> If I could pay $1.00 to watch them at anytime of my choosing,
> timeshifting would IMHO NOT be considered a fair use.
But careful here, because in no country on earth (as far as I am aware) does the copyright owner get the exclusive right to watch. Some copyright owners would love to be able to sell a lawfully made copy, and get payments for private performances each time you watch it, but that would involve using technology to obtain control over non-exclusive rights -- rights the legislature have denied to copyright owners.
The US Register of Copyrights has just suggested that such wholesale seizure of nonexclusive rights might be considered "use-facilitating" if the work would not be offered at all without such controls, and if the access can be offered at a lower cost. That position is preposterous, but it is nevertheless her position.
John
On 10/3/05 4:45 PM, "Agenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)" <jagenbro[_at_]arl.army.mil> wrote:
> The other benefit to content creators of a simple and effective
> licensing scheme would be that there was less fair use. (!) Let me
> explain my point. There are many fair uses that are there because there
> is no very good way to do them without making unauthorized copies. I
> can use a VCR to "timeshift" programs BECAUSE there is no way to
> conveniently watch them at a time of my choosing without copying them.
(ducks, runs
> away)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
> [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of Irvin Muchnick
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 2:51 PM
> To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
> Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: [CNI-(C)] Authors Guild's Paul Aiken Opposes
> 'Turning Copyright Law Upside Down' -- Except When the Guild Is Helping
> Publishers Impose a 'License By Default'
>
> I disagree with my friend Mike Bradley in two respects.
>
> First, I *do* think legal and business-model interests must
> catch up to technology and public aspirations. The problem
> is that all the technology is being applied to the
> open-access side of the equation and none to the
> fair-compensation side. The publishers, distributors ...
> call them what you will; the corporations ... with the
> capital to develop all these marvelous tools could invest
> relative pennies in royalty systems roughly analogous to
> ASCAP. Instead, they choose to scorch the earth and
> dee-double-dare the less powerful players in the
> marketplace to challenge them. A royalty system wouldn't
> work perfectly and its precise contours would be open to
> debate, but you can't tell me that proposed comprehensive
> solutions wouldn't ameliorate litigation and put more
> resources into productive economic activity.
>
> Second, I personally place very little, if any, value on
> the rights of heirs to censor material they might find
> embarrassing. To the extent that copyright advocates take a
> hard line on restricting access rather than saying access
> should be opened up fairly and equitably, I believe they're
> mistaken.
>
> Irv Muchnick
>
>
>
> --- Mike Bradley <mbradley[_at_]techpubs.com> wrote:
>
>>> The technology is there. The public's >>> expectations are there. It's time for legal and >> business >>> model interests to wake up and catch up. >> >> I would say, rather, it's time for technology and the >> public to >> realize that they have to act within the constraints of >> the law, even >> if they have the ability to do otherwise. Just because >> you have the >> ability to hack into the Bank of America's computer >> doesn't mean you >> should do it. >> >> >>> As you said, google is driving sales. It is pretty >>> hard for an author who has allowed their work to be >>> published to complain about an activity that drives >>> sales of that published work. >> >> The books that are troublesome are not books that are >> being peddled >> currently by their publishers. Of course, the authors of >> these books >> are likely to want the books to be Googled. It is books >> that have no >> publisher--probably because they are out of print--that >> are the >> problem, in my view. And these books are likely to be the >> majority of >> any library's holdings. >> >> The rights holders of these books may have their own >> plans for >> marketing the books, such as agreements with other online >> outlets. >> They may not want them visible at all, such as the heirs >> of an avowed >> racist whose published books the heirs now view as >> embarassing. The >> author of a book with lots of four-letter words may not >> want the book >> indexed because the index produces a complete list of >> every word, >> giving book-burning fundamentalists an easy target for >> yet another >> burning. >> >> The point is, the rights holders and their licensees have >> the >> *exclusive* right to determine a book's copying. >> Observance of that >> fact has to be fundamental to any plan to copy books, but >> authors >> don't see that in Google's plans. >> >> >> = Mike Bradley >> www.techpubs.com >> , >> >> >>
> #############################################################
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>. >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org> >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to >> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org> >> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to >> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org> >> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to >> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org> >> To resume mail list message delivery from postpone mode, >> E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-feed[_at_]cni.org> >> Send administrative queries to >> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org> >> >> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at >> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>. >> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT