Thursday, September 6, 2007
Copyright / Columbia journalism review / Pew research
I'll Start with a quote from the article:
Still others, including some uses within the home, may not be specifically designated fair use by a court, and may or may not qualify if put to the test, but are generally not the subject of legal challenges by a copyright owner.
Mr. Ross is saying in this one sentence that:
1. Watch what you do in your home we are watching you!
2. There is no way to know if you have a right to anything unless you get sued. Because as he said earlier there is no affirmative right.
3. Just because people have not historically generally been sued for what they do int their homes doesn't mean we won't come after you now.
Wow! I make a living in the the publishing industry and believe strongly in copyright but this is absurd, belligerent and threatening. And Ok it is a response to a lawsuit so maybe that is why it is so bellicose in tone. But Ross is actually threatening that a copyright holder can come after you for what you do in your home and implying that since he denies there is any such right as fair use any use should be assumed by the authorities to be infringing use.
Ross is wrong! For exactly the reason he says the other side is wrong. Use is rarely infringing unless it interferes with a right holders ability to commercialize their rights.
On another note I disagree with may of the comm enters who object to CNET posting this. Intellectual Property and Copyright are issues fundamental to our society and there are very important dialogs underway regarding how (if at all) current technology change them. The lawsuit, Ross's bizarre assertions and many more points of view will make much more interesting water cooler conversation than what other media put out there.