does not build the internet applications, program the search engines, or manage the internet networks that they use. More could be done with these key elements of the internet to insure that standards are set that provide a higher degree of safety from copyright infringement or exposure to inappropriate content. We live in a society that requires people to wear seat belts; Why?, because they provide an additional layer of protection from unnecessary injury.

A national copyright and rating database could serve as a seat belt for the internet to protect users from injury as well. Copyrighted materiel could be registered along with an associated audience rating of the content allowing internet applications, search engines and network operators to establish national standards for digital rights management.

Now is the time for us all to work together to provide a level of protection from unnecessary injury and make the internet safe again for average citizens in their homes.

Thank you for your leadership in this important social and technological issue.

JLH
]]>Oct 22nd 2007 9:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Are they sitting and monitoring p2ps like Kazaa, Oink or Soulseek and looking for random people? Are they making tracks available and catching the people who are downloading those particular tracks? How is this done?]]>Oct 5th 2007 7:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
Drug dealers and Rapist go away for a few months to a few years, and this poor woman has her life destroyed because she fracking shared a few songs? You've got to have your head up your ass to believe our legal system is till on the right track.

Unbelievable.]]>Oct 5th 2007 7:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
Its about money. Its still more illegal to rape somebody than it is to steal a song. The problem is, the victims of rape and / or drugs are not likely to have millions of dollars. Justice (or injustice) comes to the rich who can afford it, in most cases. We all know that OJ having some coin got him out of what he almost certainly did.

Blaming the system is the wrong way to go about it. Its not perfect, but its the best shot. It won't ever be perfect.

Getting pissed at the system is silly. Get pissed at the RIAA. Instead of moving to figure out a way to monetize P2P, they invest everything in to suing the crap out of their core fan base.

Radiohead's new record, unattached to any record label and available for download at prices the consumer is willing to pay, has been discussed. In fact, check out Canadian singer / songwriter Issa... her site (http://www.sheeba.ca/store/) sells songs at a price you choose, and wouldn't you know it? We consumers aren't as horrible as they expected, because she gets OVER the suggested $0.99 per track!

Its time for the RIAA to accept that in a world where you can get a 160 gig iPod (costing $40,000 to fill up in the traditional, dollar a track model), their ideas on how this should happen are unrealistic.

Its time to either go to a subscription model, like cable TV... or to grasp that recorded music sales are the loss leader for the industry as a whole, and the money is going to be made in concerts, in merch, in licensing...]]>Oct 6th 2007 12:57AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 7:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 8:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Man Steals Pack of Gum
Terrorist??]]>Oct 6th 2007 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 8:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
Back before filesharing became huge, I bought on tape all my music, and then all over again on CD when the format changed. Once filesharing began it's rise to popularity, I still bought all my music on CD. I used the filesharing system to preview tracks and albums to see if it was worth my cash, and if it was, I went and bought it, if it wasn't, I deleted the offending tracks. I still have a music collection that spans about 10,000 discs (some of which I wished I hadn't paid for), although all that is now in storage as I have ripped all my legally obtained music to my hard drive to cataloge and use as I please without taking up an entire wall of my house for storage.

On October 10th, Radiohead (now no longer under any contractual obligation with any music labels) is releasing their new album "In_Rainbows." They have a site where you can pre-order the album in either a disc boxset, or as a file download. Here's where it gets interesting, the boxset is a specific price and will be shipped in early November to pre-order customers, the file download however, has a user selectable price, from 0.00 to 99.00 pounds. Radiohead trusts their customers and knows the point is the music, and rather than making people go find it illegally, they make it available at whatever price your conscience can handle. I for one, put in 0.00 for the download, but have already put money aside for the boxset, and am looking up other ways I can support Radiohead as a band. They get it, they understand the relationship between an artist and their audience is more than money, even if they can't work for free.

This is a lesson the RIAA and it's record labels would do well to learn, trust your customers and they will give you all you need and support you, treat them like criminals and they will hate you, shun you, and eventually, topple you.

I sincerely hope more bands follow Radiohead's example.]]>Oct 5th 2007 8:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
Unfortunatelly, RIAA, MPAA and the like are not about music or films, but about money (STRICTLY). I mean, tastes might differ, but we all know that most of the music and/or movies that are everywhere these days are not made for the sake of art. "Artists" are often sold using their looks rather than their qualities, movies are marketed by their cast and/or visual effects, not the merrits of script, directing and acting performance. I don't mean a famous actor may not be a good one, or a good looking singer may not sing well, but that those are not the things that should matter.

Another point is related to what has been said further above. Copyright law is indeed not about the artists' unlimited rights, but about setting a balance between the artist's right to get compensation and the user's right to have access to art. So a question that I think should be asked and is not is "to how much art can a person of a certain income have access these days"? There should be a balance there, because humanity learned during the enlightenment that any form of art has ultimately an educating purpose for the user (an aspect all but forgotten these days). So if we give unlimited rights to artists, it means we don't care about the average level of education of people. And I think this is indeed visible around the world these days.

I am not a fan of Radiohead, but I really admire this move I hear they are making.]]>Oct 6th 2007 7:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 8:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
Also, the 8th Amendment is effectively worthless since the Death Penalty has never been ruled Cruel and Unusual.]]>Oct 5th 2007 8:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
I would like to know the comparable punishment for stealing 24 songs worth of CDs from Best Buy and then turning around to sell them!

Also, it seems strange to me that they are using backwards logic... In this case, it didn't matter who may or may not have been committing the crime, because it was her connection - she is liable. However, if you were at a library or on a university campus the RIAA would still go after you evern though you do not own the connection!]]>Oct 5th 2007 8:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
That's the thing - they opted not to. They had two choices: (1) ACTUAL damages, (2) STATUTORY damages (eg, the estimated 750 - 30K stated in the article). They chose the latter, thus the JURY got to decide just how much to charge per infringement.]]>Oct 6th 2007 12:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
Why can't they get the IP address of the other people who were connected to her through the Kazaa network. Why stop at her? They should get everyone in the chain!]]>Oct 5th 2007 9:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 9:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 9:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/ Plus, for all the people that download music, they are still getting other people interested in it, whether they paid for it or not. I mean, I listen to music with friends, so they get to know what I've got. I know I've gotten music just because I liked it when I heard it on someone else's ipod. Without p2p, the music would never get to some of these people.
They scare all these people away, and they've lost a huge audience, many of whom won't ever actually buy the music. And thats all this really was- a way to scare people away. A quarter million is nothing to them- gained or lost.

]]>Oct 5th 2007 9:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 6th 2007 3:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/Oct 5th 2007 10:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
If you are curious about the RIAA and their extortionist practices, check out the blog "The RIAA Vs. The People", written/maintained by two lawyers in New York that do a lot of work defending would-be victims of the RIAA and defending your fair-use rights. The RIAA hates this blog, calling it "the Anti-RIAA Blog". I fail to see what is so anti-RIAA specifically in exposing the truth, but oh, well.]]>Oct 8th 2007 5:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/05/know-your-rights-why-is-copyright-law-so-screwed-up/
The RIAA is just protecting it's huge investment(made in the Sonny Bono Act). pretty typical behaviour for a coalition of capitalists :)

]]>Oct 5th 2007 10:35PM