Writers Guild of America says copyright shouldn't trump free expression

[drjenkins]

Writers Guild of America West Post-meeting Comments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/202606931/...eting-Comments

US copyright law must be pretty broken for the WGA to call for more balance in copright law. They say, quite rightly, that censorsphip and surveillance should have no role in copyright policy.

[pwalker8]

Well yea, neither do murder and robbery. I'm not real sure what copyright has to do with censorship or surveillance.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well yea, neither do murder and robbery. I'm not real sure what copyright has to do with censorship or surveillance.

Is it a copyright violation if the NSA copies the message to your publisher with the books as an attachment?

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well yea, neither do murder and robbery. I'm not real sure what copyright has to do with censorship or surveillance.

They fear that "piracy detection and prevention tools" may "infringe on free speech and the right to privacy". That potential costs of lawsuits may deter the rise of sites that "allow users to upload content without gatekeeper permission". That a "proposal to make streaming unauthorized works a felony" would have a "chilling effect on artists who use such independent forums and may harm sites that allow streaming of user generated content by driving away contributors."

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by theducks

Is it a copyright violation if the NSA copies the message to your publisher with the books as an attachment?

Given that copyright is a privilege granted by the government, I'm not really sure that a government agency can be changed with copyright violation. Even if it can be, that would surely fall into the fair use exclusion.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

They fear that "piracy detection and prevention tools" may "infringe on free speech and the right to privacy". That potential costs of lawsuits may deter the rise of sites that "allow users to upload content without gatekeeper permission". That a "proposal to make streaming unauthorized works a felony" would have a "chilling effect on artists who use such independent forums and may harm sites that allow streaming of user generated content by driving away contributors."

Yes, I can see that surveillance can have a chilling effect on free speech and privacy concerns. I just don't see where copyright comes into play.

[drjenkins]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes, I can see that surveillance can have a chilling effect on free speech and privacy concerns. I just don't see where copyright comes into play.

Many copyright holders, like the MPAA and RIAA, are calling for surveillance specifically to detect potential copyright violations.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by drjenkins

Many copyright holders, like the MPAA and RIAA, are calling for surveillance specifically to detect potential copyright violations.

Probably I am wrong but that just seems silly. You would have to surveil everyone in the world wouldn't you? Why not surveil for physical theft or fraud or abuse or general meanness? Apples and oranges I know, but I think it would not be any harder to wipe out other particular areas of crime/misdemeanors, and so far it doesn't seem to be happening. Put enough resources on it and it can be done. Still not going to happen.

Helen

[Ntsimp]

It's orders of magnitude easier to monitor people's file transfers than their physical movements.

[crich70]

I'm not sure how one applies to the other. There is a difference between using pieces of say Charles Dickens writings (like Oliver Twist and David Copperfield) to show how his early life influenced his writings and having access to his work simply for reading those two books for pleasure for example. Most of us want access to works by writer's (who have died) simply for the pleasure of reading them. Those who want to write a biographical work on an author however have the concept of free use to help them (even if the author is still living). So the one doesn't always apply to the other. If Mr. Dickens was still alive and I wanted to use small parts of his works to show how his life had had an influence on his writing I could do so as long as I stayed within the fair use guidelines. Copyright on the other hand is a different matter. Were he still alive I couldn't get his works for free unless it was via the library or if he had released them as creative commons. As far as the Government not being able to be charged with copyright violations since they give the author the copyright in the 1st place I don't think that is right either. The government should not be above the law simply because they make the law what it is. If someone in a branch of the government breaks the law that the governnment themselves make then they should be prosecuted just like anyone else. If a law doesn't apply to everyone equally then is it actually a law to begin with? The law must apply to everyone or else it applies to no one.

[pwalker8]

Copyright is the right to copy, not the right to have. You can get any author's works for free as long as you can get someone who owns a legit copy to give it to you (first sale doctrine), what you can't do is make copies of that work, except in specific fair use situations which is defined by the library of congress and the court system.

It may not be right but it is correct. Generally the government has to give you permission to sue them. The concept is call sovereign immunity.