Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?
 

Recently, a ~1 hour long documentary entitled 'Good Copy Bad Copy' was released free of charge. The docu's website is at
http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/about
The documentary, I felt, was excellent at raising awareness and questions concerning copyright and what 'fair use' should involve. It takes a look at view points from 'pirates', executives, and artists all alike and would be a great source material for beginning discussion on fair use and intellectual property.

So the main question, is what should 'fair use' be defined as. When you purchase a CD what should you, the buyer, be allowed to do with that CD? Do you have the right to take clips from that CD, and mix them into another song/beat with-ought paying royalties of any sort to anyone? When you actually purchase the CD, is it even yours, or are you simply licensing it under the distributors terms?

I've always been under the impression that when you purchase a CD, it is yours to use however you like for your own benefit. Of course, I see no problems ripping those songs to a hard drive and chopping up various songs and doing with those what you want. The CD is yours after all, why not be able to? If you release your mix to the public, proper credit should be given to the artist, but nothing more should be expected.

Of course the concepts of fair use can apply to all sorts of digital technology's. When you record a show on TV to your TIVO, should you have the right to take that video and transfer it to your computer, or to another TIVO device?

Before even going into a discussion about fair use, you need to consider why it continues to be an issue. And frankly, it's because the MPAA and RIAA are pathetic in how low they will go to fight copyright infringement, which poisons the well before everyone can sit down and think rationally.

I'm a believer in the notion that what you buy should belong to you, and you should be allowed to chop up/re-encode for a very limited audience. However, if you publish your recreation online for free, you should need permission (and if demanded, pay royalties), and if you sell the creation, you of course should pay royalties.

It's just that the MPAA and RIAA shouldn't be so damn greedy about the way they handle consumers.

Yeah they should give away their products for free!

Slimey bastards!

No, but they shouldn't fuck over their customers either. All they do is screw us over with Copy-Protection, over-priced media and trying to get our established rights taken away...

Hell, they get money on each back-up media sold to counter pirating and they still fuck us over this. Damn, found a site that went into how it might very well be illegal what they are doing, just as much than the whole pirating issue. Will see if I can find the link. :)

Here's at least a few:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40474
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=200900640
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...practices.html
http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/9815.html

And even more stupid:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...w-file-sharing

Sheesh, what a bunch of morons. This is all definitely a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". :rolleyes:

They get money sold on each blank CD sold in Canada, not in the US.

"Over-priced media"?? I still see people buying CDs every time I walk into Best Buy, so, obviously, the price is set correctly for the market. I have a feeling the economists who work for these ginormous companies have an idea of what they are doing.

Well, I can agree and disagree with that. I want to first get this out of the way: Remember that originally piracy and pirates were the first offenders that started the whole protection scheme concept. Normally, a product is released to market at a price, and you as the customer obtain it by paying the cost of the item. At that time, no copy protection is required because no one is stealing it, rather they are paying. The first time someone stole a product though is when, as a natural reaction, the people who make that product started trying to defend against people illegally obtaining that product. Regardless of how much the CD is sold at, whether it be $2 or $200 for a single CD, you must pay that price or else you are performing a criminal act by not paying it. Music, although many would like to say otherwise, is not a core essential in your being able to live your life, and so the marketers can sell it at whatever price they want and get away with it.

I agree with you though, in that I believe organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA are taking draconian measures at this point to impede progress and their methods inadvertently affects thousands of legitimate owners of the material in question. They have a right to defend their product, but I agree they must remain ethical about it, staying above the moral level of the pirates who steal their products in the first place.
Which again reinforces why I think sampling is okay. If you bought the CD's or MP3's that contained the clips you're using, then they are now your clips and you can do with them what you want short of giving away the majority of the song. Majority is subjective of course, but I suppose if I were to define it I would say no more than half of a song in total could be used in any one clip.

That doesn't take into consideration the actual complete transformation of a song, e.g remixing the entire song and setting it to a new beat or what have you. I feel that should definately be considered fair use since you have morphed that which you legally purchased into your own unique work.

Basically sums up what I'm saying as far as the legality of obtaining the source in the first place. Even if the CD were "Over-priced" though, it's not an excuse to steal the copy.

Don't call it stealing. There's a word for it already. It's copyright infringement, it's not stealing. It's also against the law, and I'm not trying to defend copyright infringement, but I don't think it's fitting to refer to that act as stealing. In fact I think that it's very silly indeed. The RIAA are trying to push this new usage on us, but lets not give them the satisfaction of winning.

But the actual performance of the song is not the only copyrighted portion of it. The lyrics and the written music are as well. So even if you only take the original song in spirit, if you are using the same lyrics and/or musical progressions, it's still plagiarism.

If I buy a copy of Van Gogh's Starry night, I can cut it up and make a collage out of it as I see fit. No one argues this.

If I happen to put this collage up on my dormitory wall and people like it, I see no reason why I can't charge someone $5 for my time and effort in re-creating a collage of Starry Night (with due credits!) like the one I would have on my wall. Hell, I could chop up Starry Night and then throw in a bunch of Dali, maybe some DaVinci - what the hell, why not.

I think once you buy a copy of a CD, what's on it is now yours. You didn't CREATE it, but you have a copy of it. You paid the amount to purchase an own it's contents.

I am sure Mikey is going to argue that, but look. The only reason they're doing this all is because there's money in it.

You can't put a stamp on everything human-made and demand royalties for fucking everything.

Edit: PS - this documentary is boss. If you don't want to use a torrent, google video has it up. <3

SECOND edit: At the risk of sounding like a pinko commie, I don't think the government has any business telling any of us what "creative" is, or trying to define art by dollar signs. Stick that in you pipe and smoke it.

That's true to an extent. You have a right to listen to that CD and even make backup copies for your own personal use. The problem arises when people start making multiple copies and giving them to friends or distributing MP3s derived from that CD to other people.

That's the whole reason why it is called copyright[. You don't have the right to copy and distribute to others, only the copyright owner. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this concept.

O jesus, it's so horrible to succeed through word of mouth.

I don't know about you, but to think that my music (or whatever art) was so good that people actively distributed it to their friends, interacted with the art, and actually passed it on is a hell of a lot more flattering than "yea, I'm in the top 20 because my record company promoted the hell out of my one hit." I'm sure being a musician yourself, you can appreciate the word-of-mouth thing.

The concept of "copyright" is all fine and well - and I am not disputing "copyright." I think if you use something, you credit the person or people who provided you with the materials for you to recycle their art into your own.

I just don't see why people think this only applies to media. Can you explain this, NP? There are millions and millions of human-made things out there which anyone can replicate and share. Why is it all about the movies and the music? I mean, if you're going to lock down and control EVERYTHING that could be argued as having been infringed upon (copyright-wise), why are you limiting it to this one niche of the market?

You COULD just take over the world and control everything creatively produced - ever.

Can I ask you a question? Would you sue me if I made a remix of one of your awesome songs and distributed it over the internet - with the pertinent credit to you?

I believe the problem that this particular documentary discusses with regards to copyright infringement is that copyright restricts or inhibits the creativity of others who tend to base their work on the work of others. (The other subject of the documentary being the culture of the major media in the United States and how it so severely differs from that of poorer countries.) I don't mind that people want to remix music, especially if it makes something better, but I think the argument here is that while, say, Gnarls Barkley made something based in the typical American commercial setting and made X amount of dollars (which the recording studios will ravenously defend, to the point of litigation), why shouldn't people be allowed to download their music for free to remix it if they aren't going to make anything, or nearly as much, from its sales? (For example: the Brazilian real is 1.94x the amount of the American dollar.)

I think it's interesting to see the way Nigeria handles piracy is to set the price of their product to match that of the pirated sort, and hope that the consumer will prefer the official copy over the pirated copy. It's one way of handling piracy that I can't imagine the media industries adopting unless there's an extremely radical revolution in our society that one would have expected from the proliferation of free downloading services over the past decade. The difference in this country, obviously, is that there isn't as great a demand for purchasing pirated music/films/games as there as to get it for free or next to free. This isn't the case in some places (New York City is a major example, and one I've personally experienced) but there's enough of a gap between the demand for purchasing pirated materials and getting the same stuff for free that the major media probably sees it as a niché market and doesn't see playing along as being a viable option as opposed to litigation and scare tactics.

I agree that the industry, if it wants to continue making revenue, is going to have to change to keep up with the times. Otherwise, they're fighting a downhill battle.

As it stands now (and I am almost sure I'll get flak for this), iTunes is a good starting point. You download the songs you want - not an entire album - for what, $.99? I mean, a lot of people find this as the medium between out-and-out pirating the music and buying a CD in Best Buy. It's a great starting point, but there's a long way to go.

I don't understand how you feel there is any difference between buying a song on iTunes and buying a CD at Best Buy.

There are a couple differences here:

1) All the works you listed are in the public domain.

2) Assuming they weren't, you are welcome to do with your physical copy as you choose. But you wouldn't be allowed to say, take Starry Night, print up 5000 copies of it, and sell them for $5 a pop.

No one is saying that you can't take a CD that you bought at a store and sell it. If you want to cut up the disc and make a collage out of it, I guess that's your prerogative.

That's certainly your choice. No one is prosecuting anyone who shared music that's in the public domain, and all musicians are welcome to do that. They don't have to sign a contract with a music label, they don't have to get paid for their work if they choose not to. They can accept donations instead.

The problem is people who don't want their product sold like that.

The funny thing is that you're saying you could take over the world and control all the copyrights, but what you advocate means that the creator has no rights whatsoever.

Because the RIAA and MPAA are organizations representing those types of media. I would be willing to bet there is one for books too, and if those were getting traded online as much as music and movies, I bet they would be up in arms about it too.

iTunes has only been around for what? 4 or 5 years? and it's already the third largest music retailer in the world.

I think a lot of the reason people prefer to download content is that it's easier than going to the store. At least the industry is starting to recognize that.

In terms of fair use, I think, it's easy enough to give credit where credit is due. And if one wants to potentially use another's work as a source of revenue, they either need to get permission, or collaborate and split the profits. That's pretty much how it works now, and I don't see much wrong with it. If a DJ wants to remix a song and distribute it for free, I don't see much wrong with that -- but apparently this is the sticky spot where the music industry disagrees with me. Unfortunately that's the downside of the music industry. There's always someone, somewhere, worried about making a buck, and it's usually not even someone that had much to do with the original musical content to being with.

An interesting anecdote in this regard is the story of the band Negativland, who essentially took and remixed a bunch of U2 songs and released it as an album, and consequently got sued by U2's label without the band U2 even being aware of the whole situation. Ultimately, the band U2 supported the remix, but they had no power over their record label's legal battles.

BlueMikey: are you then of the opinion that something that is broadcasted in public is not public domain?

Uh, I didn't say there was a difference, as far as legality or whatever is concerned. I made a very clear point, however, the iTunes is a fuckload more progressive than buying CDs at Best Buy or whatever. If you don't see the difference there, then I am afraid there is no hope for your brain. ;_;

Whats stopping me from recording off the radio. That's pretty public.

Also, music SHOULD be public domain. Some of it IS already, if I understand it properly. Who is to say "THIS is public, THIS is not." I am pretty sure that they have music you can borrow at the public libraries.

Music is an art - not a money-making machine. Of course, thats a matter of opinion, and I am sure that because people value the buck more than they do anything else, it will inevitably BE a money-making machine. ;_;

Ooooo, I see. When I am actually making money, people want a share. Yea, ha ha silly me. I didn't see that one coming.

A musical collage, sure, why not. The documentary showed plenty of artists who actually do this. They own the albums and they take beats, rhythms, melodies and so on from one artist and mix it with the work of others.

It just so happened that their shit was pretty good. People liked it. And ha ha OOPS they get nailed for copyright infringement for it, even though they didn't make a dime off their work. That's a little moronic, you've got to admit.

Wait, people who don't want their product sold....by their fans? I don't understand. How would they PREFER to have it sold?

I never said I had anything qualms with copyrights. They're there for a reason. Give credit where credit is due. But otherwise, hey. Art is art.

The creator has whatever rights they want. Though, once you throw the Internet into the equation, things twist a little thanks to file sharing.

I'd like for you to expand on this "creator has no rights whatsoever" shit, though. If you don't want the public to get a hold of your work and possibly warp it into another interpretation of YOUR work, don't make it public.

Yea, you never really hear too much other than the things that actually take money away from the "industry," right?

Look. I'm not saying this shit should be free all around. I saying that the market reeeeally needs to stop fighting and start ADAPTING. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and suing the fans, start trying to appeal to another kind of consumer.

Did you watch the documentary, by the way? 'Cause there are some really good ideas in there.

The simple act of being broadcast does not put a work into the public domain, that is correct. You are not allowed to record, say, the latest Justin Timberlake song off the radio and sell copies of it (unless whomever owns the song said otherwise).

That's not really an opinion.

Who said anything about selling it? I'm just going to remix it and give it to some friends.

They've already heard the song; they can listen to it themselves on the radio if they want to. But making something original out of it and then giving it out isn't a bad thing, right?

Did you watch the doc, Mikey. Most of these artists make nothing out of their work. They do it....imagine this....for the love of the music.

With the exception of those Brazilian guys, but if they're selling those discs for R$5 they're making hardly anything in American money, and definitely not as much as the record labels are here for the source music, which is the main argument in the video.

I'm wondering if you feel this way because you've never worked in a field where your work, your labor, your time, can be stolen so easily. I worked for a company that made software that only corporations used and we had to put all these copy protections in.

If we didn't, you know what would have happened? They wouldn't have made enough money to come up with more versions later, they would have had to fire all the programmers and close up shop.

Essentially, if a musician isn't allowed to live off his work, then it doesn't give him (or any artist) the freedom to do that as a job. If you can't get paid, then you have to work someway else and the art of music suffers.

I didn't watch the documentary and I don't really care why they did it. Some people make music because they like to. Some people do it to make money. Why shouldn't the market be set up so that both objectives can be met fairly?

Why?? What about people who make music not for the creative aspect of it? That's pretty shortsighted to say that the only reason anyone would ever want to make music is because they want it to be heard by a lot of people. The creator should get to decide how the music is used.

No, that's not what I said. You can take your physical copy that you purchased from the seller and mash it up and sell it for $1000 for all anyone cares. Fair use incorporates original, physical copies, not extra copies.

You don't own the art, you own the print. You don't own the music, you own the CD.

Now you're just being obtuse.

But they didn't! That's the thing. The work is still private, I sold you a means of enjoying it, I didn't sell you the work.

As it is now, the creator has the opportunity to own his work or to allow others to do with it as they will. Why are you so against the creator having control of his own work?

Let me ask you this: if a musician really only cared about the art and not getting paid and wanted all their fans to mash-up the music, why didn't they just create music and release it into the public domain rather than signing a record deal?

Adapting to what, piracy? I mean, you're basically saying that if I own a store and someone is stealing gum from me every day, that instead of putting a camera on the gum and throwing people out of the store, I should instead move the candy section outside and look the other way if people chose not to pay me.

That is absolutely and utterly absurd.

The short and sweet of my counter-argument to what you just said is this: if you don't make any money off your work, then it probably wasn't good enough and people either didn't want to pay for it or they didn't want to pay so much for it. In which case, if you're not making money selling it for a lot of money, maybe you should be selling it for less and producing it for even less, or make something better. The way technology is going, both will have to become viable options to musicians in the future or they WILL have to find another line of work.

If that seems cruel, well...no one ever said the music industry, or capitalism in general, was a very nice economic system.

As far as art is concerned, it's tougher to duplicate anyway. Regardless, most art that's worth duplicating is so old the term "copyright" shouldn't even apply.

What does that have to do with anything? The ability to earn a living off your work says nothing about whether or not you should get to own it.

And, trust me: if what you guys are advocating was legal, artists wouldn't make money off their music. Why?

An artist wants to sell it for $10 and people are willing to buy it for $10. But instead, people make their own copies and sell it for $8. People buy the pirated copies because they are cheaper, the artist makes nothing, despite having a viable market product.

You are absurd for saying that someone should have to do something else with their life because others can't stop breaking the law. That's like saying the solution to murder is moving out of the city so you can't be shot dead instead of arresting the bad guys.

I really don't have much to say in regards to the subject of music. Mainly because I am a major pirate in a sense. I've never bought a cd in my life. All the music that I own is downloaded. Obviously its theft because the artists of this music used their own money to get their music produced. The music is a product of their mind and who am I do not recognize them for that creativity. They should be getting something anytime someone experiences their creation. But alas, I still don't feel guilty about getting their music for free. I try to make up for it by not sharing the music I download with my friends. I only use it for my own listening purposes.

One thing I came across a little while ago is the subject of music tablature. Is that copyright infringement?

I play guitar, and I used to enjoy looking up the tablature for various songs that I liked so that I could learn to play those songs, and in doing so, practice various techniques. However, about a year ago, when I went to browse one of my favorite sites for tablature, I found that they had removed all the tabs from their site. Apparently the big name music associations had shut them down saying that the tablature was copyright infringement.

I disagree with this of course. All the tabs on that site were user submitted. These users basically listened to the songs and wrote down what they thought they heard. Then they submitted them to a site so that others could attempt to learn the song. Thats no different then one or two people sitting down at someones house, listening to a song, and then attempting to play it themselves. These big name music associations just feel like controlling every aspect of the music they sell I guess.