×

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!

Fair Use Worth More Than Copyright To Economy

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the make-more-money dept.

The Internet 274

Dotnaught writes "The Computer and Communications Industry Association — a trade group representing Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, among others — has issued a report (PDF) that finds fair use exceptions add more than $4.5 trillion in revenue to the U.S. economy and add more value to the U.S. economy than copyright industries contribute. "Recent studies indicate that the value added to the U.S. economy by copyright industries amounts to $1.3 trillion.", said CCIA President and CEO Ed Black. The value added to the U.S. economy by the fair use amounts to $2.2 trillion."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

274 comments

I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20581663)

Doesn't fair use mean you don't pay for content? Where is all this money coming from?

Re:I don't get it (2, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581737)

An online newspaper publishes articles which include copyrighted images (company logos for example) under fair use. So they chalk up the entire revenue of the newspaper at "profiting from fair use". Seems just as shady to me as the RIAA's outrageous claims of piracy damages (which are modest compared with the staggering $trillions figure here).

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581973)

No, it's called "spin", and you better believe the other side's been doing it already.
This is very smart of them really, and probably just the beginning of the FUD war.

Re:I don't get it (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582371)

The first thing is, money means nothing.

Money is not wealth, it's just a way to figure out how to split the pie.

Don't agree? Check out some footage of elderly people paying for food with wheelbarrows of money when the USSR fell.

Expect to watch the baby boomers frantically waving money and deeds around in the coming years, desperate for some young person to care for them, only to be confronted by the fact that they traded those who might have been able and willing in exchange for birth control, a desk job and an extra zero on their bank statement long ago.

Anyways.

When life improves because plenty is created, whatever there is plenty of becomes worthless.

Oxygen is worthless for this reason.

However, it would be difficult to argue that we'd be better off with less oxygen.

It would be hard to argue that we'd be better off if we found a way to hoard it and make people pay for it.

But that's the argument being put forth by those who defend copyrights.

They feel that when people are kept away from art, music, etc, and only allowed to enjoy it if they pay, then wealth is created.

This is nonsense.

The truth is, leverage is created. Which is really what money represents.

And in a world where everything you might possibly need or want has been stamped with a "Property of so and so" marking, and police with guns will show up if you touch it without permission, leverage can seem pretty important.

Thing is, stupid, ignorant and desperate neighbors make bad neighbors, they make poor allies, and they make problems for everyone.

At this point, if we wanted to, we could put every book ever written on earth, every song ever sang, every play ever performed, every newscast, every scientific paper, the lot, we could put it on one little cube of holographic storage and distribute it far and wide across the earth. The tech was new two years ago.

So, aside from the collective "Intellectual Property" laws, which are intended to promote the creation and distribution of works of art and science for the common good, there is nothing stopping us from giving every human on earth a copy of the Library of Alexandria.

Wouldn't you think that the reward of having 6 billion and counting educated, informed neighbors to be your peers, partners and friends would be worth the price of finding a better system to fund creative works that doesn't require them to be locked away in order to properly operate?

Seriously. These intellectual property laws time has passed, and when you look at it in this fashion, it's pretty fucking glaringly obvious.

Lets get talking with open minds about alternatives economic structures that don't leave the creators out in the cold and don't require the poor people to flounder in ignorance any longer than they already have, hey?

Re:I don't get it (4, Funny)

semiotec (948062) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582515)

and tomorrow's headline:

"Copyright groups claim study shows unlicensed usage of copyright materials is costing US $2.2 trillion."

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582305)

'So they chalk up the entire revenue of the newspaper at "profiting from fair use".'

That is easily offset by the fact that profits from copyrighted materials are credited across the board despite the fact that copyright may not be responsible for those materials existing. After all, there were songs, plays, books, and works of art before copyright and there likely would be movies, books, albums, plays, and works of art if copyright didn't exist today.

Re:I don't get it (4, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582413)

'An online newspaper publishes articles which include copyrighted images (company logos for example) under fair use. So they chalk up the entire revenue of the newspaper at "profiting from fair use".'

I realize I already replied to this once with another point but something else has just occurred to me. That is a fairly terrible example. Newspapers couldn't exist without fair use. A fairly huge portion of any given newspaper is spent quoting people interviewed and excerpts of outside sources of information. In fact, if a reporter has done their job, a news article won't really contain any original material of note, just a collection of facts included from outside sources under fair use.

Re:I don't get it (4, Funny)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581757)

Doesn't fair use mean you don't pay for content? Where is all this money coming from?

Hey man, every time some yahoo walks down the street singing "Free Bird [wikipedia.org] , our national value is improved by $0.10. Don't knock it!

Re:I don't get it (5, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581773)

Doesn't fair use mean you don't pay for content? Where is all this money coming from?

People that (for example) buy computers and DVD burners and software and tons of blank media to copy movies and music. People that buy iPods to play tracks from the CDs they buy. Etc etc.

I don't get it-With a bullet. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582167)

"People that (for example) buy computers and DVD burners and software and tons of blank media to copy movies and music. People that buy iPods to play tracks from the CDs they buy. Etc etc."

Yes, and murders and robbery benefit the gun and bullet industry.

Re:I don't get it (2, Interesting)

E++99 (880734) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582189)

Doesn't fair use mean you don't pay for content? Where is all this money coming from?


People that (for example) buy computers and DVD burners and software and tons of blank media to copy movies and music. People that buy iPods to play tracks from the CDs they buy. Etc etc.

While that's what /. thinks of as fair use, I don't get the impression that that sort of thing, or profits that removed from actual fair use, were counted. Fair use profits would include every newspaper, news broadcast, news webpage, places like amazon, which rely on user reviews, any kind of art or entertainment reviews, Google, and all other search engines, which excerpt pages in the results, any kind of discussion board, where people are free to excerpt each other's posts as well as web pages and other copyrighted text, etc., etc.

It most certainly is (4, Interesting)

SideshowBob (82333) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582587)

Making a backup copy of a DVD that *I own* is very much Fair Use.

Being able to use the music that *I bought* on whatever playback device I choose is also very much Fair Use.

Re:I don't get it (1)

subreality (157447) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582509)

I think YHBT.

You can produce value without having to pay for it, which is the reason fair use (And copyright expirations!) exist.

Cost != Value, grandparent knows it, and he's just screwing with you.

Re:I don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20581955)

because people don't have to pay for things they shouldn't have to. more money available for everything else other than paying only for "rights"

it expands creativity and thus products == $$$ (1)

HelloKitty (71619) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582077)


fair use lets people experience new things, which in turn makes people more creative, which makes them create new things, which can be sold, which makes profit!

1.) download stuff and listen to it / sample it, etc..
2.) make stuff
3.) profit!

Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan too (4, Informative)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581665)

I wrote an article [gnomefiles.org] about the lack of fair use being a consumer right last week. In particular, I mentioned that even 90% Creative Commons licensed music is very restrictive for videographers -- which was a surprise to me when I found out. Unless you only use the CC-BY license (only 60 albums exist in that license), you can't "sync" audio and video legally for free for your own projects. And that's for the CC music we are talking about (and two of the Board of Directors of CC agreed with my conclusions). I don't even want to start thinking how bad it will become if RIAA starts suing the actual users on youtube who sync their HOME videos with their music. In other words, IMO, fair use should be expanded to become a consumer right, at least for personal pre-specified usage (I am not endorsing piracy here and I do believe that commercial vendors should continue licensing for professional usage).

What does that have to do with "fair use"? (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581805)

Nothing as far as I can tell.

It isn't a "fair use" right to be able to make a derivative work.

Re:What does that have to do with "fair use"? (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581839)

It all depends if you define "derivative work" as the syncing of audio and video --even if the audio was unchanged over the original recording--, or not. I don't. I dual license my videos in fact. Some of my videos are pretty much public domain, but the songs used are CC-BY and unchanged over the original recording (e.g. no remixes). So, it all depends on your and the law's definition of "derivative work". I don't think it should be named as such.

So from your stand point (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582107)

There is a difference between using someones audio work in another audio work and using someones audio work in another audio-visual work?

I agree there is a difference, but don't see how one of them is necessarily "fair use" and the other isn't. If "fair use" were to allow combination of audio and video why not audio and audio? If the author wanted that they wouldn't have chosen an no derivative licence.
Nor am I sure how you could account for the difference in a generic licence without specifically mentioning particular media.

Perhaps it would involve some language about allowing "combined" rather than "derived" works where the original work is allowed to be used if it is "unmodified". How you'd define "unmodified" I don't know. It would need to allow necessary technical modifications to allow the combination while not allowing qualitative changes.

What you really need is more music produced with a less restrictive licence rather than trying to force people using the No derivative to allow derivatives. Either that or find a piece of music you like and actually ask the author if you can use it.

Re:So from your stand point (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582187)

>using someones audio work in another audio-visual work

Yes, because at least for me, while music is part of the overall work, it is not MY work, and therefore, I don't even modify it, I simply use it. I do not consider it part of MY work. This is why I want to DUAL license my works, one license for the video and one for the music's license. They go together, but I consider them distinct entities. At least, as a videographer who can't write music.

>If the author wanted that they wouldn't have chosen an no derivative license.

I am fairly certain that most of the people who choose the ND license don't even know that their work won't be included in videos. They only think that they won't get remixes or covers.

>How you'd define "unmodified" I don't know

Unmodified means not remixes, no covers, no different beats etc. Just the mp3 as you downloaded it from the artist's web site or CD.

>What you really need is more music produced with a less restrictive licence rather than trying to force people using the No derivative to allow derivatives.

That's true. Indeed, there is just not much selection under the CC-BY.

More over, don't forget the NC clause. While a piece might be under the NC and not under the ND, it will still not allow you to use that video on youtube! So put all that together, and you are ending up with 5% of the CC available music *as a videographer*. This problem has an impact for video in particular not for other uses.

Re:What does that have to do with "fair use"? (4, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581943)

It isn't a "fair use" right to be able to make a derivative work.

I think in part that is what the GP was unhappy about. Derivative work should really only apply to commercial ventures. If I want to make a slide show DVD of my cousin's wedding pictures and set it to their favorite love song and give it to them for an anniversary present, is that really a "derivative work" or is it just something that has added value to some of my family and doesn't mean jackshit to the rest of the world? Or to make it more public, if I sync clips of The Muppet Show with a Snoop Dog song and post it to YouTube, am I somehow depriving Snoop Dog and Jim Henson of income they would have otherwise had or am I simply freely contributing some humor into the world and adding slightly to the value of YouTube? If a work would not exist if I were required to pay someone for the right to make it, then copyright is depriving the world of the value of that work.

Re:What does that have to do with "fair use"? (2, Interesting)

HelloKitty (71619) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582125)

i'm totally with you.

but regarding snoopdog/henson. there's also the idea that it could degrade their IP... having muppets associated with snoopdog may not be what henson wants (nor may it be what snoop wants, think about it :) )

otherwise, you're totally right. there's certain cases where each side may be opposed to such things though... but, i could see a situation where, for fair use, if you use copyright stuff, you must use attribution, AND, state that you are doing this on your own - so it is very clear that it is some kind of "fan fiction"... or whatever...

Re:What does that have to do with "fair use"? (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582375)

If I sync clips of The Muppet Show with a Snoop Dog song ..... then copyright is depriving the world of the value of that work
Perhaps not the best example but I take your point ;)

I guess that counter argument is that if you (and others) had those rights then the financial incentive that allows/gives incentive for the Muppet Show to be produced and Snoop to produce his songs may be diminished and they may not exist in the first place, denying the world both the originals and your hypothetical derived works.

There seems to be (not with you specifically) a stong undercurrent of people who want to do something considering that something "fair". That is understandable, but not really overly pertinent in discussion of how a system is constructed that both creates incentive for new works and also gives human beings reasonable access to their culture in a more general sense.

Re:What does that have to do with "fair use"? (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582815)

Sometimes it is. Any kind of otherwise-infringing use can be a fair use, given the right circumstances. There's nothing special about the derivative right. For example, reviews of other works which employ quotes, condensations of the plot, annotations, etc. are typically derivative works which benefit from fair use, and are often commercial to boot!

Re:What does that have to do with "fair use"? (1)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582869)

Good to know.

BTW, do you know if I can license my home videos and combined music separately? For example, can I publish my video on youtube under the CC-BY license, while the music used in the video to be licensed under the CC-BY-SA (which I used under permission from the artist)? So this way, if someone wants to license my footage, he will have to get a separate license for the audio?

Re:Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan t (5, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581883)

A problem that will become more and more obvious as internet multimedia pick speed, is that there will be less and less difference between "personal use" and "commercial business use".

If I host a YouTube video for my relatives with personal photos synched to some commercial track, it's supposed to be ok. But what if I have a cut from the ads since I signed a deal with YouTube.

Even worse, what if YouTube automate the process, and I get a cut if my video becomes popular automatically. Then I can wake up one day to see the video popularity rise and I'm suddenly a criminal.

I really wish the industry representatives would sit down and rethink copyright, DMCA and fair use (while following the same basic rules), but I know if they do, they'll tilt it further away from fair use rights, versus recognizing them better.

We'll need some screwed up revolution again after sitting through hundreds of frivolous suits, since greed on both sides (consumers and the industry) overshadows their reasoning.

Re:Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan t (2, Interesting)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581915)

>If I host a YouTube video for my relatives with personal photos
>synced to some commercial track, it's supposed to be ok

Nope, it's not. It is copyright infringement. YouTube STILL makes money, even if you don't. And even if they weren't, you are still not licensed to use music that way.

Agreed with the rest of your points.

Re:Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan t (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582089)

A problem that will become more and more obvious as internet multimedia pick speed, is that there will be less and less difference between "personal use" and "commercial business use".


No problem at all. RIAA or MPAA will send DCMA take down notices and will, through the handy help of Congress, steal your content by declaring it as their own.

Welcome to America, land of political whores.

well, or you could just ask... i'd change my licse (1)

HelloKitty (71619) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582095)

you can use my music for free.
email me.
we'll work it out.

just cause it's under CC doesn't mean i can't relicense it to you under something else.

Re:Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan t (5, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582303)

Unless you only use the CC-BY license (only 60 albums exist in that license), you can't "sync" audio and video legally for free for your own projects. And that's for the CC music we are talking about

This isn't really a comment on your thesis here, but you got me thinking ... is there a CC license that basically says, "NO, you cannot distribute my work ... you may only distribute derivative works?" In other words, sure, sync my music with your video, put it up on YouTube... make a remix of it... but if folks just want an MP3 of it, they need to download it from me. Might be kinda interesting.

Re:Creative Commons needs a better fair use plan t (5, Interesting)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582335)

Not that I know of. It would indeed create a new kind of business model... which is "advertise my work by using it any way you want in your derivative works, but to download the original you gotta pay me". Although there is a danger with this idea: that a derivative is better than the original. :D

ok (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20581691)

When the MPAA and RIAA quote ridiculous figures for the damage they suffer from copyright infringement, people here react with ridicule. How much you want to bet the slashdot crowd will accept these figures uncritically because it supports their ideology?

Re:ok (4, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581817)

I'm sure plenty of folks will accept the figures uncritically, but at least in this report there is a detailed outline of the methodology used to produce those figures. They don't appear to be pulled out of thin air.

Re:ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582149)

I'm sure plenty of folks will accept the figures uncritically, but at least in this report there is a detailed outline of the methodology used to produce those figures. They don't appear to be pulled out of thin air.

The numbers given have a means of verification. The **AA "poor me" numbers are so cooked as to be completely inedible -- not to mention incredible. They're based on all sort of voodoo like, "If we had MSRP on every piece of copied music, the total would come to G$XXX.00. There is no way those numbers could be realized in the real world.

Consider the case of the popular C&W artist (sorry, I've forgotten his name) who went after his label for the full royalties he should have gotten over the years. He had piranha lawyers and accountants who went after the label for a number of years. The label's accounting is so arcane it nearly takes forensic accountants to untangle the mess. Despite the lawyers, the label was able to stall and stonewall far beyond any individual's ability to continue the process unaided.

In the end, the court was able to establish the amount the artist had been defrauded of over the years. Yet, even at the last hour, the bastard label was able to "negotiate a settlement" for about 50% of what was owed. This was likely done on the basis that they would continue to appeal the judgement until long after the artist's grandchildren and all their "heirs and assigns" were long dead.

In fact, what the judge should have imposed would have been to tell the label's CEO, "I will shove this auger up your ass and continue to turn it until a check has cleared the artist's bank, including interest at 20% up to the second that the check posts."

Re:ok (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581851)

It's not that crazy of an idea. I spent $15 for a CD (content). I really wanted to use some of the music for a little home video mash-up thing for my personal use. I have spent thousands of dollars on computer equipment & software to that lets me engage in the fair use of content (ie mixing the music into my video).

Re:ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582027)

people spend many times more to listen to music than to edit films.
 
a 15 cd without a player, output devices and such doesn't mean very much. not to mention ipods, car stereos, the computers people use to rip their cds...
 
put that in your pipe and smoke it tonight.

Re:ok (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581919)

How much you want to bet the slashdot crowd will accept these figures uncritically because it supports their ideology?

If only they could give the true value of Fair Use rights in this report: priceless.

Re:ok (2, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582047)

You can certainly bet that we'll use this report as a counter every time the RIAA makes up ridiculous numbers in the future. In fact, rhetorically and politically, you absolutely must do that. And if they inflate their figures upward, we should definitely be willing to up these figures to some trillion number of dollars. Do you want to win, or do you want to lose, fair use rights?

Anti-BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582065)

It's anti-BS, because it annihilates ordinary BS (the MPAA & RIAA's figures) on contact.

I suspect both numbers are unreasonable, but I find it interesting that using the same economics the MPAA & RIAA are using for their pie-in-the-sky estimates, Fair Use is still worth more than copyright.

I don't think it's somehow "hypocritical" to point out that the MPAA & RIAA's flawed methods can very easily be used to draw conclusions they dislike.

In a side note, I'm also disgusted by how easily people throw around charges of hypocrisy when they don't understand or bother to examine the viewpoints in question. You might *gasp* have to find real faults with the conclusions if you want to be taken seriously instead of just taking a weak swipe at some kind of alleged hypocrisy.

But that, of course, would entail critical thinking.

Re:ok (1)

MontyApollo (849862) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582197)

I did not read the report, but how exactly does it support their ideology? Copyrights contribute trillions to the economy. The fair use of these same copyrights contribute trillions more. It seems the interpretation would be that both are important and good for the economy. Fair use is an important part of existing copyright law; fair use does not mean that you can share all your songs on the internet to whoever wants a copy.

Re:ok (1)

mce (509) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582507)

I know what you mean. And not having read the article (yet) I'm also tempted to suspect such a bias in reception, but that would be wrong of me: maybe these new numbers really do have a better foundation than those of the MPAA or the RIAA.

But you know what: it doesn't matter that much whether we on /. accept these numbers more only because they suit us. It matters a lot more that the companies involved (esp. "evil" Microsoft as the produced of a ton of DRM software and "do no evil" Google as the owner of YouTube) published this report. That's because these guys carry a lot more weight in Congress than /. does.

The difference (4, Interesting)

nate nice (672391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581709)

Fair use generates some money to a lot of people.

Copyright generates a lot of money to some people.

So the real question is what does our society value? Many people getting a slice of the the pie, or a few people getting all the pie?

Re:The difference (2, Funny)

Arceliar (895609) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581841)

It's not a few people getting a slice of the pie. One group rapes the pie, then tells us they've eaten it all.

There's still plenty to slice there, I just wouldn't want to eat it.

Re:The difference (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581879)

Fair use generates some money to a lot of people.

Fair use generates vast sums of money for some people (hardware manufacturers, for one) that completely dwarfs the income generated by copyright on materials played or viewed by that equipment. Furthermore, if it were not for widespread exercise of fair use, a hell of a lot of technology (home audio recording, VCRS, CD & DVD burners, MP3 players, and so forth) would never have seen the light of day. People would have had much less use for such things if it were not for fair use. Furthermore, the content creators and copyright holders themselves have benefited from fair use, to the tune of many billions of dollars in sales they would otherwise never have made.

Copyright generates a lot of money to some people.

A lot fewer people, many of whom (unlike the hardware manufacturers) provide no creative or other useful contributions to society, and in fact have historically stood in the way of progress.

So the real question is what does our society value? Many people getting a slice of the the pie, or a few people getting all the pie?

You have it wrong, it's not zero-sum. What society values (and is the underlying goal of the specific legal environment originally crafted by the Founders) is a bigger pie! Copyright no longer serves that purpose in many areas, and is in need of serious repair (or reversion.)

Re:The difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582037)

"Fair use generates vast sums of money for some people (hardware manufacturers, for one) that completely dwarfs the income generated by copyright on materials played or viewed by that equipment. Furthermore, if it were not for widespread exercise of fair use, a hell of a lot of technology (home audio recording, VCRS, CD & DVD burners, MP3 players, and so forth) would never have seen the light of day. People would have had much less use for such things if it were not for fair use. Furthermore, the content creators and copyright holders themselves have benefited from fair use, to the tune of many billions of dollars in sales they would otherwise never have made. "

I'm not certain "fair use" is really the proper word here. Fair use is the exceptions to copyright. It's not copyright in the main. It would be more proper to say that we have the present gains because of the exercise of copyright. I should also point out that copyright AND fair use don't change the binding relationship between creators of content, and creators of players of said content. One can't do without the other. Now if you're using "fair use" as in illegal copyright infringement? Well that's an entirely different debate, and the evidence is suspect there.

"A lot fewer people, many of whom (unlike the hardware manufacturers) provide no creative or other useful contributions to society, and in fact have historically stood in the way of progress. "

See above. As for the "stood in the way of progress"? Well that true or not depending on whom and what one's talking about. Not getting one's way doesn't always equate to "standing in the way of progress".

"You have it wrong, it's not zero-sum. What society values (and is the underlying goal of the specific legal environment originally crafted by the Founders) is a bigger pie! Copyright no longer serves that purpose in many areas, and is in need of serious repair (or reversion.)"

To a certain degree true, however I find this forum plays fast and loose when it comes to "what is fair, and/or needs repair". For such an encompassing idea like copyright. The majority benefits well from it.

Re:The difference (2, Interesting)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582535)

And how do we cut that bigger pie comrade? The economy might not be zero-sum, but at some point you need to think about how the benefits are being handed out. What good is that giant pie in the sky if all I get are a few crumbs?

Re:The difference (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582007)

How about both?

Extremes of both kinds are bad - the middle ground usually tends to be better.

The difference... in Washington DC (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582051)

Fair use generates some money to a lot of people.
Copyright generates a lot of money to some people.

The difference, is those very same 'some people' contributes a lot to the congresscritters' re-election funds while the 'a lot of people' do not. Take a wild guess which way the IP laws tilt for.

Re:The difference... in Washington DC (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582193)

> The difference, is those very same 'some people' contributes a lot to the congresscritters' re-election funds while the 'a lot of people' do not. Take a wild guess which way the IP laws tilt for.

It used to be RIAA over CCIA, because pop starlets were generally hotter than technology geeks, even if technology was a bigger industry than recorded music.

On the upside, after seeing Britney Spears' comeback attempt this week (ironically, on YouTube, and under fair use)... maybe snorting one's cocaine from 'twixt RMS's manboobs is the better offer. Particularly for the Republican senators, even the heterosexual ones :)

Re:The difference (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582767)

Fair use generates some money to a lot of people.

Copyright generates a lot of money to some people.

So the real question is what does our society value?

The answer is money.

If someone comes up with a cure for cancer, the reaction won't be "Great, how many lives can we save?", but "Great, how many billions can we make?".

Capitalist is not pro-economy (2, Informative)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581749)

Companies work for themselves, not for the benefit of the economy at large. Look at all the negative effort that MS puts into body-slamming competition. How can that really be good for the economy as a whole? Sure, if they just competed by making better products that would be a Good Thing.

Even within many companies, different business units will compete for the same cusomers and make competing products (wasting company resources in duplicated efforts). Rather than try improve the whole company's position, business unit managers will crush eachother to get ahead.

Basically it is the old story: you get what you reward. Competitors get rewarded (directly or via Wall St) by beating eachother up, not by their contribution to the economy at large.

Capitalist doesn't have to be pro-economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20581975)

The theory behind capitalism is that people pursue their own interests. That creates the 'unseen hand' that is the feedback system that makes the economic system work for the benefit of everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand [wikipedia.org]

Which is "worth more" is irrellevant (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581761)

Since without one, the other either doesn't exist or else is superfluous.

Re:Which is "worth more" is irrellevant (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581845)

I don't think the point is really to show which one is 'better' or 'worth more'. The point is to provide an argument against those would would support stricter copyright control. They may try to say that if some control makes some money, then more control will make more money. This report attempts to show that there is more at stake.

Re:Which is "worth more" is irrellevant (1)

InvalidError (771317) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582141)

More control is more expensive to enforce and creates more technical issues, both of which cost money and pathetically fail at preventing minimally determined pirates from pirating. Everybody loses.

I would have liked to see online music stores try to enforce stricter and more intrusive DRM schemes: I hoped to see a day where DRM schemes fouled up and caused massive outrage so even the tamest customers would become very aware and extremely critical of any DRM. But with many online music shops jumping off the DRM train, it seems judgment day has been postponed.

Meaningless numbers don't help the cause (5, Insightful)

drabgah (1150633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581769)

I believe fair use rights should be greatly expanded, and defended against incursion from DRM technologies and bad laws like the DMCA. Unfortunately, this study is a good example of using meaningless statistics to prove a point. The statistics are based on studying what are referred to as "Fair Use Industries" such as education and software, but there is no meaningful way to quantify (for instance) exactly how much the relatively lax enforcement of copyright law against educational photocopies really contributes to the economic value of the education industry. I believe that this study does demonstrate just how important the free flow of information is to many important industries, but the leap from that well-supported assertion to a statement claiming a particular dollar amount benefit from fair use rights is not justified.

Advertising $$$ (3, Interesting)

Runesabre (732910) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581787)

My guess is "fair use exception" revenue generation is largely a result of websites using other people's content to generate ad revenue. Without fair use exceptions, 80% of the Internet "content" would disappear. When our economy gets past websites and Internet "companies" relying on a business model of profiting from the aggregation of other people's original efforts, I'm betting revenue generated from "fair use exceptions" will drop accordingly.

An economy can only sustain itself so long from re-packaging other people's work before it runs out of gas. Rewarding original creation is what is needed more.

Re:Advertising $$$ (2, Interesting)

wordsnyc (956034) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582079)

I write a syndicated newspaper column that I also post online (a couple of thousand at last count). I give blanket permission to any educator that wants to use my stuff in a classroom, and I have heard from hundreds who do. I also have a Google email alert set up on my web site title (www.word-detective.com), and I get 6-7 alerts per day from people reproducing my columns on their websites. If it's just one column at a time, once in a while, I don't care, especially if I get a link. Usually it's just a case of somebody with a blog who finds something especially interesting. I think that's reasonable fair use.

Copy my whole page (as has happened), however, and I'll call a lawyer.

Re:Advertising $$$ (3, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582879)

My guess is "fair use exception" revenue generation is largely a result of websites using other people's content to generate ad revenue.

That's probably true. "Fair use exception" rarely allows for commercial content, as to do otherwise would crush an original author's ability to make any profit for an original idea. The exception tends to lie in reviews and criticisms. And in that field, review sites, online newspapers, and online magazines rather fit the bill.

Without fair use exceptions, 80% of the Internet "content" would disappear.

Now, this I somewhat disagree with. I don't believe 80% of Internet "content" is commercial in nature. Most comes in the form of personal webpages, blogs, and all sorts of other personal content. Look at how many posts that exist on /. that don't rely upon fair use exceptions. Now, if you wanted to talk about *quantity* of content that flows through the internet, I'd still disagree. It seems ~50% of internet traffic is piracy (bittorent/p2p). I don't think the lack of fair use exceptions would decrease that.

When our economy gets past websites and Internet "companies" relying on a business model of profiting from the aggregation of other people's original efforts, I'm betting revenue generated from "fair use exceptions" will drop accordingly.

It's funny you say that, since a majority of commercial copyright ventures outside the internet are done through corporations/companies that buy their original content from other people. Having said that, if it is the case that fair use exceptions allow for others to gain revenue, then it's a tautology that removing fair use exceptions will remove that revenue (since the classification will no longer exist). Of course, that just means more revenue from piracy.

An economy can only sustain itself so long from re-packaging other people's work before it runs out of gas. Rewarding original creation is what is needed more.

Tell that to Disney. Seriously, though, not all economies are based upon copyrights (or patents). In fact, such economies may very well be inately doomed to failure. But, yea, since the US's economy *is* based highly upon copyright, it does need more original works to avoid "[running] out of gas". Or, you know, we could try to change the US's economy to rely less upon copyright, given how fragile copyright is.

Article summary lacks consistancy! (1, Informative)

chebucto (992517) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581791)

finds fair use exceptions add more than $4.5 trillion in revenue to the U.S. economy ... The value added to the U.S. economy by the fair use amounts to $2.2 trillion.
Is $4.5t a different number than $2.2t, or am I stupid?

Nevermind, it is I who lack consistancy (1)

chebucto (992517) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581811)

revenue isn't the same thing as value added... sorry for the spurious post

Re:Article summary lacks consistancy! (1)

yoprst (944706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581823)

The difference probably reflects the accuracy of their estimates :)

Hungry (-1, Offtopic)

Joebert (946227) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581819)

Fair use my ass, I'm tired of eating microwave dinners so the economy can do well, if I can't have a steak the economy can go fuck itself.

Re:Hungry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582745)

How about a microwave steak dinner?

About time someone put hard numbers to it. (2, Interesting)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581847)

I've long suspected that the congressional attempt to limit fair use, or to create draconian IP laws, was causing more damage than not to the global economy. These numbers seem to reinforce that, and hopefully the fools on the hill will pay attention.

Trillion??? (5, Insightful)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581859)

Making backups of my CDs contributes $4.5 Trillion to the US economy? That greater than one third of the US GDP. Sorry if I'm a skeptic.

Re:Trillion??? (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582201)

Microsoft may earn some profit due to fair-use. Thus all of their profits must benefit from fair-use. Thats the disertion this article seems to make.

Re:Trillion??? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582627)

How much did the cd blanks cost you (yearly)? Oh, and the cd writer too. Multiply by 150 million people.
Of course that's just the beginning. There's lots of other places money is made from this stuff.

Nice quote in the opening of the study (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20581921)

"While CCIA holds copyrights like the copyright protecting this study, for example,
we also benefit - along with the rest of the public - from limitations on
the reach of copyright, such as the fact that copyright does not extend
to the raw data that forms the basis of this study."

Good Idea, Wrong Model (4, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 6 years ago | (#20581987)

This is a great start to estimating the contribution of fair use to the economy, but it misses two issues. First, fair use will only occur if original works are created and original works will only be created if people have some chance of earning a living from them. Saying that the contribution of fair use exceeds that of copyright should imply more fair use and less copyright is like saying we don't need to pay Boeing and Airbus, because flying (not making planes) contributes more to the economy. The larger point is that the value of fair use is a multiplier on the value of copyrighted material and that's what makes the analysis so hard. By this study's numbers, each dollar of copyrighted material generates another $2 or $3. So anything that leads to another $1 of paid copyright material should add even more fair use value.

Second, the real model needs to consider the trade-off (not the relative numbers). That is, if a given avenue of fair use is curtained by x% (e.g., add another year to copyright protection or prohibit consumer copying of music beyond device shifting) how much does the economic contribution by fair use drop and how much does the contribution of copyright increase? I'll be the first to say that I don't know the answer to that and that this study doesn't answer it.

In looking at the trade-off we need a model that reflects how added fair-use may increases the value multiplier, but may decrease the incentive to create copyrighted material and the pool of copyrighted material. This might vary according to both the nature of the work and the nature of the fair use restriction. For example, I'd argue that Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft wouldn't lose much if copyright terms were extended by a hundred years -- that aspect of copyright does not effect them much. And would Microsoft lose money if music sharing were impossible? Internet companies might even make more money if all music copying involved some payment (handled by an internet company). The Fair Use multiplier would not change by much even if some types of fair use were curtailed. On the other hand, these companies would lose a great deal if strict interpretations of copyright meant that every transient copy of a piece of text (e.g., copies in RAM, server caches, and internet routers) had to be subject to some copyright fee paid to a MAFIAA-like organization.

This study is a great start, but we need a better model of the marginal effects of the change in total economic value created as a function of more or less fair use. At the very least, this study proves we need some fair use but it does not prove whether we have enough fair use or too little fair use.

Re:Good Idea, Wrong Model (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582181)

"original works will only be created if people have some chance of earning a living from them"

And how exactly do the RIAA and their paid-for laws contribute to this goal?

The web is full of articles where musicians end up owing money to the record companies. Very few of them get rich thanks to the RIAA (in fact some of them get poorer).

Things like the DMCA are detrimental to the economy outside the music biz and you can thank the RIAA for that one.

If the RIAA is having problems it's because their product stinks and their CEOs can't see past the $$$ signs erected during the 1990s. The world's changed since then, they haven't adapted.

Re:Good Idea, Wrong Model (straw man) (4, Insightful)

Jeremy_Bee (1064620) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582251)

This is a great start to estimating the contribution of fair use to the economy, but it misses two issues. First, fair use will only occur if original works are created and original works will only be created if people have some chance of earning a living from them. Saying that the contribution of fair use exceeds that of copyright should imply more fair use and less copyright is like saying we don't need to pay Boeing and Airbus, because flying (not making planes) contributes more to the economy.
Some of your argument about the model is very interesting, but this part is really a classic straw-man argument isn't it?

Nowhere do the authors suggest (or even intimate IMO), that copyright should be eliminated or that fair use is "better" than copyright. Their argument is that fair use *does* add significant value to the economy and should not be denigrated the way it often is lately, or worse, eliminated altogether.

I think they may also be arguing that if we merely restored the (old) status quo, where fair use was perfectly legal again, and the length of copyright was returned to a more reasonable length of time that we would all be better off economically.

At least that's the most reasonable inference to make from this study IMO.

Re:Good Idea, Wrong Model (2, Insightful)

vga_init (589198) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582491)

First, fair use will only occur if original works are created and original works will only be created if people have some chance of earning a living from them.

Wrong, try again. Motivation for profit is not what makes people do everything all the time, thank God.

Re:Good Idea, Wrong Model (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582553)

No, but it's what does it for the vast bulk of the time. He's not wrong because you can find a few meager exceptions. And, since the article is about fair use and public domain works may be used freely and don't fall under fair use, the article itself argues against you.

Re:Good Idea, Wrong Model (1)

asuffield (111848) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582761)

No, but it's what does it for the vast bulk of the time. He's not wrong because you can find a few meager exceptions.


Where's your study to back up that claim? Where are your numbers? Can you prove that the vast bulk of creative works would not be created without copyright law, or is it just what you've been told by large corporations who benefit from increasing copyright laws?

It looks to me like you're just begging the question.

Re:Good Idea, Wrong Model (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582537)

Yes... so we should definitely continue to protect copyright long after the creators are dead. Because it will motivate them to create new works!

Reasonable copyright, sure! When writers are making a billion dollars, musicians are becoming millionaires 50 times over, we do not have reasonable copyright. Even worse- many of the creative works rights are owned by corporations bent on making copyright forever.

The copyright mine-field (2, Interesting)

NetSettler (460623) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582715)

In looking at the trade-off we need a model that reflects how added fair-use may increases the value multiplier, but may decrease the incentive to create copyrighted material and the pool of copyrighted material.

Great post. A few additional words of caution to those smelling blood and circling in hopes that copyright will fall of its own weight...

Fair use used to be something easy for people to do on their own, and it was a heavy burden on a publisher to show that someone was violating the copyright in a way that was unfair. It was hard to notice, legal avenues were the main way of proceeding, it cost a lot to even try. In the modern world, programmatic restrictions can keep people from making legitimate fair use, shifting the burden of proof from the publisher to the one needing the fair use. That, in itself, makes a mockery of fair use.

People's annoyance at the mechanical restrictions is certainly legitimate, but they should be careful to note that this is not an annoyance at "fair use", it's an annoyance at the way in which publishers and makers of technology are allowed to err in their own favor with no recourse. I've advocated [nhplace.com] for the creation of a legal notion of an "intellectual property easement" (by analogy with a real property easement), allowing one to sue a vendor or publisher for a way to make available a mechanism in support of fair use where the legitimate option has been mechanically forbidden. This might balance the scales without infringing copyright.

It's very easy for people to leap improperly to the notion that "big companies" own copyrights and "little people" can't use what they need, since a lot of this ends up being about published movies and TV shows and photos that people want to mark up and play with. But it works in reverse, and in the case where you're a little person who makes a movie, the firm application of copyright is all that stands between your ability to share with your friends or publish something on your site with a "look but don't copy notice" and your non-ability to keep a big magazine or portal from just lifting your work with not even a "thank you" in order to reuse it for them.

In my opinion, the value in copyright is not in protecting the big guy, who has many ways to make money, it's in protecting the little guy, just trying to make a start. So let's not be too quick to erode it.

The effect of further eroding copyright protection in favor of fair use becoming more like "unlimited free use" probably wouldn't help the free software movement either.

Of course, none of what I've written above in favor of keeping copyright protection strong should be taken to mean I think it's reasonable to have copyright terms as long as they are today. It's ridiculous, and getting worse in that regard. When I speak of copyright protection, I mean during a reasonable term of copyright, as originally designed. Perhaps even shorter for computer software, since the period of time between creation and obsolescence is probably only a few years, and even generously 14 years would be more than enough to be called conservative.

Sharing the Fair Use Bucks (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582021)

If that fair use money were pumping bribes back to Congress as much as the much tinier copyright money were, we'd have a lot more fair use protection, and a lot less abusive copyright.

The copyright industry just lost its great, politically powerful champion in Jack Valenti [wikipedia.org] . Valenti was completely tight with fellow Texan Lyndon Johnson (who was called "Master of the Senate" before becoming Kennedy's VP, then president by assassination), handling the press for him. Until Valenti left the White House in 1966, with Johnson's endorsement, to become head of the MPAA, just as Hollywood's products got a copyright venue in the TV explosion. Valenti just died this past Spring.

This is the time for the copying industries that really "promote the progress of science and useful arts" [cornell.edu] to push back the copyright monopoly industry. Let's finally get our First Amendment rights to free expression to trump the synthetic government monopolies on content that are holding us all back.

The value of Shakespeare alone... (5, Insightful)

LOTHAR, of the Hill (14645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582025)

The value of Shakespeare alone to the US economy is in the gazillions. How many school plays & textbooks, theaters, community centers, and even Hollywood studios would disappear if Shakespeare's works went into the private domain with no fair use provision.

Fair use is all good and well, but (2, Informative)

Trevin (570491) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582045)

What about the value of putting previously copyrighted works in the public domain? That's the criteria we really need to get our hands on to convince the legislators to reduce copyright terms.

Fair downloads is all good and well, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582297)

"What about the value of putting previously copyrighted works in the public domain?"

We're working on it. [cnn.com]

"That's the criteria we really need to get our hands on to convince the legislators to reduce copyright terms."

Well the above will certainly convince them terms are too long.

Close (2, Interesting)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582081)

They're on the right track but if anything have grossly underestimated the financial impact. Everything we say, do and even think flows from the work of our predecessors, long since peering out from the public domain. All the benefits - financial and otherwise - are profound, incalculable. Still the attempt is greatly appreciated.

- js

Who would have thought (1)

sc0ob5 (836562) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582245)

Who would have thought that allowing users to ideally "share" samples of media with someone else (via youtube or the like) that someone that watches or listens might actually like it and buy the CD/DVD/Whatever. I'm sure a lot of us here use to have mix tapes that someone made up for you and thought to yourself "wow I like that song I might buy the cassette(or CD)". Really how are people supposed to get new music if all they have to go buy is the crap that is on those music television shows or on the radio where they play a very limited selection, and if you don't like Justin Tiberlake or 50 Cent too bad.

Patent was made so big dogs don't crush puppies (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582291)

But now patents are abused by big companies so little ones don't start.

Re:Patent was made so big dogs don't crush puppies (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582309)

Might I add that I'm applying for my first patent :P Maybe my puppy company can quickly mature.

Primate behavior... (3, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582331)

Sadly human beings are given to profound fits of primate behavior

If you've ever spent a minute watching Nova or the Science Channel when a show was on demonstrating said behavior, there is a tremendous drive for primated (most mammals) to take as much as they can possibly get away with. With a monkey, it's fill you cheek pouches with friut, cram fuit under your arms, between your legs, as much as you can carry and more!

In fact more than you can eat before it spoils. Because you're packing it away while the good times last, and you're biology tells you the good times won't. So you cram it in, into you can cram no further. That, and if another monkey tries to take what you've laid claim to... well heaven help that monkey.

It's like the Malay Monkee trap... people will actually try to control, lock up, take, and destroy if they can't use it personally, anything they can, because the very same biological imparative is calling the shots. They will actually hurt their long term profits, to have some sense of control, and to lock others out in the cold. All because they want all the goodies. They want to control all the goodies. Some is not enough, they want them all, and thay want to control them.

This is not subtle form of social insanity, and huge sectors of our population are in the grip. WAKE UP PEOPLE, you hunger to control, is being perpetrated on the world to your own detriment. STOP FIGHTING TO SURVIVE, and please begin living. The two mentalities are mutually exclusive, because the first leaves no room for the second.

Here's the real threat... some bright child will discover the inherent value of fair use, then it's going to be all over. The rest will cave in, or go the way of the Dodo bird.

This argues for royalties (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582403)

If the fair use industry is generating 3 times the revenue than the companies that create the content, then it seems to me the fair use industry is not using the content fairly, and should be paying royalties to those who make their business model possible, rather than leeching off the content for free.

Now go ahead and label me a troll.

What it really shows (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582417)

is that our forefathers knew best. Most argued for LIMITED TIME copyrights, that would prevent building of empires and allow true capitalism to take place. It is those that push increased copyrights and try to limit fair use who have more in common with USSR and Communist China, than any other group.

Trillions, so where's the taxes? (4, Interesting)

scruge (977853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582457)

If these soft-products, art, music, video are as valuable as the owners say they are, then why aren't they paying the approriate property taxes on them. I think if RIAA members were been taxed on true value of their product then a lot of this crap would be released to public domain in order to minimize tax expense. This BS with life time rights, when others just as creative are confined 12-15 year patient laws, has got to go. Heck you can't even own a home unless you pay property taxes. Its like renting house from the government. So why are artist exempted ??? I'll bet Micheal Jackson didn't pay shit for property taxes on Beetle music ownership, yet he made millions selling licenses.

You've all forgotten - this is A Market Economy (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582519)

And in A Market Economy prices are driven by supply and demand.
  1. There's lots of "Copyright Industry" usage
  2. Only the (few) MegaCorps actually want it
  3. There's relatively very little "Fair Use Exceptions" (if the MPAA/RIAA/**AA had there choice, there'd be literally zero)
  4. Most of The Public want it (at least, those that have an opinion on the subject)
  5. ?? Profit ...... er, I mean - therefore obviously Fair Use is Worth More

Careful with interpreting this (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20582527)

This is actually an argument in favor of copyright at least as much against it.

Seriously; this is not a troll.

Fair use is often a side-benefit of copyright. Someone creates a work, hoping to get paid directly or by a publisher or whatever. Other people benefit for free from this system, through the fair use rights.

How much do they benefit? If the study is correct, about $5 trillion in 'value added' works are created, and of that revenue only about 30% is paid to the various copyright holders. That would make copyright a pretty good deal for society--for each $1 in revenue turned over to the holder of a government-granted monopoly, $3 is turned over to the general public.

This is overly simplistic, of course, since obviously not all production ceases without copyright, and some fair use (free software, for example) is on copyrights which are unenforced (practically speaking). Not to mention numerous other caveats and speculation about behaviors within a different incentive system. Still, for anyone who claims this supports the idea that copyright is too stringent and stifling innovation--which includes me, in various circumstances--this is a fairly surprising finding.

Uh...? (1, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582849)

"Recent studies indicate that the value added to the U.S. economy by copyright industries amounts to $1.3 trillion.", said CCIA President and CEO Ed Black. The value added to the U.S. economy by the fair use amounts to $2.2 trillion."

This sounds very interesting until you realize that without copyright industry there's no fair use industry too.

In fact, if I blindly accept the given numbers for canonical (just for a moment), then 1.3 trillion is the money, PART of which the *content producers* will receive for creating their work.

And 2.2 trillion is then industries enabled by the *same* content, but NO PART of which content producers will receive.

So this is a study you can spin any way you want. The copyright industries will use it to claim how fair use robs content producers of their income, and pro-fairuse supporters will use it to point out how fair use creates a lot of additional value that will be otherwise lost if it copyright industry had a full lock down.

All in all, business as usual.

The numbers are WRONG! (1, Troll)

i_b_don (1049110) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582933)

According to the RIAA and the MPAA the actual value of the copyright industry WITHOUT PIRACY should have been $120 trillion-ga-zillion dollars.

d

(and if you want to increase the Gross Domestic Product of the US, just copy your mp3 collection to another HD and the GDP will increase by $10k)

And in other news... (1)

bwcbwc (601780) | more than 6 years ago | (#20582935)

RIAA and MPAA lobby congress for stricter copyright restrictions. Representatives noted that "studies show that intellectual property thieves have deprived media producers of over $1.6 trillion in revenues through so-called 'fair use' of protected material."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...