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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

"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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

There lies a problem though, how can you copyright lyrics? It's a bit like the HD-DVD fiasco, with the folks who make encryption for HD-DVD's suing sites that were posting the hex value that unlocked the HD-DVD, claiming that code was their intellectual property. Can a company copyright a random set of numbers, and likewise can a person copyright words strung together to form a song?

If this is the case, then shouldn't we all be required to pay royalties to the artists if we sing their song in a public avenue at say a Karaoke bar? It's the artists song, their written music, and you are blatantly parroting it.

If this is not the case, than how is taking the song you purchased and remixing the whole thing to a different tune, and handing this mix out freely any worse? Either way your distributing a different interpretation of the music to a public audience.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

The people who create karaoke CDs pay royalties.

There are rules for all this, see: the Copyright Royalty Board.

Okay, but let's assume that we forgo buying a karaoke CD and just sing the lyrics withought music to it. You were claiming earlier

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

But the actual performance of the song is not the only copyrighted portion of it. The lyrics and the written music are as well.

Which, if I understand you right, means if you are using any of these three factors composing a song, you are infringing on copyright. With that said, if you were to stand on a street corner and start singing the latest Fall Out Boy single, to the dismay of the public, you are infringing on their copyright of the song, are you not?

Another example that comes to mind is Weird Al and what he does. It's my understanding that Weird Al can take the original artists song, keep the same music composition, swap around the lyrics, and release it withought permission of the original composer and avoid paying any royalties while he's at it. How is this any different then taking the song, and morphing it to your own beat, e.g remixing it, and releasing it to the public. Are you infringing?

Also on the note of record labels -
I agree that the record labels have every right to protect their copyrights by means of litigation. But, like Sass said, the record labels would not exist withought the artist, I think it's just important that everyone including the labels themselves remember that.
There was a day when record labels didn't exist. Back then, music still flourished, and was just as important to people as it is now. So I would simply argue that the record labels depend more on the artist then the artist does on them, and that the distribution of royalties should be balanced appropriately. 50/50 would be a good starting point, though I honestly feel the artist should get more than that. Honestly, I think the record labels are engaging in royalty gouging, and it's borderline criminal, though don't misunderstand me, technically I agree they have the right to and it is legal to charge what they do.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I'll first say, that if you are correct in saying the public performance of a song is copyright infringement, then I think something has gone wrong somewhere.

I guess then, since parody is covered and protected under copyright law, I fail to see why remixing wouldn't also be allowed. If anything, remixing a song is an advanced parody. Just an example

Originally Posted by http://www.dictionary.com

parody - 3. A burlesque imitation of a musical composition.

Couldn't you then loosely say that chopping up a song to your own tune is a grotesque rendition of the original art, or perhaps say that the mix mocks the dignity of the original source, thus loosely associating it as a parody?

Not that it matters, I can't see why the law would permit parody but not remixing a song. Both fall under the same principles, that is taking an original work and morphing it into something else. Perhaps there should be a modification to fair use to allow for remixing?

I was speaking idiomatically.