Comments on: Fair use is not a consumer right

Copyright Alliance head Patrick Ross says industry interests asking the government to regulate free speech are going down the wrong path.

[richiepear]

Technology can help the education process

(disclosure - Attributor, the company I work for is a member of the Copyright Alliance)

The most important point of this article is that education is desperately needed on both sides of these disputes.

Technology can help educate all parties by much needed objectivity to the four factors of Fair Use .

Factor 1: The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature is for nonprofit educational purposes.

Detectable. While technology can?t identify if the usage is transformative, it can automatically detect if the page on which reuse occurs has advertising present. As evidenced by recent moves by the New York Times, advertising is clearly driving the online content economy making commercial use an increasingly important factor.

Also, you can learn a lot about the purpose and character of a use by whether or not attribution is provided, which in the online world, amounts to links from the copy to the original - technology can report back on attribution for every match found.

Factor 2: The nature of the copyrighted work

Not Detectable. No luck here as technology can't determine whether your content is fiction or non-fiction!

Factor 3: The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

Detectable. This is a fancy way of saying that the less of your content that is taken, the more likely it qualifies as Fair Use. For each match, technology can report back on the percentage of the original content or word count that has been reused.

Factor 4: The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Detectable. Not only can technology indicate if ads are present on the reusing site, but you can also look at the amount of monthly traffic for the site. You could also calculate the impact of content reuse on your ranking in search engines - the sploggers are very good at SEO and the sites doing the copying often appear higher in search engine rankings than the original content owner.

This won't take all of the emotion out the discussion (or the comments!), but it should allow rational parties to come to some common ground and hopefully prevent the endless stream of litigation that seems to be the default choice over the last year.

[cidman2001]

Richie Pear Comment

I'm a musician and an ASCAP member. I still can't fathom how transfering a legaly purchased work from the disc to my ipod causes the original copyright holder any damages. It's a non-commercial use. I haven't made any profit from it, nor has the copyright holder lost any income. To take that one step further, if I decide to share it with 3 million of my closest friends on a P2P network, I still haven't made any profit. The copyright holder can't prove that they have even lost any money. The arguments that are made are so weak and lame. Suing people who fileshare on the basis that they would have otherwise purchased the work is ridiculous. To come up with an arbitrary amount per violation is even more ridiculous. That means my garageband recording made on a 4 track cassette has the same monetary value as the Beatles "Hey Jude". Most people who fileshare aren't "normal consumers" and most are not profiting from the use. They are merely enjoying the work that the copyright holder "released" into the public domain as a digital file with little or no real protection. I think its up to the copyright holder to come up with a reasonably secure busuness model before they are allowed to go about arbitrarily suing people for over-inflated amounts of money. As far as I can see, selling music in any digital format is akin to putting something on your front lawn with a "For Free" sign on it and then complaing that someone took it from you....DUH!

[duke_1138]

Copyright is not a right

- Fair use, as CCIA must surely know, is not a "consumer right," ...

Copyright, as the Copyright Alliance must surely know, is not a corporate right. It is a government granted monopoly giving the right to market a particular expression of an idea for a limited period of time. That monopoly is subject to conditions granted by the public through the government. These conditions can be changed or limited by congress and the courts.

Fair use and copyright are both affirmative defenses. Neither are "rights".

[aergern]

Filling your pockets with cash isn't a right.

Fine. You keep the crappy music, bad television and horrible
movies people like you have been shoving down the publics
throat for years. It's our right not to purchase, listen or watch
the crap that's being produced. You go ahead and sign another
boy band or blond drugged up bimb .. you go ahead and make
another (un)reality show or ripoff and ripup childhood memories
with half-ass bad remakes. I'll continue to not pay attention to
the schlock that's produced and just put the cash into my
savings account. Doesn't matter to me.

And for the record .. we are not "consumers" we are citizens and
we do have rights. We have the right to abstain from purchasing
schlock which is the true cause of the lack of movie and CD sales
.. not piracy. Keep treating us like criminals until your business
crumbles and you can't find anymore 12 year olds to take to
court. That's just fine.

[Chris Tucker]

My exercise of Fair Use

As soon as I get my newly purchased previously viewed DVDs
home (what? you think I'm going to put money in the pockets of
the MPAA affiliated studios? Are you HIGH?) I run them through
Mac The Ripper to strip all the copy protection, FBI warnings,
Region lock in, trailers for movies I have no desire to see, and
then burn the resulting liberated data to a DVD.

I can then safely put away MY DVDs (Mine, not Sony's, not
Universal's, not 20th Century Fox's. MINE!) away, and can then
watch the movies via my DVD player, or on my Macintosh, or my
iPod (via the Visual Hub utility) or any other media player that I
own.

And THAT is Fair Use!

[t3st3r`]

They want to take your freedom away.Welcome to digital JAIL!

Freedom of word and privacy were always basic
rights.Now these from copyright mafia are
willing to take 'em away since this allows 'em
to earn more money$.Their final goal is to
create jail-like, police-driven world where
you're "not allowed" by default.And have to
ask "their" permission to watch TV or listen
music.Or maybe permission even to use air, sun
and wind??They're completely moron with
copyright ride and this path leads to
nowhere.With all their counter-measures it is so
hard to be lawful user.And it is so good to be a
pirate - you're gettings things for cheaper
price and do not have to fight with lame DRM
crap.Then they can use semi-illegal methods as
well (for example tell you "pay $nnnn or we'll
sue your ass!" effectively doing sort of illegal
thing known as racket).

[Gayle Edwards]

Could he jump through a few more fallacious legal-hoops..?

First, "Fair Use" IS a "Right". Claims to the contrary are simply ignorant, or intentionally deceptive.

Much of, so-called, "Fair Use" is based upon the -RIGHTS- associated with "Free Speech" (a "Constitutionally" guaranteed "private right").

"Fair Use" is also based upon the "rights" conveyed to buyers ("consumers") of "private property" (I.E. "Private-property ownership-rights"). If you want to understand exactly how "private property rights" relate to "individual copies", of "Intellectual Properties", try looking-up "First-Sale Doctrine".

However, "Copyright" is NOT "...a right". It is a "grant" (or, a "civil contract"), based upon "Tort Law". It is "granted" to creators of "...the useful arts". Fundamentally, it grants certain "temporary" concessions to "copyright holders". But, those "privileges" do not trump the more pertinent "rights" of the citizens that legally acquire "individual copies" of such "Intellectual Properties".

And, as others have pointed-out... This article completely ignores the, alleged, central-issue. That issue being whether, or not, the current "copyright warnings" are deceptive. In my opinion, and based upon actual case-law, the claims made within such "notices", taken at face-value, do clearly present an intentionally-deceptive assertion...

...much like the, convoluted, rhetoric presented by the author of this very article.

[MarkFerguson]

Fair Use is a consumer right

I think Patrick Ross is splitting hairs over this in order to dilute consumers' confidence in fair usage of copyrighted material. I'm sure that there are many copyright holders out there that would wish complete control over their material. It's the thin end of the wedge to argue that reminding consumers of their 'Fair Use' rights could push them into illegal usage of copyrighted material. The next step (to protect consumers!) is to require ALL users to gain permission from the copyright holder before using any copyrighted material in any way whatsoever. Well, I think we can all see where that would lead: "Please email your request to '[e-mail]'". No, thank you. If the user and the copyright holder disagree as to usage, taking the matter to court is an option. The consumer has a right to 'Fair Use' and if the court agrees that this particular usage was indeed 'Fair Use' then there is no case to answer. There is no circumstance in law where 'Fair Use' is proven and accepted by the court yet the consumer is still held to be in breach of copyright. So 'Fair Use' is valid, always. Patrick's argument is to say that there are times when people claim 'Fair Use' wrongly and are therefore not covered by the 'Fair Use' defence. That's fine, if it's not really 'Fair Use' then there is breach of copyright. If we were to extend Patrick's argument to other areas of the law, then the absurd argument he is making is that people do not have a right to fair trials because there are people who are charged with crimes, plead not guilty but still get convicted anyway.

[meglon978]

Copyright Law of the US Contained in Title 17

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ?

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

_________________________________________________

Looks like a legal right to me....

[Golodh]

Excellent response !

Quoting chapter and verse of the law in which Fair Use of copyrighted works is enshrined is the best possible response to this "editorial".

After all, who is this Patrick Ross anyway? At best his article was written in complete managerial ignorance. As in "anything that goes against our policy can't be legal".

At worst it's a cynical attempt to spread FUD about the precise nature of copyright protection, just like those notices the article is speaking of.

Of course some businesses are built on selling licenses under the copyright statute, and as true profit maximisers they try and extend the basis of their cashflow in whatever way possible. They don't get paid for being reasonable. They don't get paid for seeing two sides of any issue. And they don't get paid for respecting the current state of the law either.

Tying to "massage" public opinion into extending the reach of their copyrights is perfectly legal of course. But honest it isn't. And neither is it far-sighted. But then they don't get paid for being honest or far-sighted either.

They *do* get paid for putting down artificial restrictions on the use of anything (words, text, storylines, sounds, musical accords, melodies, song, images, drawings, ideas), they can get their hands on. And that's how I interpret this "editorial".

[ObsidianBlack]

Magnificent post, meglon

That sound? It's the bomb that has just been dropped. This discussion is now over, and the author of this 'Editorial' has just been proven as the lying bag of scum he is. If CNet wants to keep what little credibility they have left, they'll give the moron the boot and hire these nifty little things called 'fact checkers'.

[superluser]

You cannot copyright "newsworthy events"

Mr. Ross does not seem to be familiar with copyright law. This can be shown by his interpretation of the idea/expression dichotomy.

Fair use does not mean that "CNET is free to report and comment on newsworthy events and to offer informative consumer reviews of new products."

CNET is able to do this because you cannot copyright news. You can copyright news articles, but in the words of the Supreme Court in INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE v. ASSOCIATED PRESS , 248 U.S. 215 (1918):

"But the news element-the information respecting current events contained in the literary production-is not the creation of the writer, but is a report of matters that ordinarily are publici juris; it is the history of the day. It is not to be supposed that the framers of the Constitution, when they empowered Congress 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries' (Const. art. 1, 8, par. 8), intended to confer upon one who might happen to be the first to report a historic event the exclusive right for any period to spread the knowledge of it."

[defconpuck]

Fair Use IS THE LAW!!!!!

See US Code Title 17 Sections 107 through 118
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

[ScottMQ]

There are more important things in life

Than worrying about how we define fair use. Talk about sweating the small stuff. And why should we let the courts decide... they too have far more important matters to tackle. Everyone has the right to their opinion... and it seems the vast majority of respondents disagree with yours.

[tbg58]

Copyright holders unite?

Okay, so you write music. Your problem is not that people are stealing your music - your problem is no one ever heard of your music, and no one cares. Why should they.
Bulletin: your problem isn't uncompensated use of your creative work. Your problem is obscurity. Take the Grateful Dead route - give your stuff away. Build an audience base. If your material is good, you'll be able to sell it. But before you think you're entitled to compensation, you need to earn your audience. Until people can hear your work they're unlikely to pay. If you put some material out there in the Creative Commons, maybe you're good enough for people to want to actually buy your stuff, o exalted songwriter. Shouldn't be hard to rise above the sea of banality that is out there. Good luck to you.

As for the article itself, fair use is the law, even if content owner advocacy shills would try to convince us otherwise. So, you get to rub elbows with nice people like the MPAA and the RIAA, the the same people who do things like arresting teenagers for making ten-second phone videos in a movie theater and suing single moms and their kids for file sharing that wasn't even happening. So tell me, how's that working out for ya? Have people (other than a few narcissistic wannabes) rallied to your cause?

[mwendy]

Yes - they should unite!

You're missing my point. I choose the model that I want, and the licensing scheme that I want. Not someone who hasn't taken the time to even learn how to play an instrument, let alone write a song that they value in the first place.

My music exists as my property, not yours. I choose not to go the GD route. I choose to exclude you and others from unauthorized uses. You may not like it, but that's the gig, dude. That's the law.

[ahickey]

On Piracy and Reduced Sale

I always find it interested in CNET how emotive this topic gets and then I take into account the audience.
Mainly middle-class technically minded people. Exactly the demographic that pirate content easily as they have the hardware and know how.
Now think of the rest of the populous. Your parents, non-technical friends, people into other activities. For the most part my experience is that they are less likely to make copies.

Thing bring me to my reasoning for why there is a reduction in sales of music?
We all have a relatively fixed budget for entertainment and over the years the entertainment options have increased. Internet, gaming, music, movies, cinema, reading..
So, what happens is that fixed budget is spread more thinly.
Also, to even take advantage of the new option you have to invest in new hardware. If I buy an Xbox360 or PS3 that a bunch of cash I?m not spending on music.

A statistic I?d love to see is the total entertainment spend year on year over the past 10 years. I would expect it to increase, but the mix of activities to have changed.
CD sales down/Download sales up
Cinema sales down/ DVD sales up
Penpals down/IM and mobile texting up

Piracy is something we will always have to live with and people are just spending their money on different stuff. So, I expect Sony and EMI to name a couple are still getting a fair chunk of cash just under different lines of their P&L

[jmb-lawyer]

ahickey gets it right

I want to start off by saying that I am a copyright lawyer and real piracy, i.e., copying and selling other?s copyright works is a crime. I believe such criminal activity clearly has an adverse impact on revenue. As ahickey suggests, there is much to be skeptical regarding the direct impact on sales of downloading music. This is not to condone any violation of the copyright laws. Nevertheless, trying to frame solutions to a problem requires making an effort to understand the severity of the impact of that problem.

I have spent a lot of time studying the only numbers publicly available, those on the RIAA?s web site. The RIAA points to substantial growth in online music file sharing from 1999 to 2003, and a simultaneous 31% decline in member shipments as evidence that the Induce Act is necessary. These facts alone, they argue, demand immediate relief. But do they?

Are units shipped a good barometer of market performance? Might a more useful measure of the magnitude of the filing sharing problem be the actual dollars received by RIAA members ? sales?

From 1999 to 2003, according to RIAA numbers, music sales declined 18.7%, considerably less than the 31% decline in units shipped. But even the sales numbers may not tell the whole story. First, they include declines in sales of music recorded in dying formats, such as vinyl and cassettes. Second, the RIAA numbers fail to account for digital download revenue, the revenue RIAA members have derived from legitimate online downloads of music. Subtracting the former and adding a conservative two percent for the latter, from 1999 to 2003, during a recession, sales declined just under 10%.

Was that decline the result of illegitimate online music sharing, as RIAA contends, or might there be other, equally plausible, explanations? According to RIAA?s own numbers, between early 2000 and late 2003 the major record labels raised CD prices by 10.3%. By the end of 2001, according to Nielsen SoundScan, they had reduced the number of new titles released by over 20%. Could fewer products at higher prices have resulted in reduced sales?

Another factor, outlined by ahickey, that could have precipitated the decline is fierce competition from other entertainment media. From $3 billion in 1999 sales, DVD sales grew to $17.3 billion by 2003, compared to RIAA member 1999 revenue of $14.6 billion and 2003 revenue of $12.3 billion (including digital downloads). Gaming revenue has also grown rapidly ? Halo2 took in $125 million in one day, almost three times the $44.7 million first-day box office record set by Shrek 2; and this doesn?t include online gaming revenue (which was $750 million last year). And growth in the sale of music in the form of mobile phone ring tones has been nothing shy of astounding ? U.S. sales exceeded $600 million in 2005.

Many other factors also could have affected major label sales: an increase in sales of bootleg CDs on the streets, legitimate Internet activity (last year kids? web-page viewing grew by 36%), more teen-oriented cable channels, and the resurgence of independent labels (not included in RIAA numbers). As ahickey suggests, Consumers have only so many discretionary dollars and so much free time to spend on competing entertainment media.

Even if unauthorized online music trading is not causing the massive loss of CD sales that RIAA points to, no one really defends the practice. But the scope of the problem should dictate the solution. With Apple Computer stock soaring on sales of iPod digital music players so brisk that the increase in Apple share price is nothing short of astounding, there is little doubt that downloadable music is big business, not just the domain of pirates. What is less clear is the impact that illegitimate online file sharing has had on record company revenues.

I would conclude by pointing to an exchange last year before the Senate Judiciary Committee when Dan Glickman (CEO of the MPAA) was testifying on Analog Hole legislation (i.e., tell consumer electronics and computer manufacturers how to build their devices to ensure that people didn?t play movies out an analog output plug it back in, redigitize it and wind up with a copy in the clear). Mr. Glickman waived a much discussed, but never released study on so-called piracy saying that the movie industry lost $6.1 billion to piracy and the analog hole had to be closed. Senator Specter asked him how much of the $6.1 billion was due to the analog hole and what kind of copying was it. Mr. Glickman responded saying that it amounted to about $1 to $1.1 billion and it was personal copying and giving copies to friends. Senator Hatch leaned over and said, let me get this right, some $5 to $5.1 billion is real piracy ? why don?t we deal with that first.

I believe that focusing on unauthorized file trading before wiping out real hard goods piracy is wasted effort and continues to alienate the 12-24 year old target demographic. Plus, it detracts from serious market-oriented efforts to compete for those limited consumer discretionary entertainment dollars.

Fair Use

To digress from the important discussion above , the question raised in Mr. Ross? column is an interesting one. What is Fair Use? Is it a consumer right or something else. The classic copyright lawyer?s answer was no, it?s not a right but a defense to an act that otherwise would have been a violation of copyright. After re-reading the Supreme Court?s decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft (about copyright term extension) and this past Wednesday?s 10th Circuit Federal Appeals Court decision in Golan v. Gonzales (isn?t it nice that you have to sue the Attorney General to get copyright questions answered), one might argue that Fair Use is a strong First Amendment right. Some critics of fair use seem like to belittle it by saying, ?oh, it?s not a right.? I think Fair Use is a vital part of the copyright act, or as the Supreme Court and the 10th Circuit say, part of the ?traditional contours of copyright protection,? that Congress must tread carefully when altering.

[cjcoats]

Supreme Court has said otherwise

The origin of the "fair use" doctrine is in a Supreme Court ruling that said Congress may not pass any copyright law so stringent as to abridge Freedom of Speech nor Freedom of the Press. Codification of this into the Copyright Act (US Code Title 17) came much later. Patrick Ross's contention is (in the US) simply wrong as a matter of Constitutional law. And the NFL [http://NBA, IOC, etc.|http://NBA, IOC, etc.] claim to control reporting of their events is itself clearly illegal under the original Supreme Court decision.

This is *so* wrong that if he is an attorney, Patrick Ross's law license should be suspended _e causis non disputaandibus_.

[viss9434]

Mr. Ross should respond to this

Excellent comment.

[duke_1138]

music is not "property"

Music is not "property" in the same sense as a car or a chair. If you write a song, and I perform it, you still have the song. If I take your car, you don't have a car. If you are a US citizen, copyright gives you a legal monopoly on the marketing of a particular expression of your song. As a songwriter you may be owed money if others perform your song in a public performance. Despite what you claim, you do not "own" a song. Under current law, your copyright will eventually expire and you will no longer have any rights to that song.

[cjovalle]

Fair Use rhetoric

Fair Use is alternatively referred to as an both an affirmative defense and as a right in court cases and the Congressional record. Most recently, fair use has been referred to as one of the limitations on copyright that protects free speech rights (Golan v. Gonzales appeal). To construe it as merely an affirmative defense while ignoring First Amendment concerns is a disservice to the public, consumer or not- although it has been an increasingly popular thing to do in the legal arena. It's all about the burden of proof.

The statute doesn't say either. It just says that fair use is not an infringement of copyright.

[Renegade Knight]

Fair Use Is A Personal Right

English Common law is an interesting basis. It provides that some things 'are' because they have alwasy been that way.

Fair use is being defined in that fashion one small step at a time.

Fair use exists because we have a right to use for it's purpose what we have paid for. It's as simple as that.

As an example. I can wall paper my walls with DVD cover art. That use is not allowed for in any EULA/TOS that I've ever seen. However it's a fair use.

Since I'm the one using the product, I have the power. Everyone else reacts to the use, after the fact.

[DoggerBlue]

Simple words and concepts

" 'If we were to believe what they tell us, discussing Barry Bonds' home runs around the water cooler would put us all in jail.'

Really? The last few weeks I have been completely unable to avoid hearing about Barry Bonds"

You appear to have some trouble comprehending the meaning of the word 'if'.

"Fair use, as CCIA must surely know, is not a "consumer right," but rather an affirmative defense."

Killing somebody to protect myself from being killed is also an affirmative defence. Are you saying that this means I do not have that 'right'? Or is 'right' yet another simple word the logical consequences of which seem to have escaped you?

So by your logic we should stop calling self-defence a 'right' because thinking of it as a right might spark some people to commit murder without a self-defence justification.

By the way, just out of curiosity, where is this court of 'rights' where you can defend your right to do something without using it as an 'affirmative defence' to the accusation that you shouldn't have done that thing? Oooooops. There isn't one. It turns out that there is no way to argue ANY right to do anything as a defence without affirming that that you have done that thing, and referring to the law that makes it legal. Thus, ALL rights, when used to escape accusations of wrongdoing, are affirmative defences. Thus, by your loopy calling-them-rights-is-dangerous logic, there ARE no rights.

Behold your nonsense arguments laying in a shambles at my feet.

[fredmenace]

...neither is copyright!

In case you haven't reviewed your history of copyright recently, Mr. Ross, copyright itself is not a fundamental right. In fact, prior to our recent years of corporate control of congress, it was considered, and very clearly stated time and time again by legislatures and courts, to be an EVIL, but one deemed worthwhile enough to tolerate in very limited form (in exchange for PROMOTING public access to useful ideas and creative works, certainly not to RESTRICT them). (I might note that there is no evidence whatsoever that exclusive "intellectual property" restrictions do anything whatsoever to promote creativity or innovation. And if, in fact, such cause-and-effect does not exist, which I suspect it doesn't, the entire philosophical underpinning of and justification for most forms of intellectual property restrictions would disappear entirely.) So don't even start with the "fair use isn't a right" BS. It's copyright and patents that aren't inherent rights (and probably not even beneficial for our society), not restrictions on them.

[George Riddick]

Anythng meaningful to do?

Good for you, Patrick!

It is time for people with good common sense to be heard on this issue. Doesn't the CCIA, or Maura, have anything more productive and/or meaningful to do with their time.

No one standing around any water cooler is going to go to jail for anything ... unless they decide to shoot someone to get to the front of the line. What a ridiculous example to use to create hysteria over nothing.

These online asnd on label warnings are simply that ... warnings. I appreciate the fact that they are there. Without them, groups of people might buy a couple cases of beer, and charge people $15 bucks a head to come watch the Super Bowl on their large screen TV. All the while claiming that raunchy rants and rages were simply "commendary" along the way.

I have read much recently about how these technology companies (typical CCIA members) are arguing "fair use" these days in court. It is shameful in my humble opinion. What they say is breaking the law is just fine for those who can afford to do it and hire expensive copyright defense attorenys to confuse everyone, including the judges hearing the case. The average Joe, or Julie, cannot afford to take that chance.

Here's waht I say - Nonsense. If the laws aren't right, fix them. Don't take it upon yourself to create a lawless society, Maura, or to mislead my children to think that stealing other people's property is somehow fair and just.

I agree with you, Patrick. Before we spend a dime of taxppayers money on this complaint, the FTC should demand that the CCIA bring forward at least one specific example of actual harm here. I for one, don't think thay have any.

It seems to me, we're just talking about a few people who have nothing better to do with their time. I have an idea for them. I hear Google is hiring.

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[jd29]

No, it's a legal right

Just like copyright is a legal right. And just like corporations have
lobbied for years to get an ever increasing scope of copyright,
we now fortunately have a few groups to lobby in the other
direction on behalf of the consumer. Hopefully they can beat
copyright back to a reasonable limit. At the moment it's
overreaching and stifles creativity by keeping too much money
and control in the hands of companies like Disney for way too
long. 25 years gives plenty of time for companies to make
money from their government granted monopoly. Laws that are
written and paid for by corporations don't deserve to be
respected as laws at all.

[daftkey]

How can you even say it's a legal right...

..When you don't even know what copyright is?

Before I have to explain what copyright actually IS to you, would you mind enlightening me as to the law and/or section of the constitution that guarantees that right?

Now the explanation:

1) Copyright is granted on a work automatically - it is not something that must be registered - and extend to a maximum of 50 years past the death of the Copyright holder (which is why Elvis' estate still holds copyright on his music). The reason that this is so far reaching (and has been challenged and held up in the courts over and over again) is because, contrary to what you believe, copyright is necessary to preserve creativity so that this creativity produces value. The reason it preserves creativity is because, unlike patents, copyright is very easy to gain on a work you've created - unless you've violated someone else's copyright in creating it (not something you can do easily without knowing that you've done it).

2) A copyright on a work is private property. "Fair use" laws can (and should) only apply to the extent that a copyright violation is a criminal act. To say that "fair use" is a legal right would also place strict limits on copyright holders ability to license their property and would, in effect, also severely impair the ability to sell their property or enter into contracts with regard to this property.

Copyright is arguably the least screwed-up IP system in existence, especially when compared to Patent or Trademark law where government departments need to get involved.