said by funchords :

I am in 100% agreement with those that say that the "Pirate Party" name accomplishes one or both of the following:

- Implicitly tells its members to ignore the law

- Implicitly tells the public (would-be supporters or detractors) that whatever revisions to law it makes won't matter anyway

The only way they could hope to be less successful would be to rename the group to NAMBLA.

That said, I 100% agree with amigo_boy who quite concisely said, "the social *gift* to artists and publishers known as 'copyright' has swung too far in favor of them at the expense of society (reduction of 'fair use,' non-existant 'public domain')."

The 55 MPH speed limit turned most American drivers into scofflaws. The ridiculous excesses of our copyright laws have likewise turned us into pirates. AND BEFORE YOU DENY IT:

- have you ever organized an event where the song "Happy Birthday to You!" was sung? Unless you paid ASCAP a fee based on the number of chairs in the hall, then you have violated the copyright of the lyricist (the tune, however, is in the Public Domain). And even though only the lyrics are under copyright, the fee you pay is the same.

- have you ever recorded yourself singing the song, perhaps in a Voice Mail message to your mom? Unless you got a mechanical recording license from the Sunny Company, you again have violated copyright.

- ever cut out a newspaper or magazine article, and either passed it on or posted it in public? Unless you were licensed to do so by the publisher, then you're no better than the millions of movie, song, or software-swappers being vilified by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA.

- ever get a tattoo? If it was someone else's drawing first, and it wasn't licensed to you or the artist you employed, then welcome to the Pirate Party. Your old pal Mickey wants his money. Mickey -- a few circles and lines on paper drawn in 1928 -- turns out to be more relevant than Walt (now dead 40 years). The copyright expires when Mickey turns 95, not when Walt became worm-food.

And do not put a lot of trust in the Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is a defense to an infringement, it is not a license. This means that you first have to infringe on the copyright, get your butt taken to court, and a judge has to apply four or five subjective factors. To help understand how important this distinction of "defense" versus "license" is, understand that insanity is a defense to homicide. Whether it's a question of a tattoo or a mass murder, in order to use a defense to an act, you first have to admit to committing the act.

The US Constitution specifically assigned the job of setting copyright law to Congress. The first law granted an author or artist 14 years to be the exclusive seller of his expressions. If requested and granted, this exclusive period could be extended another 14 years.

After many extensions to the periods first established by Congress -- Mickey Mouse and all of his buddies has protection for another 15 or more years. He was supposed to become Public Domain in 2003, but lobbiests convinced Congress that 75 years of exclusive licensing rights was not enough time to ensure dead Walt enough time to make a living based on his artistic skills.

Any bets on whether they'll want another extension sometime before the year 2023?

said by funchords :

I am in 100% agreement with those that say that the "Pirate Party" name accomplishes one or both of the following:

- Implicitly tells its members to ignore the law

Right...

- Implicitly tells the public (would-be supporters or detractors) that whatever revisions to law it makes won't matter anyway

Right...

The only way they could hope to be less successful would be to rename the group to NAMBLA.

Right...

That said, I 100% agree with amigo_boy who quite concisely said, "the social *gift* to artists and publishers known as 'copyright' has swung too far in favor of them at the expense of society (reduction of 'fair use,' non-existant 'public domain')."

Fair use is NOT using an entire song or movie. Fair Use has a test generally meaning "not for money", not full use of the work, the nature of the copyrighted work, and the effect of using the copyrighted work. Fair Use is mainly meant for commentary on current works.

The 55 MPH speed limit turned most American drivers into scofflaws. The ridiculous excesses of our copyright laws have likewise turned us into pirates. AND BEFORE YOU DENY IT:

- have you ever organized an event where the song "Happy Birthday to You!" was sung? Unless you paid ASCAP a fee based on the number of chairs in the hall, then you have violated the copyright of the lyricist (the tune, however, is in the Public Domain). And even though only the lyrics are under copyright, the fee you pay is the same.

- have you ever recorded yourself singing the song, perhaps in a Voice Mail message to your mom? Unless you got a mechanical recording license from the Sunny Company, you again have violated copyright.

See Fair Use Above - that would not be a violation

- ever cut out a newspaper or magazine article, and either passed it on or posted it in public? Unless you were licensed to do so by the publisher, then you're no better than the millions of movie, song, or software-swappers being vilified by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA.

You can quote an article but not use the whole thing. Passing it to a few friends is okay but posting it on your website or all over a city wouldn't be.

- ever get a tattoo? If it was someone else's drawing first, and it wasn't licensed to you or the artist you employed, then welcome to the Pirate Party. Your old pal Mickey wants his money. Mickey -- a few circles and lines on paper drawn in 1928 -- turns out to be more relevant than Walt (now dead 40 years). The copyright expires when Mickey turns 95, not when Walt became worm-food.

Tattoo? I would agree a brand name, like Mickey, should continue till they stop using it. But, getting a Mickey tattoo is not going to bring the wrath of Disney.

And do not put a lot of trust in the Fair Use doctrine. Fair Use is a defense to an infringement, it is not a license. This means that you first have to infringe on the copyright, get your butt taken to court, and a judge has to apply four or five subjective factors. To help understand how important this distinction of "defense" versus "license" is, understand that insanity is a defense to homicide. Whether it's a question of a tattoo or a mass murder, in order to use a defense to an act, you first have to admit to committing the act.

Fair Use really means a commentary on a copyrighted work not using the whole thing. In private, if you copy your DVD or CD and even change it, the DMCA says no, but, as long as private, I doubt they are coming after you. Now if you put it online for download, good luck getting sued.

The US Constitution specifically assigned the job of setting copyright law to Congress. The first law granted an author or artist 14 years to be the exclusive seller of his expressions. If requested and granted, this exclusive period could be extended another 14 years.

After many extensions to the periods first established by Congress -- Mickey Mouse and all of his buddies has protection for another 15 or more years. He was supposed to become Public Domain in 2003, but lobbiests convinced Congress that 75 years of exclusive licensing rights was not enough time to ensure dead Walt enough time to make a living based on his artistic skills.

Any bets on whether they'll want another extension sometime before the year 2023?

Mickey Mouse might have become public domain but the movies would not be (since they keep copyrighting the movie on rerelease). Hate to tell you this, but a lot of laws, mostly the DMCA, were created to deter stealing so really pirating music recordings, movies, etc. started it in the first place. Now, even Google might find some legal trouble with its digital library except they steer you to buy it.

said by funchords :

Supergirl,

PLEASE, GOD, PLEASE read up on the history of Copyright so that you know what it is -- but more importantly, why it is.

> Fair use is NOT using an entire song or movie.

Not necessarily true. In a parody, the whole of a composition can be used.

The tests that you quote are not the same as elements of a crime. They are all subjective tests and they are used together. However, there is no preset way to score these rules. It all happens by a subjective judicial review.

> Fair Use has a test generally meaning

> "not for money",

BZZT. Wrong, try again. Credit given for second tries.

> not full use of the work,

EEEEEEE, you get half a point. The amount of the work is a factor, but you can still use all of it and be found not liable for an infringement under the Fair Use Doctrine.

> the nature of the copyrighted work,

BZZT. Wrong, try again. Credit given for second tries. Hint: You made the same mistake here as you did on the first item.

> and the effect of using the copyrighted work.

Too vague, half a point. There is a very specific effect (or specific set of effects) that should be considered.

> See Fair Use Above - that would not be a violation

BZZT!! Someone cannot invoke the Fair Use Doctrine until an infringement (a complaint of a violation) has already taken place. And Fair Use is not determined until a judge does so. So I'm sure you don't have available the case law that says it's Fair Use, because even then -- such matters are determined by a case-by-case basis.

Don't feel too bad, even the website authors at copyright.gov confuse this point from time to time.

The Fair Use Doctrine is a good thing, but the way we apply it in the USA stinks.

> You can quote an article but not use the whole thing.
> Passing it to a few friends is okay but posting it
> on your website or all over a city wouldn't be.

> But, getting a Mickey tattoo is not going to bring
> the wrath of Disney.

So is this DSLReports or is this "That Forum Where Supergirl Just Makes up Crap?" Both, apparently.

Unless, of course, you can give me a citation for said crap?

Do I just sit here and make stuff up, or do you see evidence and artifacts of actual knowledge and research on my part?

Oh, and yes, Disney minds very much whether or not you wear their characters as tattoos -- go look up George Reiger, who settled with Disney for his violations and -- in doing so -- taught everyone a lesson about this Mickey Mouse law.

Perhaps, rule #1, don't piss off a tattoo artist; rule #2, lawyers piss off tattoo artists, and rule #3, tattoos are permanent.

I'll let Google explain the rest to you.

The SCOTUS made the burden of proof for Fair Use on the Plaintiff to prove it's commercial interests were damaged in the Betamax case and upheld that standard in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994).

Other than parody, it can't be for money.

See Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841) on copying a book and calling it "fair use." It didn't work.

said by funchords :

Welcome to the debate. You've earned your wings. Your interp can a bit right or wrong, but now you're read up.

Mickey is still copyrighted even without the Circle-C on his site. The interesting thing about his case is the unique settlement he struck with Disney -- and the implications in an almost read-between-the-lines kind of way.

Now I've learned something! Since the tests are subjective, I wonder if this is useful as precedent. This places a very, very high burden on the plaintiff. Why wasn't it used in that recent $200K+ RIAA filesharing case last year?

The SCOTUS decision gave the weight to the 4th rule. I never said Judges weren't stupid. But, filesharing certainly harms commercial interests (hence what a reasonable person would believe), so the Judge nailed her. The spoliation of that HD really killed her though.

That cannot be correct. Movies use snippets of songs and video all the time without paying royalties (licensed songs are listed in the credits differently). It can be for money. Go back to four tests:
1. Commercial use - for profit by Fox
2. CBS game-show playing on a television screen in set background behind actors
3. Brief shot (about 10 seconds of a 30 minute episode, used as device to create a clue in a Fox fictional drama)
4. zero to theoretically improved (the game show is not in syndication, if it were to later go into syndication, the use in the drama may add a trivial interest)

Okay, judge, READY, SET, GO DECIDE!! (and that's how Fair Use works).

No, you're wrong. Movies pay for use of music in the movies. They pay a license fee usually. These are the test:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

No, but the amount used is only an element. How do you use just "passages" of a drawing of Mickey Mouse? In the case of a drawing, it's typical for the whole image to be used.

No, that court decision said taking someone else's book and selling it as your own (this case split into two books) was NOT Fair Use. You'd have to pay a license for Mickey Mouse's drawing if used in a book. A book on pop culture might be "educational" so no license required (permission still required). Ask the child care center (or pre-school) that painted Mickey and others on their building with NO license. Disney sued and they had to remove them since they were using it for profit. Florida court decision. You'd probably have to use Westlaw to find that.

I used to make learning tapes for singers who could not read music, but who licensed the tune (through the purchase of the sheet music). My copy of that entire work, I claim, was Fair Use because I degraded the audio quality by separating the audio channel for the part being trained, the sampling was at a sub-commercial-grade level. The artistic interpretations were removed and the interpretation was generally slower and more pedantic than indicated so that the singer could learn the notes and then make these artistic corrections later. The whole tune was "copied" (recorded, no less). Would it fly? My guess is that I removed enough commercial value from my result that it couldn't possibly harm the original any more or less than the licensor did by selling the sheet music in the first place. But there's no way to know until a judge says so, despite my claim.

Based on the interpretation, you were using it for "educational" purposes. The fact you degraded the recording would be a good indication you weren't using it for just commercial gain. Textbooks are commercial gain no doubt but "educational." (permission still required in textbooks though no fee paid).

SO, going back to something you said before -- is it still like stealing a car?