If you had a vote for copyright?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Fair use is only determined by a judge.

Well, that's true but reductive.

"Fair use" has a legal meaning, and is rooted in statutory law - US Code Title 17, Chaper 1,

§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include—
(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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Judges make determinations about what constitutes fair use at the margins, & within the definitions of this section. Things that are obviously fair use don't get into court, as a rule - exceptions being when you have obtuse plaintiffs.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Wouldn't it have been easier to just write merchandise than that whole sentence in bold?

Sure, but not as much fun.

Spell-checking impinges, sometimes, on Artificial Intelligence. I know, I know, it's really just an artifact of linquistic ambiguity, but every now & then it seems like Spellcheck is kibitzing what I type... [man, I love Yiddish...]

Every new advance in technology has created a moral panic--that this technology represented an imminent threat to the creative industry.

I like that term, "moral panic." That nails it.

Of course, sometimes the panic is rational - consider the effect of recorded music on the music sheet industry.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Judges make determinations about what constitutes fair use at the margins, & within the definitions of this section. Things that are obviously fair use don't get into court, as a rule - exceptions being when you have obtuse plaintiffs.

I'd suggest that a photograph of an ebook reader displaying a page of a copyrighted book, posted for purposes of comment on, say, the screen quality and appearance of the reader, falls squarely into the category of "obvious fair use".

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd suggest that a photograph of an ebook reader displaying a page of a copyrighted book, posted for purposes of comment on, say, the screen quality and appearance of the reader, falls squarely into the category of "obvious fair use".

And it's obvious you are right!

[HarryT]

Glad to hear that you agree.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

I don't find the arguments that piracy is hurting the entertainment industry convincing.

How about the argument that piracy is hurting independent authors, like myself? Piracy is (one of a number of things) preventing me from earning a satisfactory income from my books. How will abandoning copyright laws help me? They certainly won't make people less inclined to download my books and not pay me.

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

As for your contention that copyright infringement hurts small-time artists--that is unlikely as well. I am not saying that no small-time artist has been hurt, but it is unlikely that in general small-time artists are hurt by infringement.

Ah. So I'm too small to be stolen from? Wrong. My works are on pirate sites right now. I'm losing money right now. And I'm not alone. (And don't truck out the lame "pirates wouldn't buy anyway" argument, it's the biggest load of gossa since Godzilla ate a Taco Bell.)

The "abandon copyright" idea is as empty and ultimately unproductive as abandoning speeding laws because they don't catch all the speeders.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

How about the argument that piracy is hurting independent authors, like myself? Piracy is (one of a number of things) preventing me from earning a satisfactory income from my books. How will abandoning copyright laws help me? They certainly won't make people less inclined to download my books and not pay me.

Ah. So I'm too small to be stolen from? Wrong. My works are on pirate sites right now. I'm losing money right now. And I'm not alone. (And don't truck out the lame "pirates wouldn't buy anyway" argument, it's the biggest load of gossa since Godzilla ate a Taco Bell.)

The "abandon copyright" idea is as empty and ultimately unproductive as abandoning speeding laws because they don't catch all the speeders.

I'm sorry to hear that, but not really surprised. It seems to me that after a while the only authors we'd have access to would be the huge mega giants like Patterson who would make their living via movie rights and aftermarket etc, rather than book sales. And the world would be a much poorer place.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Glad to hear that you agree.

Yeah, I'm a pretty agreeable guy, for a lawyer....

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The "abandon copyright" idea is as empty and ultimately unproductive as abandoning speeding laws because they don't catch all the speeders.

I wasn't going to respond too your post because of its emotionally charged empty statements. But this last analogy is pertinent.

Most of the available evidence on speeding laws says that they do not reduce fatalities or accidents. In Montana, for instance, the full repeal of speeding laws was followed by a decline in accidents and fatalities. The German Autobahn has no speed limit and is much safer than US highways.

I think this analogy, however, can be helpful in thinking about copyright. The National Speeding Laws were passed in 1974 to reduce energy consumption, although it was also rationalized that they would also make the roads safer. When the National Speeding Law was repealed in 1994, most states decided to keep speeding laws on the belief that they made roads safer (in spite of any available evidence to prove that point).

-Speeding laws in general do not reduce accidents. The reason is that people are not stupid; they generally drive at speeds that they can handle.

http://www.motorists.org/speed-limit...its#CONCLUSION
“The speed of traffic is self-regulating, flow becomes uniform as congestion increases and the speed of traffic in not effected or influenced by posted speed limits nor are the nature and type of accidents that do occur.
Conversely, when the conditions become light, you do see increases in speed differentials and during these light free-flowing periods' accidents for any reason drop to negligible rates.”

In the same way, copyright in general does not thwart piracy, nor does it accomplish the goal of increasing compensation for artists.

-The only real effect of speeding laws is to "criminalize" a large percentage of the population, as well as to drive up legal and enforcement costs. A similar thing can be said about copyright laws today.

-The most effective way to reduce traffic accidents and fatalities is not traffic laws, but through improved highway structure:

“There is a direct correlation between accident rates and flow conflict points; converging highways and interchanges. The accident rates at these locations are primarily a design question regarding methods used to allow traffic to egress and ingress into the stream or converge. If they are too close to each other rates increase exponentially. Once the stream clears these conflict points the accident rates drop precipitously.”

In the same way, the most effective way to increase artist compensation may not be to pass stricter IP laws or to more vigorously enforce them, but to develop more effective and efficient compensation structures.

-As technology changed, so did people's driving speed.

“It is time to accept the fact that increases in speed are the natural byproduct of advancing technology. Therefore, the focus needs to be on flow management and making sure the devices are only used when they have a real expectation of accomplishing their desired effect...”

When automobiles first came out, there was poor steering technology, wheels, and suspensions and the roads were not paved. This meant that driving more than 20 or 30 miles an hour was very dangerous. As roads improved as well as automobile technology, it became safer to drive at faster speeds. Imagine if we based our traffic laws today on what was safe in the early twentieth century. Unfortunately, we have traffic laws today that are based on automobile technology and highway structures of the 70s, even though both automobile technology and highway structures have dramatically improved since then.

In similar fashion, as technology has changed, so has the way people consume and acquire media. The first copyright laws were not meant to be restrictions on consumers, but on publishers. They were never meant to deal with a situation where consumers, not publishers, would be the most prolific copiers.

Your assumption seems to be that, because we have speeding laws, they must be effective, and the fact that the vast majority of the population regularly disregards speed limits only means we need greater enforcement. There doesn't seem to be any scrutiny as to whether speed limits actually accomplish what they are meant to accomplish. Now, there is an argument that we should have speed limits, but they should be much higher:

“On urban roadways the 85th percentile speed has been found to be the safest speed, where the 85th exceeds 50 mph the safest speed shifts to the 90th percentile. Speed limits established on the basis of the 85th percentile on urban roadways conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and prudent, and are not dependent on the judgement of one or a few individuals.”

The fact that so many people speed is evidence that improvements in automobile technology have made it safer to drive at faster speeds, and the laws should take into account the effects of these changes in technology.

In the same way, your assumption seems to be that copyright is the most effective way to ensure artist compensation. Copyright laws should take into account changes in technology rather than trying to make technology conform to a nineteenth century paradigm.

-Speeding laws have become scoff law:

This process has conditioned motorists to disregard speed limit signs at wholesale levels. In the name of safety, Government agencies have also been allowed to unwisely use stop signs, double yellow lines etc. Again, because the public has found that violating them represents a low risk for being involved in an accident, they are now disregarding these devices too. The people being regulated do think; they are not sheep, when they realize there is no justification; they act accordingly. Like crying wolf, this has lessened the effectiveness of all traffic devices where there is a real need and justification...

So has copyright law. a recent Danish study found that most people find piracy to be, in some form or another, socially acceptable.

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news...able-says-poll

You can either try to criminalize what people find socially acceptable (as with Prohibition) or you can try to find out solutions to achieve the purpose of copyright.

Or, you can dismiss anyone who makes arguments contrary to your beliefs with emotionally charged statements.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

My works are on pirate sites right now. I'm losing money right now. And I'm not alone. (And don't truck out the lame "pirates wouldn't buy anyway" argument, it's the biggest load of gossa since Godzilla ate a Taco Bell.)

The "abandon copyright" idea is as empty and ultimately unproductive as abandoning speeding laws because they don't catch all the speeders.

With all due respect - and I really mean that tired old cliche - I don't believe that there's any way to know whether you are right or wrong about the impact of pirate sites. There are perfectly reasonable arguments both ways, but no way I can see to test them. About the best one can say is that we should respect the opinion of the creator in terms of our own actions.

On the "abandon copyright" point, I don't agree. But my position is not one I can prove. It's more just a sense, as a lawyer, that copyright law does not correctly fit the digital environment. We are in a period where cars are replacing horses, and the laws are all based on the assumption that you are driving a hay wagon or the marvelous one hoss shay. We do need some kind of legal regime to encourage & protect creators, but not the one we have now.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Harmon

We do need some kind of legal regime to encourage & protect creators, but not the one we have now.

Well, if you know of a new "legal regime" that would work, obviously we're all ears.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

@Spellbanisher: That's a lot to say about the single most deadly machine ever invented by Man. Speeding not deadly?

Your comments also make clear that you don't have a workable alternative to copyright either. Assuming that simply removing the laws will result in a fair and workable system is denying a history of human nature.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Well, if you know of a new "legal regime" that would work, obviously we're all ears.

See, you are thinking like a utopian: "design a system & make reality fit it." Rarely works.

And it really doesn't make any difference. The Supreme Court has just said, implicitly, that it will defer to Congress on copyright - and I don't really disagree with them. But Congress has made it clear that it will implement international concensus, and protect corporate interests, absent an uprising like we've just seen on SOPA.

You, the individual creator, and we the readers, are screwed.

My advice for you is to consider Doctorow. Meanwhile, everyone should drive the speed limit. Except when you don't.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Speeding not deadly?

"Speeding" is a relative term. If the speed Limit was 1 MPH, then 2 MPH would be speeding. In the early twentieth century, driving 40mph would have been dangerously fast. Today, driving 40mph on the highway would be dangerously slow.

The the highest rate of accidents occurs among the slowest 5% of drivers. the German autobahns have no speedlimit for cars and motorcycles, yet their fatality rate is half that of US highways.

It is estimated that 90% of drivers "speed," and 75% do it regularly. So you can do one of two things;
1. Flood the streets with policeman and highway patrolman (good luck with that with governments cutting back on spending). Or
2. Design laws and regulations that take into account that people will drive at the speed they are comfortable driving and that traffic is largely self-regulating. Thus, if you want to reduce fatalities, the most efficient way to do so would be to improve highway design, have better roads, stricter standards for licensing, dynamic speed limits (this is possible with digital signs), better mandates for vehicular safety devices, and requirements for proof of proper vehicular maintenance(a large number of accidents are a result of poor vehicular maintenance, i.e. bad tires, bad brakes, bad steering, etc).

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Your comments also make clear that you don't have a workable alternative to copyright either.

Well, I posted The Artistic Freedom Vouchers idea from Dean Baker. Nevertheless, solutions should be ascertained through democratic discussion. Entrepreneurs figure out the monetization part, and history shows that if something is monetizable, entrepreneurs will monetize it.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Assuming that simply removing the laws will result in a fair and workable system is denying a history of human nature.

I could certainly give a few proposals, but in this thread my general point is that we should be discussing how to develop systems that will achieve the goals of compensating artists in lieu of modern technological developments. My solution was never removing laws. The vast majority of people view piracy as socially acceptable, and that number will only rise over time. So we can try to figure how to reconcile the widespread acceptance of piracy with the desire to compensate artists, or we can believe that Prohibition would have worked, the War on Drugs would have been a tremendous success, speeding laws would have eliminated traffic accidents, and copyright laws will eliminate piracy if only we had (or will) just double down.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

we should be discussing how to develop systems that will achieve the goals of compensating artists in lieu of modern technological developments.

I think you meant "in view of" rather than "in lieu of." If you did, I agree entirely, save that I am pessimistic about actually having that discussion. I guess I think that our representatives in Congress are in the back pocket of the corporations - and I mean both parties.

What it's going to take to change the current system is some kind of massive public resistance. I don't see that happening in the context of ebooks. The real discussion is about video games, movies, and to some extent, music. The critical issue is not the public interest, but corporate interests.

But I think I'm about to achieve political mass, so I'll stop...