Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« Grease and Desist: The Musical | Main | The cutting edge of licensing rights »

June 9, 2005

Rep. Barton Defends Fair Use

Email This Entry

Posted by Jason Schultz

Via Roll Call, an interview with Rep. Joe Barton, Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committe:

ROLL CALL: And copyright infringement?

BARTON: Are you talking about fair use?

ROLL CALL: Yes, I'm taking about the ability of people to steal movies,
music, all that stuff. Do you think you've done as much as you can do?

BARTON: Pure copyright infringement is Judiciary and some Energy and
Commerce. I want to protect our creators, the creative talent in this
country, the movie producers and the television producers, and the
musicians. I have great respect. ... I wish I had that talent. I don't, so I
respect those that do. And anything we can do to go against piracy I'm for.
Where I'm a little bit different, I believe that [Rep.] Rick Boucher
[D-Va.]; you buy a video, you buy a CD, you do have the right to make one or
two copies for your own personal use. That's called fair use. And we've
always allowed people, under the older technologies, to make one or two
copies. The problem when you get to the digital technology is that you can
make a thousand perfect copies. So, the Judiciary Committee ... their
solution has been to outlaw the act of copying. So you just can't make any
copies. That's the Motion Picture Association ... that's their position. No
copies. And so Boucher and I's position is, let's find a way to make a few
copies and then that's it - not for commercial purposes, not for resale -
just for your own personal use. And the technology is debatable. Some people
think the technology is there to do that. The CD people are putting that
technology in their CDs. The video people have not yet agreed that they can
do it, although I think they can. So that's an in flux issue.

Comments (3) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Laws and Regulations


COMMENTS

1. one or two copies? on June 12, 2005 9:10 AM writes...

"And we've always allowed people, under the older technologies, to make one or two copies."

Who is the "we" Barton refers to?
And what does he mean by "always allowd"?

If "we" is congress Barton is wrong. The Copyright Act says no such thing, that one or two copies of anything is legal.

"Always allowed" actually means that the law (Copyright Act) as written was absolutely uneforceable without big brother monitoring of all personal activities and monitoring the use given to printers, copiers, blank media, etc.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Permalink to Comment

2. Mike Chrysler on June 12, 2005 3:48 PM writes...

[quote]Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Yes Fair Usage is part of the copyright law.
Amazingly allowing me to quote from a source.

Old technologies. Audio and video
Betamax, VHS, Cassette, Reel to Reel
Printing. All used legally to reproduce
works and sections of works.

Permalink to Comment

3. fair use on June 12, 2005 5:44 PM writes...

"so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law"

Sorry, but but the American Copyright Act says no such thing.

The Copyright Act, in the part that covers fair use, makes no mention that "one or two copies" are allowed as Barton said. Sure, some copying under described situations (church, education, non profit, for research, fractions of a work, etc) are (confusingly) allowed as fair use, but that is very different than saying outright that one or two copies are allowed.

If one or two copies were allowed (per person), as Barton said, then p2p would not be an issue, since for downloaders have no need for more than two copies of the same song or recording and infringement is on a per song basis. Let's see: If one downloads 1,000 songs and all are different and "one or wo copies" are allowed, then there was no infringement if none of the songs was copied more than once, per Barton.

As for uploaders,the persons that makes available files so that others download from their p2p enabled hard disks, these may not be infringers if each downloades copied 1,000 different songs once or twice, because under the Barton (or fair use)theory that one or two copies are allowed for the actual infringer, the downloader.

The argument that copying, wether through p2p or CD burning, should be allowed because it is fair and is thus allowed is a looser.

The best reasons for allowing copying is that it is technically imposiible to stop it (or to enforce the law) or if "we the people" do not want to criminilize copying and "we the people" are sovereign over the interest of a minority of shareholders or the publishing industries, or even legislators, then copying should be made legal as long as the copies are not sold.

The needed rule is simple: To sell or profit from the copying or displaying or performing, you need a license.

Just remember the prohibition.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com


Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Why Make the Secondary Market?
Lexi Alexander vs the Copyright Cartel
Digital Homicide Studio v Fair Use
The Art of Asking for "The Art of Asking"
Two Copyright-in-Gaming
Molly Crabapple's 14 Rules
Should Copyfight Publish Stories to Benefit Charity?
Eleventh Upholds Case-by-Case Infringement Review Concept