Ken S said:
Cut the BS?
Please show me where copying of library materials as you have described is a permitted exception to the copyright law under the Fair Use doctrine?
Show me one court decision that says it's not.
Yes, you are allowed to tape radio and television programs
So, I was right.
That exception does not apply to rented or borrowed material.
I didn't say it did.
I just said that "fair use" doesn't require you to *own* the source material that you want to copy. I don't, for example, "own" a radio or television broadcast program . . . yet, as you agree, I *can* legally copy a broadcasted radio or television program (including the music thereon) for my own personal listening or viewing.
And the "fair use" doctrine certainly applies to "borrowed" materials from a library . . . academia could harldy survive without it. We are most familiar with "fair use" in the realm of printed text . . . there is no rule suspending the "fair use" doctrine solely because the what I borrowed from the library is digital media instead of printed text.
So, just because the material you want to copy is "borrowed" doesn't per se exclude the application of the "fair use" doctrine (which is what, apparently, you'd argue). The same can be said for "renting" (i.e., "fair use" is not per se automatically excluded just because you rented the material you want to copy).
Now, the *application* of the fair use doctrine to digital media "borrowed" from a library is subject to a great deal of debate. The generally accepted practice has been to extrapolate from the principles discussed and analyzed in text cases and to apply those principles as best as possible to digital media. But the devil is in the details.
Now, I think most lawyers would agree - but maybe you wouldn't Ken - that if I copyied ONE article out of last week's "Time" magazine for my own "personal study" that my one copy of that article is perfectly legal for me to have under "fair use."
Now, extrapolate that to digital media - does "fair use" permit me to copy one song from a CD I obtained from the library for my own "personal study"? Some argue yes (no different than copying an entire article from Time) . . . others suggest I'm limited to just a "portion" of the song (say the first chorus). No one really knows for sure who is right . . . and, being lawyers, the default advice is "be conservative." But, "being conservative" doesn't flesh out the full extent of "full use" as applied to digital media Ken . . . it merely defines the smallest thing you can do that everyone agrees upon.
I agree that under either approach just mentioned, it's
probably not going to be considered "fair use" by a court for me to copy the whole CD . . . at least not in one fell swoop (except under certain conditions where the CD is out of print and not available "used" for a reasonable market value).
But, there's also a different way of approaching the "fair use" question when it comes to digital media . . . and that's to ask - more generally - what's anticipated? what's the expectation? An approach that doesn't merely try to extrapolate from text principles.
It goes something like this:
Congress - via the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) - has implicitly "blessed" the notion that Americans can make ONE copy (at least, one copy at a time) of audio recordings. Nothing in the AHRA says you have to own the audio material that you want to copy. Congress is also aware that libraries exist . . . and that libraries loan out digital media. Heck, Congress has access to the largest one, right?
Connect dot A (the wide availabilty of recording machines) to dot B (libraries with digital media) factor in the financial feasability of copying digital media (cheap media) isn't what's "fair" what everyone expects - and knows - happens anyway??
Isn't it really"unfair" to say here's a library chockful of CDs and here's a machine that will make copies of them for you and, by the way, it's affordable . . . but you're a criminal if you mix the two together?? Especially since there is no effective way for entities like the RIAA to stop people from doing going to the library, borrowing the CD, ripping it to the hard drive, and going along merrily.
One COULD ask: what's the point in saying someone's a criminal when (1) you don't ever prosecute them (ever HEAR of the RIAA bringing suit against a libary patron??) and (2) you cannot -as a practical matter- bring an enforcement action?
Yep, I'm arguing that "fair use" evolves . . . in much the same way that our understanding of "due process" or "cruel and unusual punishment" evolves.
Given this, it's no wonder the recording and movie industries threw in the towel and STOPPED trying to fight the battle on "fair use" grounds. The DMCA doesn't alter "fair use" doctrine one iota or stop it from evolving. Instead it completely shifts the battle to encryption/decryption. Doesn't matter whether your copy WOULD be "fair use" . . . DMCA simplies puts the source material in a "vault" and make it unlawful to break in.
Corporate executives may not get "shunned" by their neighbors for what they do in business mostly because those people have no idea of that person's involvement.
And why is that Ken? Why don't those people have an idea of that person's involvement?
If such moral/ethical breaches were RARE, then they WOULD be newsworthy and their neighbors would know and act accordingly.
But they're not rare, there common and mundane . . . almost banal.
A lot of "lip service" is paid to morality/ethics in this country, but not a whole lot actually happens to back the talk up.
Just look at the politicians - of both parties - who espouse "family values," but have numerous ex-wifes by divorce, engage in affairs (both straight and homosexual), etc.
I'm saying the "talk" doesn't match the walk, Ken . . . and, imo, the walk is always more important than the talk.
Those people however do build a reputation within their industry and with their customers/vendors. They will meet with tougher dealings, blackballing, etc. from people in the industry who know how they have acted.
Oooohh, I'm sure they're so scared of "tougher dealings."
If society truly ACTED like we believed "immoral" or "unethical" businessmen and politicians were worthy of being rebuke for their "immorality" and lack of "ethics," shouldn't we "walk the walk" and stop doing business with - or voting for them - at all??