Microsoft and Viacom show the way to sensible copyright enforcement

Over the weekend, Larry Lessig penned a cogent argument for a common-sense reading of copyright law. The problem, he writes, is that in our attempts to quash peer-to-peer file-sharing (stealing), we're wreaking a huge amount of collateral damage on those that remix content.

In other words, all piracy is not created equal. Some, like the remixers, should be protected by US Fair Use doctrine:

We are in the middle of something of a war here -- what some call "the copyright wars"; what the late Jack Valenti called his own "terrorist war," where the "terrorists" are apparently our kids. But if I asked you to shut your eyes and think about these "copyright wars," your mind would not likely run to artists like Girl Talk or creators like Stephanie Lenz. Peer-to-peer file sharing is the enemy in the "copyright wars." Kids "stealing" stuff with a computer is the target. The war is not about new forms of creativity, not about artists making new art.

Interestingly, Microsoft and Viacom may have already found one great way to manage this: charge for commercial use of their intellectual property, but not amateur use.

Microsoft's policy is focused on open-source software, in which it covenants not to sue unpaid open-source developers. This is incompatible with open source, but it may apply more favorably to the entertainment industry.

Most consumers aren't in the habit of dropping open-source code into their own open-source projects, but many people (including myself) routinely take music or video owned by the major entertainment companies and drop it into family videos. Viacom, as Lessig points out, "has effectively promised to exempt practically any amateur remix from its lawyers' concerns." In other words, it has gone down the road that Microsoft tried to pave for open-source developers.

We need this common-sense approach to remixing content on the Web. We need to encourage creativity, not stifle it. The entertainment industry isn't going to lose any money if my kids' soccer team sees a slideshow that includes music from The Shins. In fact, it might actually gain money as the kids go out and buy more music.

This policy encourages exploration and adoption of new music. Can we please clear out the lawyers for a few minutes so that we get common-sense copyright enforcement?

[jrepenning]

We always blame the lawyers in these things, but I'm not so sure that's fair. Lessig, for example, is a lawyer, and yet he's consistently rational and full of common sense. I think maybe these lawyers we blame for waging this war on kids -- on customers, in fact -- might just simply be following the orders of their employers. That defense didn't work at Nuremberg either, of course, but at least it ought to restore our focus on the "generals" in the "war."

[Pete Bardo]

Isn't that special. Viacom has promised not to sue over fair-use! No kidding? You mean to tell me that if I haven't violated copyright (fair use) they won't sue me! What a concept.

I've been wondering why Viacom and RIAA aren't after Phillips. Remember the ads they ran encouraging people to make their own mix cd's from copyrighted material?

It's not enough, nor even a good start for Viacom to make this "concession".

[catch23]

I would suggest you read up on Fair Use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

It doesn't mean what you wishfully want it to.

[Crash2100]

What I find rather interesting about all of this is that, all this copy protection stuff is supposed to stop people from sharing the music online. But we can constantly see how beautifully all that has been stopped. And where's the point with having copy protection if they let customers make an audio CD with the music they buy? Because you can rip an MP3 right off the CD.

Sadly, all copy protection really does is punish the poor people who are trying ever so hard to get this stuff legitimately.

[sooty]

The whole entertainment business needs to rethink copyright and what is fair use. Sony to name one is split into two camps. One half is trying to stop you making copies of videos and music it sells, whilst the other is selling you the means to copy it!
From the days of reel to reel tape recorders and top loader video's people have copied music, TV and films for personal use and will continue to do so. If they like what they see and/or hear they will want to own the original which makes for a sale for record/film companies. DVD's have now come down to a reasonable price level and it is cheaper to own a copy than to take the family to see it at the cinema. Bands these days probably make more money from radio and TV plays (which other industry gets paid to advertise anyway?) and live performances than they make from CD sales unless they sell millions of copies.
The whole copy right issue on media needs overhauling and needed doing a long time ago.