Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study: Fair Use Drives Large Part of US Economy

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the all-depends-who's-counting-and-how dept.

The Almighty Buck 70

angry tapir writes "Industries that rely on fair use exceptions to U.S. copyright law have weathered the recent slow economy better than other businesses, according to a new study released by a tech trade group. The fair use industries, including consumer device makers, software developers, search engines and news organizations, had US$4.5 trillion in revenue in 2009, up from $3.4 trillion in 2002, according to the study, commissioned by the Computer and Communications Industry (CCIA) Association. Fair use businesses make up about 17 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, according to the study. The study shows the importance of fair use exceptions in copyright law, said Ed Black, CCIA's president and CEO."

cancel ×

70 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Biased drivel! (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731836)

Please, please, "Industries built on Intellectual Property Theft have further imperiled other sectors of the economy during the recent economic downturn."

xoxo, RIAA/MPAA.

Re:Biased drivel! (0)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732510)

In a surprising turn of events, "Thieves have weathered economic down turn because their income is not directly tired to economic success. In other news, freeloads can succeed in any economic climate." News at 11.

Re:Biased drivel! (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36744604)

Please, please, "Industries built on Intellectual Property Theft have further imperiled other sectors of the economy during the recent economic downturn."

xoxo, RIAA/MPAA.

The hooker and blow industries may never recover if more drastic Intellectual property protection measures are not enacted immediately.

Correction (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731844)

Fair use businesses make up about 17 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, according to the study.

From the report:

Fair use-related industry value added in 2008 and 2009 averaged $2.4 trillion, approximately 17 percent of total U.S. current dollar GDP. Value added equals a firm's total output minus its purchases of intermediate inputs and is the best measurement of an industry's economic contribution to national GDP.

It's the value added, not the total fair use businesses. After reading the study, I think what they're trying to say is that everyone benefits by some amount of money to be able to access -- say -- non-copyrightable facts online presents a benefit to many businesses and that added value equates to 17 percent of the total U.S. current dollar GDP by their estimates.

Re:Correction (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731888)

non-copyrightable facts online

I have not RTFA to know whether it is adopting a strict definition or not, but non-copyrightable facts are not examples of fair use - they are examples of something which falls outside the copyright regime. In other words, they are unencumbered, and exist in the public domain.

Fair use relates to the use of works which are subject to copyright, but where the usage is considered to be outside the scope of the reserved rights which copyright grants.

Here ... Let Me Help You With That ... (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731958)

I have not RTFA to know whether it is adopting a strict definition or not, but non-copyrightable facts are not examples of fair use - they are examples of something which falls outside the copyright regime.

In this case I would suggest you at least throw a cursory glance at the actual report [ccianet.org] (PDF warning) because from page 15 they list some examples of how "Other Information Services industry (NAICS 519)" benefit of Fair Use and Other Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright Law (which is what this report is targeting). They list several statutory provisions like: 102(a) non-copyrightability of facts, 102(b) idea/expression dichotomy, 107 fair use: criticism; comment; news reporting; browser, cache copies; teaching; scholarship; research, 108 library uses, 109 first-sale doctrine, 512 ISP safe harbors, 302-304 copyright term and 105 no copyright in U.S. Government works. Granted, those are very brief descriptions of what are undoubtedly lengthy legalese but I hope that someone makes it clear that this report is not referring strictly to just fair use in the sense that you are speaking of. It's talking about fair use related industries that rely on provisions like the above.

I think a better description would be "All Limiting Exceptions to Copyright" than "Fair Use" for this particular study. Side note: I think you can see how Google and others benefit from the protection under cache copies to a very large degree.

Re:Here ... Let Me Help You With That ... (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732030)

It's talking about fair use related industries that rely on provisions like the above.

Appreciated - thank you.

I think you can see how Google and others benefit from the protection under cache copies to a very large degree.

Absolutely - as well as the not-related-to-fair-use-but-also-vital shields of liability of online intermediaries.

Some Comic Irony from RTFA (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732688)

Appreciated - thank you.

Anytime! On a side note, I would also like to relay the comic irony I discovered in trying to copy/paste those snippets to you from the PDF report (Adobe's Reader). When I try to copy/paste "Other Information Services industry (NAICS 519)" instead I get:

e*+#"' 40()"E
-%*1)0' >#"H12#3' 10&.3*"5' 7U64,>' lMT8@

I assume this is to prevent people from easily reusing or finding via search engine this free report extolling the benefits of limiting copyright. I wish I could have shared more with you but I had to retype everything by hand.

Re:Some Comic Irony from RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734444)

When I try to copy/paste "Other Information Services industry (NAICS 519)" instead I get: e*+#"' 40()"E -%*1)0' >#"H12#3' 10&.3*"5' 7U64,>' lMT8@ I assume this is to prevent people from easily reusing or finding via search engine this free report extolling the benefits of limiting copyright. I wish I could have shared more with you but I had to retype everything by hand.

I made a copyable version here [209.6.251.20] . However, I expect a DMCA takedown notice any minute now, so get it while you can. (Actually, this is not a joke. I will not leave it up long. Could someone else braver than I repost it?)

Re:Correction (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732010)

There are several meanings of fair use. The narrowest is the courtroom meaning of "fair use", referring only to the four-factor test of 17 USC section 107 and foreign counterparts. Next is 17 USC 107-123, 512, 1008, and the like giving a bunch of uses of a copyrighted work that aren't grounds for an infringement suit. Finally, and most broadly, "fair use" is sometimes used as a broad metaphor for any statutory or case law limitation on the scope of copyright. Consider that some countries don't have broad exclusions of facts from copyright. Australia, for instance, has "sweat of the brow" as opposed to originality as the threshold for copyright eligibility, and its counterpart to Feist v. Rural went the other way. Whereas U.S. phone companies don't hold copyright over the white pages (an exhaustive list of all land line customers), Australian phone companies do.

I have not RTFA to know whether it is adopting a strict definition or not

I've read the article, and it's at least not using the courtroom definition. It includes resale and lending of copies (17 USC 109) and caching (17 USC 512) as part of its definition of "fair use exceptions". It doesn't appear to include nor exclude the idea/expression divide.

Re:Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36732018)

"everyone benefits by some amount of money to be able to access -- say -- non-copyrightable facts online presents a benefit to many businesses"

My brain exploded trying to parse that sentence, maybe some punctuation may help.

Low estimate (5, Insightful)

tiltowait (306189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731848)

I'm a librarian. My entire profession would not exist if not for similar provisions.

Re:Low estimate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36731870)

Your profession also doesn't make any money, and has to be state funded. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that libraries are fairly meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Re:Low estimate (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731922)

To be fair, if libraries were privatized, the publishing companies would force them to sign licensing deals and other such nonsense to further bolster their own pockets at the expense of the library. That's the only real reason private libraries could not make money.

University libraries (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732024)

To be fair, if libraries were privatized

...then they'd be associated with universities, much as some are now.

Re:University libraries (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732112)

I'm fairly certain they were talking about "for profit" libraries. (IE: Corporately run institutions.) University libraries benefit quite a bit from having a library in non-monetary methods but if you were to set up a corporation to run libraries I see no reason why you could not make a profit (eg: Netflix) from a privatized for-profit company. Of course, you lose quite a few "customers" by instituting a Netflix like fee system but you could charge a nominal insurance fee on each book loaned and recover the cost fairly quick. The nice thing about a monthly fee/club status is that the person is far less likely to hold onto the book indefinitely since a non-return means they cannot loan out another book until that one is returned. The one nice thing about a library is that they can index your account by your drivers license so it's harder for you to create a new account to get free stuff.

Re:University libraries (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734530)

Half Price Books store is much like a private library.

You check books out for a fee, and then return them and get a deposit back.

Re:Low estimate (3, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732618)

That's the only real reason private libraries could not make money.

There are plenty of private libraries around the world. The city library of Rotterdam in the Netherlands is private, for example. You have to pay an annual fee and then sometimes an individual fee for borrowing. It's just like a video rental shop (a pretty mainstream sort of business), but for books and CDs.

Re:Low estimate (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36733926)

Sure, but if you start up a profit corporation int he US and start pulling in money hand over fist for loaning out books, I'm sure you'll quickly find yourself in court fighting over the rights to loan out full copies of Harry Potter in no time short. Fair Use or not. Some publisher will find a way to justify that your distribution within a club like environment violates their copyright and they want a "nominal" fee for each book loaned out.

Re:Low estimate (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735480)

More likely they would require such libraries to purchase a different version of the book licensed for them to do so. A different version costing several times the normal retail version, which has in the fine print on the copyright page language indicating that the library can legally do that.

Re:Low estimate (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735832)

No, I'm pretty certain that for printed works, the right to loan out is statutory. The recording industries have their own exceptions built into the copyright code that prevents the lending of A/V media except as authorized. I'm sure if I'm wrong, someone here at /. will put in a kind work of correction with with the pertinent language ;-)

Re:Low estimate (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 3 years ago | (#36739242)

"The recording industries have their own exceptions built into the copyright code that prevents the lending of A/V media except as authorized. I'm sure if I'm wrong, someone here at /. will put in a kind work of correction with with the pertinent language "

The point is not if you are right or wrong but that *even if you were right* as soon as someone started to make good money out of it (the videoclub model) then the industry would either find a hole in the law or lobby new laws to take their share out of the profit (no matter that they *already* got their share out of the profit by selling the book).

Re:Low estimate (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735872)

True, that's the way VHS tapes used to work. I specifically remember one of the rental stores stating that they needed to buy a $99 version of some movie and couldn't buy the version everyone else got even though it was the same movie but it had a different colored spool or something ridiculous.

Re:Low estimate (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731924)

LIbraries are a public good, and the value added is in many cases indirect and intangible, especially if information researched there goes towards educating the mind and consequently boosting productivity and with it the GDP.

Re:Low estimate (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732014)

Your profession also doesn't make any money, and has to be state funded. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that libraries are fairly meaningless in the context of this discussion.

In an ideal world, "value added" and "profitable" are identical, and the invisible hand can do its thing. In practice, the existence of both positive and negative externalities(even in the strictly economic sense, never mind potentially more important; but certainly much more arguable stuff about culture and whatnot) are empirically established realities.

It is certainly true that libraries are largely hopeless at capturing the value they add, and so depend on subsidies from(depending on library type) the state, the university, the research institute, etc.; but being incapable of capturing the value added, and thus being unprofitable, is quite dissimilar from not adding value. The inverse case is also true: thieves are extremely adroit at capturing value that they didn't add, so much so that they are profitable in spite of substantial penalties imposed by the state; but being profitable doesn't change the fact that their activities are actually negative-sum, not even zero sum.

Re:Low estimate (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732986)

Teaching is a similar profession in that it usually depends upon the fair use/fair dealing. While much of it is publicly funded, a huge proportion of it is private.

Re:Low estimate (3, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734202)

Existence of professions isn't necessarily a good thing. Not to knock your profession (it applies equally to mine or anyone else's) but if anything could come along and provide the same value while eliminating the profession of librarian (or computer programmer) (or hand wheat thresher) (or stableboy or street-dung shoveler) that would be a net gain to the economy.

This is one of the terrible problems with dealing with government-minded people and their "jobs, jobs, jobs" slogans. They think of economic value as happening (and only happening) when taxable transactions take place. If cheap cold fusion or teleporters come along, that's economic damage, in their eyes. If a hurricane comes along and creates construction jobs, that's an economic boon to them.

They pretty much say this crap all the time now in the United States, and they say it in public and don't even get ridiculed for it. People nod their heads and cheer. It's crazy.

Re:Low estimate (1)

tiltowait (306189) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735230)

Yes, point taken... "My entire profession" should be "Libraries" above.

As a reference librarian, my main goal is to be Bablyon 5. I'd love it if we succeeded in creating a powerful enough search and retrieval tool with an intuitive interface that negated the need for library user instruction. My career mission is to work towards this ideal. It would, just as how B5 succeeded in its mission so much so that it was no longer necessary, make a large part of what librarians now do obsolete.

Re:Low estimate (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735508)

I assume Babylon 5's mission was to wring the last general interest in a sci-fi TV series...

Re:Low estimate (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742512)

As a reference librarian, my main goal is to be Bablyon 5. I'd love it if we succeeded in creating a powerful enough search and retrieval tool with an intuitive interface that negated the need for library user instruction.

That sounds cool but I'll take 2011 tech searching over 2260 tech [midwinter.com] any day. (Watch the episode.)

;-) Just picking nits. I loved B5 but boy did it mispredict text searching.

Re:Low estimate (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735446)

Actually I believe this is why the current trading labor for money system will simply have to end if we are to go forward as a race. Look up "MIT wants to eliminate cooks" to see some of the tech on the drawing board, for they have a "food machine" that "prints" the food like a 3D printer, cooks it, slices it, and spits it out the end, kinda like a slower version of a replicator.

It seems pretty obvious to most of us that we are currently playing musical chairs based on IQ and each year there are simply less chairs. Is there any job at your average fast food joint that couldn't easily be replaced by an automated assembly line? not really but the government lets them pay shit wages and makes it up with benefits to the poor, a classic "make work" scenario and things will only get worse. if they had to pay a living wage I'm sure every fast food joint would be automated within 3 years.

So we really do need to change the system, unless we are gonna smash the machines or pay people to put card A in slot B or some other pointless make work.

As for TFA this is part of a discussion we've been having at Linux Insider [linuxinsider.com] (Just FYI I'm quoted in part of the article) on FOSS and the freeloader problem. I personally believe the GPL and other FOSS licenses need a "free for non commercial use ONLY" clause to allow FOSS developers the funds required to maintain and grow the code. In great economic times one can get by with the "tin cup donation or support" model but as the economy sinks you will see more and more that used to pay simply becoming freeloaders. If a corp is making money off FOSS then they should have to kick back a few bucks, it is only fair. After all if it wasn't for FOSS they wouldn't be making the massive profits like they do, so kicking a small amount of the profits to those that did the work is only fair and just IMHO. This would make it better for everyone, including the corps whom I'm sure would find a way to take it off their taxes and would benefit from more bug fixing and more developers writing FOSS code, which in turn benefits us all.

Re:Low estimate (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736674)

As for TFA this is part of a discussion we've been having at Linux Insider [linuxinsider.com] (Just FYI I'm quoted in part of the article) on FOSS and the freeloader problem. I personally believe the GPL and other FOSS licenses need a "free for non commercial use ONLY" clause to allow FOSS developers the funds required to maintain and grow the code. In great economic times one can get by with the "tin cup donation or support" model but as the economy sinks you will see more and more that used to pay simply becoming freeloaders. If a corp is making money off FOSS then they should have to kick back a few bucks, it is only fair. After all if it wasn't for FOSS they wouldn't be making the massive profits like they do, so kicking a small amount of the profits to those that did the work is only fair and just IMHO. This would make it better for everyone, including the corps whom I'm sure would find a way to take it off their taxes and would benefit from more bug fixing and more developers writing FOSS code, which in turn benefits us all.

From my experience "free for non commercial use" usually means "free" to most companies. Open Source means no licensing cost.

It's a MAD scheme. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36738758)

FYI there are already a ton of licenses like that. The problem with it is that it stifles cooperation because some people have a financial investment in it, and others don't (and either can't get their patches official because it would 'taint' the codebase, or CAN get them official, but only if they assign copyright to the commercial venture. Not everyone thinks that's a good idea, and to a certain degree the GPL is used as a Mutually Assured Destruction licensing scheme: Everybody plays nice or nobody gets to play at all.)

Re:Low estimate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36741136)

Actually I believe this is why the current trading labor for money system will simply have to end if we are to go forward as a race

You do realize that what you have just said is the equivalent of "socialism is the future", right? I am I jumping the gun here? What replacement for the current "labor-for-money" system do you propose?

When all basic production needs of a society have been met, the remaining workforce usually grows a service economy that both increases the value of the production economy and broadens its scope. My impression of the US is that almost all of that service economy has been subsumed by law&politics, whereas Europe has a much larger part dedicated towards medicine&logistics. I don't know if that's true or why it is, but it could be that the US mentality of "reaching the top is all that matters" diminishes the perceived value of supporting roles.

In short: remain relevant, learn to serve.

Re:Low estimate (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36762920)

It seems pretty obvious to most of us that we are currently playing musical chairs based on IQ and each year there are simply less chairs.

No, not yet. Ideally that would be the case but we're really not anywhere close to that yet. It's just hard to see/find the chairs. Very hard. I assure you they exist, though.

There's always something that needs to get done. Every time I moan "I'm bored," there's some entrepreneurial genius out there somewhere, cursing how few hours there are in the day.

I don't say this as an article of faith in business, but rather as a corollary to the simple fact that we don't have infinite resources yet. If there were really "less chairs" then we would all be a lot wealthier than we are now. You'd say, "Computer, Earl Grey, hot," and get what you want. Until then, it's up to us to find the chairs to sit in, to bring that scenario to reality.

4.5 trillion? That's lost licensing revenue!!! (0)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731910)

"We should be able to get no less than 450 billion in fees from these thieves. Lawyers, to the courtrooms!!!" - Unknown RIAA exec.

Re:4.5 trillion? That's lost licensing revenue!!! (1, Troll)

rnaiguy (1304181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732144)

"Our thieves should be able to get no less than 450 billion in fees from these thieves. Lawyers, to the courtrooms!!!" - Unknown RIAA exec.

FTFY

dont worry they screw this up too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36731920)

mpaa , riaa and bsa etc are working hard to destroy any of it...go go go i say quicker the usa is destroyed economically the better

yes, but (2)

georgesdev (1987622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36731974)

Fair Use Drives Large Part of US Economy

but to have fair use you need someone to create the content in the first place

Re:yes, but (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732004)

Yes, people write and sell books all the time and you can go to the library and read a book without having to buy one. What's your point?

Re:yes, but (1)

georgesdev (1987622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735040)

My point was fairuse business is all good, but it can only exist on top of people creating the content. Most of the time those people want to be compensated, and that's fair too. I love free and open source, use it and participate in it, but that does not pay the rent or the food. If a car company published all their design documents to the public domain, you can bet there'd be a big mess in that industry. Although it would be fun to watch!

Re:yes, but (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735818)

Free/Open source can and does pay the bills for many people. Also, I'd love to see free and open designs in the automotive industry. We might actually have competitively priced top end cars for the middle class. I'd bet you might actually have real third party support form that as well instead of relying on OEM parts for everything.

Re:yes, but (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736022)

I don't believe that there would be. Car manufacturing requires a huge amount of capital. There is also an expectation of quality and a trust relationship between customers and manufacturers. The only people who would be getting information they don't already have would be people not currently involved in the industry: it's no secret to Toyota how a Honda works, and neither is confounding GM either. They can already copy each other quite effectively, and frequently do, but instead they put quite a bit of effort into explicitly differentiating their products. In fact, there are semi-generic automobiles on the market already: Geo was explicitly in the business of building designs by other companies and selling them at a discount.

I think if the auto manufacturers were to release all of their design documents to the open, not much would really change. A few start-ups might be able to swing enough capital to start building knock-offs, but ultimately I doubt it would be chaos, and I doubt they would even be such a bad thing: more competition means more of capitalism functioning as intended. We'd be more likely to see see lower prices for consumers, innovative manufacturing technologies and ideas, improvements in vehicle safety and an increase in consumer choice. Now that you bring this up, I actually think it's a great idea that should be implemented immediately.

To give a computer analogy (my apologies, but I can't really make a car analogy here... I hope you can see why): there is very little to prevent HP from making a computer model identical to a Dell model, and one can argue that they already HAVE effectively identical models on the market, nor is there much of anything to prevent a guy doing so in his basement... yet it doesn't happen, because HP wants to sell computers that are different from Dell, dell wants to sell computers that are different from HP, and the guy in his basement wants to look at porn... er... no, wait... he wants to build a computer to the specs he decides.

Re:yes, but (3, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732374)

The fashion industry has no copyright protections, just Trademarks...

I suppose next you'll tell me that new clothing lines will never be created, and the fashion industry is doomed.

Re:yes, but (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36733054)

but to have fair use you need someone to create the content in the first place

And people always will. Empires rise and fall, monetary systems collapse, styles of government come and go, but there will always be people creating content, even if they're not being compensated for it.

I'm not sure if you were trying to make one of those "but who will create if we don't pay people to do it?" statements, but it kinda sounded that way. No offense meant, of course, just pointing out that capitalism is not what drives creativity; it's certainly nice, but the two certainly are not intrinsically connected like so many would like us to believe. It makes the false assumption that the only media people would consume is the media generated by the big dogs, and every year that becomes less and less the case.

Re:yes, but (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36733108)

People have created regardless of copyright and patent protection, and I doubt that any particular industry would collapse if we revoked those protections tomorrow. That being said, individual businesses would probably collapse since their business models depend upon those protections and we'd probably see more incremental oneupmanship than revolutionary progress (but I suspect the end result would be the same).

Re:yes, but (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736290)

I feel like I should give the example of Elizabethan theater. There were virtually no copy protections, and plays were routinely copied by competing troupes without compensation. Not only did this give us Shakespeare, perhaps the greatest literary figure in the history of the English language, but drove enormous innovation in terms of the technical aspects of theater: staging, writing, producing, casting, marketing, set/prop use, stage and facility construction, acting style, pacing, format, stage direction... it all saw drastic change in a highly competitive market with virtually no protections for copyright, trademark, patent etc.

Not only did a lack of protection fail to stop content creators, it arguably led to one of the largest shifts in literature and art, across one of the shortest periods in time, in human history.

Pretty much sinks the "we need to have strong, eternal copyrights to protect artists so they will create things" argument entirely.

Reduced Revenue (4, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732088)

Ah, but if we had extremely restrictive copyright rules in place benefiting big companies (where "big companies" = RIAA/MPAA and not bigger, low-copyright companies like clothing designers), that $4.5 trillion would have been $89.6 quadrillion.*

* Study funded by the RIAA/MPAA. Figured based on completely unbiased** mathematical modeling.***

** Where "unbiased" means "completely biased."

*** "mathematical modeling" means "we pulled some big numbers out of our posteriors."

Re:Reduced Revenue (1)

stewbee (1019450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734052)

You're doing your foot notes all wrong. They are too easy to find. Might I suggest creating a new comment ( possibly even in an entirely different topic from the /. home page) to bury your foot notes in. This is the true way to obfuscate your points while appearing to be a referenced paper or piece of evidence.

Re:Reduced Revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734160)

I understand MPAA employs models with very nice posteriors.

What an ass (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734450)

$89.6 quadrillion

*** "mathematical modeling" means "we pulled some big numbers out of our posteriors."

They've gotta have some huge posteriors!

Cheers,

Re:What an ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736282)

They've gotta have some huge posteriors!

They ARE huge posteriors!

Re:What an ass (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 3 years ago | (#36736326)

$89.6 quadrillion

*** "mathematical modeling" means "we pulled some big numbers out of our posteriors."

They've gotta have some huge posteriors!

Cheers,

Of course. They didn't become Fat Cats for nothing.

Re:Reduced Revenue (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36734892)

Ah, but if we had extremely restrictive copyright rules in place benefiting big companies (where "big companies" = RIAA/MPAA and not bigger, low-copyright companies like clothing designers), that $4.5 trillion would have been $89.6 quadrillion.*

* Study funded by the RIAA/MPAA. Figured based on completely unbiased** mathematical modeling.***

** Where "unbiased" means "completely biased."

*** "mathematical modeling" means "we pulled some big numbers out of our posteriors."

Bad footnotes. Should be:

** "unbiased" here is an abbreviation for up-number biased
*** "mathematical modelling" here refers to the creative process of getting numbers from respectable sources****
**** "respectable sources" refers to the posterior of the authors. It's the only thing they respect.

Tiny growth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36732442)

This growth appears to be tiny - most of that appears to be inflation. The total US inflation between jan 2002 and jan 2011 is 24.35%. Therefore, after accounting for inflation making all of the numbers bigger, if the fair use portion of the economy grew not at all from 2002 to 2011 it would end up at 4.23 Trillion. Therefore the real growth is less than 300 billion in US 2011 dollars

So new slogan... (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732448)

"Copyright maximialists are anti-business, anti-economic-growth, anti-jobs."

Re:So new slogan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36733044)

"Copyright maximialists are anti-business, anti-economic-growth, anti-jobs."

This is not exactly news!

See http://www.wdyl.com/#cheap%20labor [wdyl.com]

Of course (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732466)

Most of us make use of or benefit from fairn use countless times every day. This morning I watched a news show that showed god knows how many trademarked images, copyrighted clips, personal images, snips of audio, etc. I hummed a song I liked. I emailed a joke I had overheard to a friend. I downloaded a ungodly number of copyrighted images to my PC as part of my morning web browsing.

There are countless incidents of fair use we each do every day without even thinking about it. Can you even imagine a world where that WASN'T the case? Where humming a copyrighted song without permission was a criminal offense? Where news reports weren't allowed to use any copyrighted or trademarked images/audio/etc.? Where web browsing meant signing a copyright agreement with every website?

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734296)

There are countless incidents of fair use... Can you even imagine a world where that WASN'T the case? Where humming a copyrighted song without permission was a criminal offense? Where news reports weren't allowed to use any copyrighted or trademarked images/audio/etc.? Where web browsing meant signing a copyright agreement with every website?

The RIAA/MPAA can imagine that particular kind of hell...and they are f'ng trying to make it happen!

Buy used, buy indie, download public domain, creative commons, or better yet, just don't buy at all. Make their policies hurt.

Original content over fair use (1)

h1q (2042122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36732782)

While scavenging may be intellectually frugal, creation is the maidenhood of civilization.

Rather than torrent that next low grade horror film, why not write a word, a sentence, a paragraph -- anything -- snuff, hate, poem, story, flame and put it up on a blog, email, or otherwise share it. Then you will have added to the world rather than recycling it.

And it is so easy to be novel. Virtually everything you utter more than a few words has probably never been heard or seen before in the history of the world.

For example, the first sentence, the entire sentence is unique in Google and subsets beyond "may be" or "is the" have very few hits.

To be creative in writing is as easy as forgetting to meme.

Re:Original content over fair use (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36733490)

Any creative act is also a form of scavenging.

Re:Original content over fair use (1)

amusenet (2084500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36733708)

If you wanted to do this in a postmodern and ironic way, you could type "the death of the author" into Google and find who originally wrote this phrase and where it came from.

Re:Original content over fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36736608)

What is the point in creating when there is nobody to consume it,? That is what you suggest if all we do is create.

Re:Original content over fair use (1)

neminem (561346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36750564)

Why not do both at once? Get Your Bootleg On! (Even if that term for mashup is rather archaic, in internet-time.)

Copyright should protect primarily the individual (1)

Theovon (109752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36733504)

Copyright is terribly abused by big corporations and cartels that want to suck money out of everyone. However, copyright's original intent was to encourage creating of original content. IMHO, corporations should have very limited copyright protection, whereas individual artists should have rights bordering on the draconian. This should apply in many cases even when you're paid a salary for what you create, but it's especially applicable if you license your creation to a company after you've completed it, as with the major record labels.

The same should be true of patents.

But not trademarks. Trademarks are fine.

Re:Copyright should protect primarily the individu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734698)

Trouble is, how do you prevent people from getting the 'good' copyrights from selling those to the corps. Or do we say that any copyright held by a corporate entity is of the 'inferior' type? and how do we prevent whatever racket they come up with where they sue on behalf of "their client" who owns the copyright and then keep a huge chunk of that (or whatever racket they devise where they keep the power, even though they don't have the copyright)?

Re:Copyright should protect primarily the individu (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36735868)

Easy. Copyrights not registered last for 5 years. Copyrights first registered to a private individual are valid for the life of of the individual. Copyrights held by corporations or transferred from one individual to another entity are valid for 20 years.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

welcome to http://www.ilove-shopping.org (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36734498)

Hello,everybody,the good shoping place,the new season approaching, click in. Let's facelift bar! ===== http://www.ilove-shopping.org/ [ilove-shopping.org] ==== Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 UGG BOOT $50 Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12 New era cap $9 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18 FREE SHIPPING http://www.ilove-shopping.org/ [ilove-shopping.org] tyytbbvvb

My new favorite TED talk (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#36737296)

Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture [ted.com]

Long story short: there is very little IP protection in the fashion industry (both in the U.S. and worldwide) and they do very well, thankyouverymuch. It's a surprisingly interesting video from a geek's point of view. It's like a game, really: here are the rules, here are the limitations, now solve the problem and check out the unexpected results.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?