The copyright Red Scare!
According to a recent interview with Bill Gates anyone who advocates less copyright restriction and control is a communist. Here is the question from the interview and his answer:

In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?

No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of
communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.

The irony of this comment is amazing. If someone advocates less government control and more laissez faire economics, then that means they are a communist? Copyright is a system which only exists by governmental decree. I fail to see where communism enters into it.

For more discussion see here, here, and here.


- posted by Dave @ 1:41 PM 0 comments

 
Some words on morality
This is for the "copyright infringement is wrong!" crowd.

There are two latin terms I really like: malum in se and malum prohibitum. Malum in se means "wrong in itself" or wrong because it is wrong. Included in this category would be things like murder, assault, lying, etc. Not everything that is Malum in se is illegal. For example, most people would agree that lying to your spouse is wrong(immoral), but I have never heard of any laws against it.

Malum prohibitum means "wrong because it is prohibited" or wrong because it is illegal. Speeding, fishing without a license, and illegal residency all fall into this category. So does copyright infringement. So (and I'm going to use italics to emphasize this) the only moral argument that carries any weight at all in regards to copyright infringement is that it is wrong because it is illegal.

Two arguments immediately come to mind when I ponder the moral implications of violating copyright. The first is "if you believe in obeying the law, then you should respect copyright." That's a toughie. It's hard to refute it because it takes the same approach as a parent saying "Because I said so." I hate that response. I am making every effort to keep from using that with my kids. You can't refute it because it is not an argument. It's an ultimatum that you have to either accept or reject. I reject it. If you want me to obey copyright law, you better have some darn good reasons. Sony's desire to control "Spider-man 2" for the next 95 years doesn't count.

The other argument is easy. "If you infringe copyright you are stealing!" A direct application of malum in se if ever I saw one. Only problem is that it depends on a fiction. It depends on treating so-called intellectual property the same as honest to goodness physical property. Rule #1 for discussing copyright issues: Any analogy that compares physical property with intellectual property will fail. It has to. If I go too deep into this, I'll have enough material for another post.

Comments are always welcome!

- posted by Dave @ 10:13 AM 0 comments

 
Reason #7 to ignore copyright
Did you know that even if a work is anonymous, the author does not want to take credit, it is still copyrighted? How do you obtain permission to use an anonymous work?

From the official copyright website:
"How long does a copyright last?"
"... For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first."


- posted by Dave @ 7:14 PM 0 comments

 
Reason #6 to ignore copyright
You infringe someone's copyright all the time. Yes, you. And yes, all the time. If you've ever forwarded an email without permission, sung a song in public, scanned an image of a photograph (not taken by you), copied an article from a magazine, made a tape off the radio, video taped a performance your kid was in, and so on, you have infringed a copyright. In fact if you quote this blog, without permission, you have infringed my copyright, and I can sue.

So if all of us frequently break copyright law, with or without knowledge of it, why is it that the only thing matters is the manner of infringement. Why are we constantly being labeled as thieves and pirates if we download a movie or a song? I don't get the same label if I copy and paste a newspaper article into an email. I went to a church talent show where I counted at least 17 instances of copyright infringement. I never heard the term "pirate" applied to any of the performers.

The dividing line doesn't seem to be commercial value or whether or not I keep a copy. Not once have I seen someone called a "thief" for copying a magazine or newspaper article (which could qualify under both). The pirate moniker just seems to apply to movies, music, and software, which are the industries that are screaming the loudest.

So the next time someone calls you a thief for infringing copyright, remind them that they're a pirate too.

- posted by Dave @ 1:21 PM 0 comments

 
Reason #5 to ignore copyright
Fair use is a joke.

Fair use is supposed to be the trump card that protects your free speech rights over copyrights. It supposedly lets you use copyrighted material without having to be worried about being sued. There are all kinds of ways this could be useful. Quoting novels for school work, showing clips of movies for reviews, examples of poetry in textbooks, serenading your true love in public, and on and on.

Problem is, fair use laws are a sham. A fraud. A ... Well, you get the idea.

So here's the lowdown. Fair use doesn't tell us a dang thing about what we are allowed to do. It certainly isn't as plain as "you can do this, you can't do that." In fact, fair use doesn't come into play at all unless you are already being sued. Let me emphasize this. It is not fair use unless you are being sued, and a judge rules that your use was fair.

Now, if a lawsuit is required to determine fair use, how anxious do you think publishers and ISPs are to defend your right to use others' copyrighted material? That's right. Not at all. In fact, from what I understand, content publishers have their lawyers "clear rights" on every little bit of copyrighted material used in their productions. If they can't get permission to use the material, it just isn't used.

My understanding is that the only exception to this is parody. As long as you are clearly making fun of the work that you are using, it is unlikely enough that you will be sued that publishers will give it the go ahead. Unlikely, but not impossible. Even Weird Al, the King of musical parody gets permission. Remember: Any fair use, including parody, must be cleared by a judge.

For more information about fair use go to Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Center. But be warned. There is enough info there to fill a large text book.

- posted by Dave @ 6:15 PM 0 comments

 
Reason #4 to ignore copyright
Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday dear [insert name]
Happy Birthday to you!

There. I just infringed the copyright of AOL-Time Warner, who owns the Happy Birthday song. That's right. Happy Birthday, the best known song in the English language, is under copyright.

Now this doesn't mean that the copyright cops are going bust in on your family party. You're probably safe. But contrary to popular belief, there is nothing in copyright law that says "yes, go ahead and use that song at home for personal use. That's legal." It just means that you are likely to get away with the infringement because:

1. The copyright holder will remain blissfully unaware of your infringement.
2. If the copyright holder knows about your specific instance of infringement he will have trouble proving it in a court of law or...
3. Copyright holder knows that it is likely that the judge in such a case would rule it "Fair Use".

There are probably more reasons, but my point is really the fact that you are a copyright infringer if you use the song "Happy Birthday" without permission from AOL-Time Warner.

There is some great articles about the copyright statusof "Happy Birthday" at snopes (warning! Popups!) and on this page here.

- posted by Dave @ 10:31 AM 1 comments

 
Reason #3 to ignore copyright
Target owns my family portrait!

Not only that, but they will continue to own it for the next 95 years!

So here's the deal: 90 years from now, Grandma Becka (my daughter) has passed away. My great-grandchildren (who are in their 40's, BTW) want to put together a little display that includes a family photo of Grandma Becka and her family when she was two years old, but all they can find is an old 5x7. So my great-granddaughter, Ariel, whips out her portable lifestorage media assistant organizing communication and optical recording device, scans the image, and instructs the nearest thermal imaging device to print it out at 10x14. THE LITTLE THIEF! She just totally violated Target's copyright and deprived them of potential revenue!

Here's what she should have done. She first needs to track down the copyright owner. Target was absorbed by Wal-mart in 2014. Then Wal-mart purchased the European Union in 2046 and then collapsed under its own weight in the great depression of 2051. Its assets were mostly redistributed among the European people, but the intellectual property rights were purchased by MGM-SONY-TURNER-WARNER (a division of the company that owns absolutely every entertainment and media company, Jedi's Inc.) They then sold off the portrait studio rights to some guy on Google-eBay for $15 in 2063. His G-bay ID was 1337j3rk. There the trail runs cold. So she hires a private investigator who tracks 1337j3rk to a guy in Des Moines named Gil Svenson. Gil has completely forgotten the G-bay purchase he made when he was 15, but he immediately demands $5000 for permission to do one reprint/enlargement. It is now 6 months after the funeral anyway, so Ariel decides not to.

Now if you think the above scenario is ridiculous, you are right. EBay and Google will never merge.

- posted by Dave @ 6:30 PM 0 comments

 
Reason #2 to ignore copyright (part two)
If you haven't read part one yet, scroll down a bit. Or click here.

There is a fable that I remember hearing when I was growing up. A man is traveling through the desert with nothing but his tent and his camel. A storm comes up in the evening, so the man makes camp for the night. While he is safe in his tent, his trusty camel comes to the door and says "Master, it is bitter cold out here and the sand in the wind is stinging my poor nose. Please let me just stick my nose under the tent door." The man readily agrees. What a nice guy.

A little while later, the camel again beseeches his master, "Please, may I stick my whole head in? The wind howls in my ears, and my eyes are blinded by sand." The kind and generous master again agrees.

He wakes up a little later feeling a bit crowded. The camel had brought his whole front section into the tent. "Master," the camel says, "I only want to make sure my forelegs are strong enough to carry you through the desert tomorrow." Wow! What a thoughtful camel!

He wakes up one more time. This time he wakes up because he is very cold. He looks around and discovers that he is outside his tent. The camel has taken over.

In part one I talked about the purpose of copyright. We (the people), wanted to give creators an incentive to create. In return, they give us full and unlimited access to their work after a certain period of time.

That period was initially 14 to 28 years. Now think about this. How many of the thousands of movies or thousands of books or thousands of software programs or thousands of songs and albums are making money after 28 years? I couldn't find any statistics, but I am sure you can imagine that it is not many. That was 1976. So I guess according to Hollywood, our economy would fail and there would no longer be any incentive to create new movies if all of these movies were in the public domain. Somehow I doubt that.

The real reason that content owners do not want to have the Public Domain expanded is because it creates additional competition. If works before 1976 were in the public domain people would be able to choose between going to see Ocean's Twelve for $20 or going to their local PDT* and seeing The Godfather for $4. (*PDT = Public Domain Theater. I just made that up.) Should I buy the latest U2 CD for $10.99 or a collection of The 1000 Greatest Hits of the 50's on DVD for the same price? Because of the copyright monopoly, content owners can exclude this type of competing.

So how far back to you have to go before you get to Public Domain material? Well, to be safe, 1923. And that is for existing works. Anything published in 2005 will not be in the public domain until the year 2075. Or longer. And that's only if Congress doesn't extend copyrights again. Remember that term "limited times"? Congress doesn't. The current term of copyright is 95 years for "works for hire" (a company or corp owns the copyright) or lifetime of the author + 70 years.

So how did we go from 28 years to 95? Slowly. Bit by bit over the last 200 years and accelerating over the last 50. Authors and composers (but really just publishers) complained about the starving children of creators who were no longer making money off their father's creations. Then they complained about grand children until finally, in 1997 we heard from a prominent rock star about how worried he was that his great-grandchildren would have absolutely no income from the songs he composed. Oh, the humanity!

Piece by piece the public benefit has been eroded from copyright. The only benefit that now exists to us is the opportunity to spend money. And that's not really a benefit for us but for content owners. The balance and contract of copyright is gone. It was broken by content industries and our so-called representatives. We are no longer bound by it.

I never heard an ending to the camel fable when I was growing up. I know how it ends, though. Does the traveler meekly submit to being kicked out of his tent? No! He gets up, grabs a stick, and forcefully evicts the camel from his tent while the whole time the camel yells and whines about how he did it all for the masters own good.

Let's kick the camel out of the tent. Ignore copyright!

- posted by Dave @ 8:36 PM 0 comments