[QUOTE=jasong;410502][url]http://phys.org/news/2015-09-california-court-tougher-music-movie.html[/url]

If you read most of the way through the article you find that the attorneys for Prince(or whatever he calls himself nowadays) think it would be horrible if they had to examine each and every possible copyright takedown notice before deciding if it was a good idea to send it out.

Because, you know, it would be horrendous to make it very slightly more of a hassle, instead of no hassle at all, to harass people with takedown notices.

Oh, and the dancing toddler that was in the original video, that kid's 10 now. So it's a very old lawsuit.[/QUOTE]
I'd been watching this case over the years but hadn't noticed that the appeal had been decided. This might be good news to the people who believe that "fair use" in the copyright law was put there to mean something more than just a defense after a lawsuit. It was put there so that many trivial and non-commercial uses never end up in the court system in the first place. But after the recent power of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedowns to squash any use whatsoever, some pushback to protect fair use is necessary.

The New York Times prints:
[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/business/media/youtube-dancing-baby-copyright-ruling-sets-fair-use-guideline.html?_r=0"]YouTube ‘Dancing Baby’ Copyright Ruling Sets Fair Use Guideline[/URL]
[QUOTE]The case also came to represent the split between Hollywood and Silicon Valley over copyright.

The Motion Picture Association of America and the R.I.A.A. both supported Universal, which argued that fair use should be considered an “affirmative defense” only when part of an infringement suit. On the other side of the issue, Google, Twitter and Tumblr rallied behind Ms. Lenz.

The judges ruled that fair use was “uniquely situated in copyright law so as to be treated differently than traditional affirmative defenses,” and copyright holders like Universal must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices.

Even paying “lip service” to the consideration of fair use is not enough, and could expose a copyright holder to liability, the judges ruled.[/QUOTE]

Another decision regarding fair use:
[URL="http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/google-fair-use/"]Google's victory in book-scanning case is a huge win for fair use[/URL]
[QUOTE]
Google won a decisive victory on Friday in a copyright-infringement case that the Authors Guild originally launched almost a decade ago. A federal appeals court ruled that the company’s book-scanning project, which has turned millions of books into searchable digital files, is entitled to the full protection of the “fair use” clause in copyright law.

The case is hugely important, not just for Google (now part of a larger holding company called Alphabet) and the authors whose works are being digitized, but for the principle of fair use itself. Copyright law may be murky and difficult to pin down at the best of times, but interpreting the concept of fair use often makes regular copyright law look like a day at the beach.

That’s because what qualifies as fair use—which theoretically lets anyone use copyrighted content without having to get permission from the creator or rights-holder—isn’t specifically spelled out in federal copyright law. It’s something that ultimately has to be decided by a court, and even then the judges have to consider four factors before they can come to a decision. Those factors are:[LIST=1][*]The purpose of the infringing use, specifically whether it qualifies as “transformative”[*]The nature of the original content (i.e., whether it is artistic or commercial)[*]The amount and “substantiality” of the original content that is used in the derivative work[*]Whether the infringing use will affect the market for the original product or content[/LIST][/QUOTE]
For more on these four factors:
[URL="http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/"]Measuring Fair Use: The Four Factors[/URL]
Parodies are given much fair use leeway

[QUOTE=only_human;412906]Another decision regarding fair use:
[URL="http://fortune.com/2015/10/16/google-fair-use/"]Google's victory in book-scanning case is a huge win for fair use[/URL]
[/QUOTE]

While the concept of copyrights must be preserved, it is
proper that Congress or the Courts are able to balance
everyone's rights to protect us and our rights.
As I read "fair use", there's a good argument (besides
the name) for its applicability. Intellectual property rights
are necessary to protect and encourage creativity, but
technology does change, so the parameters of that
protection may be legally adjusted over time.

[QUOTE=davar55;413268]Intellectual property rights are necessary to protect and encourage creativity, but technology does change, so the parameters of that protection may be legally adjusted over time.[/QUOTE]Reader alert: davar55 uses the word "necessary" with a meaning which is different from that in common usage in English speakers.

AFAICT, the closest equivalent in the English used by the rest of us is "desirable".

I've argued this point in the past, giving explicit examples of creativity which had no intellectual property right protection whatsoever.

[QUOTE=xilman;413272]Reader alert: davar55 uses the word "necessary" with a meaning which is different from that in common usage in English speakers.
AFAICT, the closest equivalent in the English used by the rest of us is "desirable".
I've argued this point in the past, giving explicit examples of creativity which had no intellectual property right protection whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

I answered your point and examples in an earlier post.

Protection of rights is desirable AND necessary. It doesn't mean
that you (generic you) have to avail yourself of those protections.
But others do.

[QUOTE=davar55;413339]Protection of rights is desirable AND necessary. It doesn't mean
that you (generic you) have to avail yourself of those protections.
But others do.[/QUOTE]They are not necessary. They may be desirable but the producers of intellectual property always have the choice of releasing it freely or not releasing it at all, a point you have consistently ignored.

The consequences of not having IP rights protection are very very far from being a matter of life or death. At most they could be regarded as having a bearing on ones career choices.

[QUOTE=davar55;413339]Protection of rights is desirable AND necessary. It doesn't mean
that you (generic you) have to avail yourself of those protections.
But others do.[/QUOTE]

I respectfully disagree.

The whole concept of one form of "Letters patent" (later to become simply known as a "Patent") was to encourage the dissemination of knowledge. The "inventor" was given a legal unnatural monopoly for a limited period of time in exchange for early disclosure. This would encourage others to find another way to do something which doesn't infringe. (This was before "reverse engineering" was made illegal").

Copyright is a somewhat different beast... It gives a monopoly to the original producer of a creative work for a set period of time. But, importantly, not an idea (which might be covered by a Patent) but only its expression. Again, I must stress, a *fixed period of time*.

Interestingly (at least in my mind) is that rapid development of technology should reduce the temporal period where a Patent should hold; instead the terms of Patents have increased in their length several times, in several countries.

Similarly, Copyright.

We all know (or, at least, all should know) about the "Mickey Mouse Act" AKA "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act". Keeps extending the expiry date for profitable material.

This is why you can read Machiavelli's "The Prince" (a seminal piece of work; required reading in many schools) but can't watch early Disney works without being sued.

At the end of the day, the Intellectual Proprieties laws were intended to encourage creation.

Instead (at least IMO) they (because of profit motivation) have stifled them.

[QUOTE=xilman;413357]They are not necessary. They may be desirable but the producers of intellectual property always have the choice of releasing it freely or not releasing it at all, a point you have consistently ignored.
The consequences of not having IP rights protection are very very far from being a matter of life or death. At most they could be regarded as having a bearing on ones career choices.[/QUOTE]

They ARE necessary as rights as such. Certainly you have the right to choose to release your property freely, but
that is precisely my point, it is your RIGHT to dispose of your property, no one else has the RIGHT to take it if you
CHOOSE to uphold your law-given right.

I have not been ignoring your point, I think it's your misunderstanding MY point.

Not having IP rights IS IS IS a matter of life or death, especially in our IT field. Totally granted the idea of open
source and shareware (I grew up on UNIX) it is still necessary that each programmer be ABLE to maintain
ownership of their works if they so choose, else (a) they're disincentivized, and (b) they may become destitute,
both bad results. You don't believe in stealing someone's software without just compensation, do you? The
free-market system provides a better way of determining how much compensation is just.

[QUOTE=chalsall;413372]I respectfully disagree.
The whole concept of one form of "Letters patent" (later to become simply known as a "Patent") was to encourage the dissemination of knowledge. The "inventor" was given a legal unnatural monopoly for a limited period of time in exchange for early disclosure. This would encourage others to find another way to do something which doesn't infringe. (This was before "reverse engineering" was made illegal").
Copyright is a somewhat different beast... It gives a monopoly to the original producer of a creative work for a set period of time. But, importantly, not an idea (which might be covered by a Patent) but only its expression. Again, I must stress, a *fixed period of time*.
Interestingly (at least in my mind) is that rapid development of technology should reduce the temporal period where a Patent should hold; instead the terms of Patents have increased in their length several times, in several countries.
Similarly, Copyright.
We all know (or, at least, all should know) about the "Mickey Mouse Act" AKA "Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act". Keeps extending the expiry date for profitable material.
This is why you can read Machiavelli's "The Prince" (a seminal piece of work; required reading in many schools) but can't watch early Disney works without being sued.
At the end of the day, the Intellectual Proprieties laws were intended to encourage creation.
Instead (at least IMO) they (because of profit motivation) have stifled them.[/QUOTE]

Our only disagreement here is in your last sentence. The IP laws are indeed intended to promote creativity (creation) and
dissemination of knowledge, and do indeed give a temporary monopoly to the innovator. THIS IS a GOOD thing.
Because of the profit motive, which means intelligent self-interest, society has found a way to reward productivity and
creativity and intelligence and at the same time get ideas and objects out to the public, without forcing people either
to create (which is impossible) or to work as intellectual slaves (i.e not being properly rewarded for their work).
The profit motive is a GREAT motivator of creation, not its stifler.

[QUOTE=davar55;413435]They ARE necessary as rights as such. Certainly you have the right to choose to release your property freely, but
that is precisely my point, it is your RIGHT to dispose of your property, no one else has the RIGHT to take it if you
CHOOSE to uphold your law-given right.[/quote]Law-given, yes. Right, questionable?
[QUOTE=davar55;413435]
Not having IP rights IS IS IS a matter of life or death, especially in our IT field.[/QUOTE]Complete drivel. I doubt you can find anyone anywhere who has died because illegal copying of their own intellectual property. I'd be most interested in hearing of a case which stands up to investigation
[QUOTE=davar55;413435]
Totally granted the idea of open
source and shareware (I grew up on UNIX) it is still necessary that each programmer be ABLE to maintain
ownership of their works if they so choose, else (a) they're disincentivized, and (b) they may become destitute,
both bad results. You don't believe in stealing someone's software without just compensation, do you? The
free-market system provides a better way of determining how much compensation is just.[/QUOTE] Again, "desirable", not "necessary".

No, I do not condone illegal copying of others software without just compensation. Note "illegal copying", not "stealing" because I haven't stolen their software. They still have their own software available to them and so have not deprived them of it. In English law, theft is defined as "taking with intent to deprive". I don't know the precise definition in US law but could doubtless find out.

But let's be clear: the reason I don't condone it is because it is illegal.

As has been stated in the past (by someone whose name I have lamentably forgotten but would like to be able to credit), It would be nice if I could make a living by standing on a street corner pulling faces at passers-by but I'm disincentivised from doing so by not having a legal monopoly on the practice and, as a direct consequence, I am destitute.

(That's an example of irony folks. If you didn't recongnize it, study it carefully to help you do so in future.)

[QUOTE=xilman;413442].......

(That's an example of irony folks. If you didn't recongnize it, study it carefully to help you do so in future.)[/QUOTE]

:shock: ...err, really?