MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-09-12 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: [fairuse] [nylug-talk] The RIAA is finally making our case [ruben@mrbrklyn.com]
|
That is really interesting.
I was reading in New York Magazine about FOX and the BBC and i happened to
mentioned it becaus eit was on my mind. The BBC is an interesting and
potentially problematic intitution.
But in some ways, it is not unlike the mandatory licensing of music
scores in the States.
Great Article.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Ruben
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 01:03:33PM -0500, Taran Rampersad wrote:
>
> Ruben,
>
> Have you seen this yet?
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,1030286,00.html
>
> Taran
>
>
> Ruben Safir Secretary NYLXS wrote:
>
> ><>
> >
> >This is where I would have to politely disagree with you.
> >
> >Your correct that under one current legal theory that P2P
> >can viewed as a violation of copyright beyoud what is legally
> >permissiable. However this is just one view, and a strictly
> >legal view based on the copyright statute (as you properly qouted).
> >
> >However, the basis of copyright and theory of copyright is that
> >all works are owned by the public. This is a legal fact based on
> >the US Constitution and supported by the Federalist papers.
> >
> >Copyright is a limited exception to the 1st, 4th and 5th ammendments
> >to encourage the increased availability of published works by business
> >to the public in order to allow for a better oppurtunity of profitablility
> >for the artists and creators. At no time was it invisioned as a means to
> >restrict the flow of works by the public in a non-commercial venue.
> >
> >Much of the current copyright law is designed under the basic assumption
> >that the restrictions would not interfer with the publics normal usage of
> >materials in their ordinary living. But slowly over time, this basic
> >assupmption can no longer be assumed.
> >
> >The non-commercial sharing of information (that includes writing, software,
> >music, movies and all other human expressions) has not been properly
> >adressed
> >or debated by the public.
> >
> >The term 'Piracy', as commonly understood in the public, is the commercial
> >copying and selling of copyrighted works. The public, including myself,
> >and as an official position of the NY Association of Copyright
> >Stakeholders, is
> >against this sort of activity. But nobody guarantees the RIAA that they
> >are
> >somehow entitled to an stipents or profits. The RIAA is confusing
> >themselves
> >the the BBC. Wrong nation, Wrong model.
> >
> >I support the RIAAs right to sue to protect their copyrights. There are
> >dozens of other aspects of copyright law, and current copyright
> >implementations
> >which I don't support. And the dragnet of the RIAA is good for too
> >reasons.
> >
> >First, it will demonstrate that existing copyright law, even without the
> >DMCA,
> >is more than adequate for the protection of Copyright privledges
> >(copyright is
> >a privledge). Secondly, it demonstrates to the public the threat of
> >current
> >copyright law to public use and access to information.
> >
> >It's up to the public to decide if it wants to allow Peer to Peer networks,
> >which is what we're mostly talking about in these cases, or not. And the
> >public hasn't yet weighed in heavely on this issue. These activities will
> >hopefully stimulate the public in taking a real interest in these important
> >matters.
> >
> >The public, up to now, has been happy that it can pretty much ignor
> >copyright
> >law in peoples personal lives as they see fit, from copying pages in the
> >library
> >to sharing music and images. These lawsuites can demonstrae that in the
> >digital
> >age, this ignoring of statuatary law at our convience is coming to a fast
> >end.
> >
> >Some of the troubles with current copyright law, off the top of my head
> >include:
> >
> >The elongated period of time copyrights exist for. They need to be rolled
> >back to 30 years.
> >
> >The permanent assignement of copyright to corperate entities.
> >
> >The intrussion of Fair Use through the DMCA.
> >
> >The default of copyright for all materials without registering the material
> >at the copyright office.
> >
> >The lack of clarity that copyright should only apply to copying and
> >distributing
> >for commercial purposes.
> >
> >The lack of provisions for placing things into the public domain upon
> >abandenment of copyrighted materials by corperations, such as old video
> >games and software.
> >
> >And many of the penalties for infringment.
> >
> >
> >Ruben
> >
> >
>
>
> To stop the messages from coming see
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/appl/fairuse/gone.html
> ____________________________
> New Yorkers for Fair Use -
> because it's either fair use or useless....
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
1-718-382-0585
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
