Digital Fairness Doctrine?

News Reader · Post by **News Reader** » August 5th, 2007, 16:00

Digital Fairness Doctrine?
In case you missed this one earlier in the week, some big name companies like Microsoft and Google have filed a complaint with the FTC against some media giants like the NFL and Dreamworks. They take exception with the wording on those Copyright warning labels, which I believe basically say you arent allowed to do anything with the movie you bought, including watching it.

The group's claim is that everyday users may be intimidated by the tone of these groups' copyright warnings, to such an extent that their rights to use the material they produce, as protected by US law, is infringed. But the CCIA's language rises even higher than that, accusing the subjects of the complaint with "a nationwide pattern of unfair and deceptive trade practices by misrepresenting consumer rights under copyright law."

Comments

Publish Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:08:00 CDT
Read more...

Source: [H]ardOCP News/Article Feed
Description: News/Article Feed for [H]ardOCP

eion · Post by **eion** » August 5th, 2007, 16:14

What utter fuckwits. The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with copyright law. What they actually mean is fair use.

On to the content itself, what this industry group are doing sounds like a good thing to me.

As an aside, it's interesting to contrast the copyright notices on, say, intellectual property law books with the copyright notices on normal books - let alone movies.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » August 5th, 2007, 16:15

eion wrote:As an aside, it's interesting to contrast the copyright notices on, say, intellectual property law books with the copyright notices on normal books - let alone movies.

Go on...

eion · Post by **eion** » August 5th, 2007, 16:29

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:
Go on...

Ok...
The copyright notice from this book, the only proper IP law treatise I have on my shelf (cos they're so ludicrously expensive) reads as follows (NB: this is a British book, so the notice is a bit more restrictive than in the US equivalent):
"Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without prior written permission, except for permitted fair dealing under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in respect of photocopying and/or reprographic reproduction. Application for permission for other use of copyright material including permission to produce extracts in other published works shall be made to the publishers. Full acknowledgement of author, publisher and source must be given."

...compared to the copyright notice from this book (the UK edition), which just says:
"All rights reserved."

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » August 5th, 2007, 16:36

Anhamgrimmar · Post by **Anhamgrimmar** » August 5th, 2007, 20:14

News Reader wrote: ....snip.....Microsoft and Google have filed a complaint with the FTC against some media giants like the NFL and Dreamworks....snip...

wait, whut? doesnt microsoft have a share in dreamworks? or was it just Mr 'Beast of redmond' Gates himself who owed the shares?

Also, 499 for a book? WTF? no wonder lawyers are a Bunch of overcharging shystersHardworking individuals with high costs....

Post by **HereComesPete** » August 5th, 2007, 20:57

Fucking hell, I thought that I was paying through the nose for some of my books, thankfully, the most outrageous ones, such as this History of British Economic Thought were available in the specialist library, I would never have been able to afford them.

Anhamgrimmar · Post by **Anhamgrimmar** » August 5th, 2007, 21:25

HereComesPete wrote:Fucking hell, I thought that I was paying through the nose for some of my books, thankfully, the most outrageous ones, such as this History of British Economic Thought were available in the specialist library, I would never have been able to afford them.

Thankfully all of the books i need for work are provided. Unfortunatly, they would all get me locked up if i tried to take one home for revision.

Post by **HereComesPete** » August 5th, 2007, 22:07

Quick sell secrets to terrorists!*

*this WILL be logged by echelon, there ALWAYS watching...

eion · Post by **eion** » August 6th, 2007, 5:26

Anhamgrimmar wrote:Also, 499 for a book? WTF? no wonder lawyers are a bunch of overcharging shystershardworking individuals with high costs....

Remember that's US dollars, and that Amazon is overcharging somewhat... it cost me a bit less than that. The new edition, when it comes out, is "only" £220 in the UK.

Now this and this are really expensive books, albeit ones that I'll be buying as soon as I can afford them because they're so incredibly useful. Law books are pricy, yes.

Post by **FatherJack** » August 6th, 2007, 8:11

Work will buy me any book I require, but unfortunately with the stipulation that it be work-related. I've never seen one of those that actually interests me.

Killavodka · Post by **Killavodka** » August 6th, 2007, 17:55

thats an expensive piece of paper

eion · Post by **eion** » August 6th, 2007, 18:02

Killavodka wrote:that's an expensive piece of paper

You get more than one piece of paper for that price.

The Incredible... · Post by **The Incredible...** » August 6th, 2007, 18:08

wait, hang on. MICROSOFT are having a go about fair use stuff?

Am I just imagining that I've been reading horrible things involving microsoft and DRM, which seems to me to be more or less the same sort of issue

Hello yes this is pot calling is kettle there please?
Hello pot this is kettle how are you my old chum?
I'm alright mate, but you my friend, are black

eion · Post by **eion** » August 6th, 2007, 18:16

The Incredible... wrote:wait, hang on. MICROSOFT are having a go about fair use stuff?

Am I just imagining that I've been reading horrible things involving microsoft and DRM, which seems to me to be more or less the same sort of issue

It's not just Microsoft, it's an industry group of which they are a member. Microsoft frequently take two sides on copyright issues, as a copyright owner and a technology developer. Companies like Sony do as well (even more obviously).

Also, there's a huge difference between copyright warnings and DRM.

The Incredible... · Post by **The Incredible...** » August 6th, 2007, 18:28

eion wrote: Also, there's a huge difference between copyright warnings and DRM.

yea i know it's different. but there are certain similarities, regarding for example your rights to use media you have acquired legally in certain ways.

Also, from that article the video clip that gives an example basically sounds as if its saying you aren't even allowed to talk about the result of the game with your friends

eion · Post by **eion** » August 6th, 2007, 18:40

The Incredible... wrote:
yea i know it's different. but there are certain similarities, regarding for example your rights to use media you have acquired legally in certain ways.

Also, from that article the video clip that gives an example basically sounds as if its saying you aren't even allowed to talk about the result of the game with your friends

Copyright warnings most likely aren't enforceable, and thus don't affect your rights. Many user rights can be contracted away (in the US), but the whole point is that these copyright notices aren't contracts.

Basically this group seem to (quite reasonably) be annoyed about the blatant lies in these copyright notice regarding the scope of copyright protection and user rights.

5punk

Digital Fairness Doctrine?

Digital Fairness Doctrine?

Re: Digital Fairness Doctrine?

Re: Digital Fairness Doctrine?