Comments on: Nick Car on Fair Use Study

By: Don Marti

Don Marti — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:20:30 +0000

You could apply the same reasoning to any government regulation, not just copyright.

1. Ban curse words on web sites.

2. Add up the entire Internet and IT industries.

3. Brag on the economic impact of the no-putting-curse-words-online industry.

After all, there is a case to be made that the web sites would not exist in such abundance but for the curse word ban.

Washington, DC is full of rent seekers claiming the economic benefits of government programs that benefit them. Sugar quotas, ethanol subsidies, and copyright are just three examples.

By: Don Marti

Don Marti — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:20:30 +0000

You could apply the same reasoning to any government regulation, not just copyright.

1. Ban curse words on web sites.

2. Add up the entire Internet and IT industries.

3. Brag on the economic impact of the no-putting-curse-words-online industry. After all, there is a case to be made that the web sites would not exist in such abundance but for the curse word ban.

Washington, DC is full of rent seekers claiming the economic benefits of government programs that benefit them. Sugar quotas, ethanol subsidies, and copyright are just three examples.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:56:59 +0000

There is a case to be made that the copyrighted materials—and the consequent fair use of them—would not exist in such abundance but for copyright. The logical response to that is, yes, but we wish to measure in particular the value of this particular *exception.*

No, copyright is the exception to the general rule of freedom of speech. Fair use is necessary to prevent copyright from unduly trespassing of the First Amendment.

So you have actually inverted the legal reality--trying to move the default condition away from freedom.

This is problematic from a human rights standpoint, as well as interfering with the instrumental role that freedom plays in economic development and activity, one example of which was pointed out in the above post. But, it must be remembered, that is just one example of many many possible uses of freedom. Because of the unexpected and novel uses of freedom, leading to unexpected economic developments, we should value freedom for the role it plays in the economy. But it is much more than that, and has an intrinsic value, too.

By: enigma_foundry

enigma_foundry — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:56:59 +0000

No, copyright is the exception to the general rule of freedom of speech. Fair use is necessary to prevent copyright from unduly trespassing of the First Amendment.

So you have actually inverted the legal reality–trying to move the default condition away from freedom.

This is problematic from a human rights standpoint, as well as interfering with the instrumental role that freedom plays in economic development and activity, one example of which was pointed out in the above post. But, it must be remembered, that is just one example of many many possible uses of freedom. Because of the unexpected and novel uses of freedom, leading to unexpected economic developments, we should value freedom for the role it plays in the economy. But it is much more than that, and has an intrinsic value, too.

By: DK

DK — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:55:44 +0000

Research, particularly reverse engineering is always glossed over in fair use discussions and serves as a balance preventing copyright extension to unprotectable elements - "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery". The effect of defeating this aspect of fair use by political or Orwellian attack is to extend protection under copyright that is greater than that of patents and seriously undermine industry, limiting interoperability and the general advancement of the arts.

Note the lack of commentary in House Report 94-1476 under §107 supporting research, and of the DMCA §1201(f) - Reverse engineering., in House Report 105-796. The balance implied by limits on copyrights is left to the scholar or judiciary without congressional acknowledgment. Should we be surprised if in the future this balance shifts?

By: DK

DK — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:55:44 +0000

Research, particularly reverse engineering is always glossed over in fair use discussions and serves as a balance preventing copyright extension to unprotectable elements – “idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery”. The effect of defeating this aspect of fair use by political or Orwellian attack is to extend protection under copyright that is greater than that of patents and seriously undermine industry, limiting interoperability and the general advancement of the arts.

Note the lack of commentary in House Report 94-1476 under §107 supporting research, and of the DMCA §1201(f) – Reverse engineering., in House Report 105-796. The balance implied by limits on copyrights is left to the scholar or judiciary without congressional acknowledgment. Should we be surprised if in the future this balance shifts?