Print 70 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Nov 27 at 12:34 AM

A new study analyzes the dramatic disparity between U.S. copyright law and the social norm

What does your picture hanging in your living room, singing a Beatles song to your friend, or showing off pictures from your latest museum trip have in common?  They are all copyright infringements, according the 1976 Copyright Act.

The 1976 Copyright Act set forth that all creative works gained copyright protection, without the need for registration.  This overly broad legal train wreck has only gotten more confusing with the entrance of modern digital technology.  If you post a picture of a concert are you infringing?  If you let your friend listen to your phone to hear part of a song at a concert are you infringing?

The answer to both questions according to the 1976 Copyright Act is yes; you are obviously infringing, as you paid no royalties to the creator of the creative work (the musician).

John Tehranian, a law professor at the University of Utah, estimates that in an average day, he totals as much as $12.45 million USD in liability.  He sees his case as the norm, not as an exception, which is the topic of his new research paper (PDF).  According to Tehranian, "We are, technically speaking, a nation of infringers."

Tehranian illustrates numerous everyday examples.  For example, copying the full text of an email for a response is technically a copyright violation against the writer.  Tattoos such as Tehranian's bold Captain Caveman emblem on his shoulder are a thorny issue, which seem to infringe on copyrights.  Furthermore, Tehranian states, if he were to take off his shirt at the University pool and go for a swim; his tattoo could be deemed a public performance, racking up even more copyright infringement charges.

Tehranian has calculated his year liability -- for everything from the birthday song, to his home decorations -- and has rung up his yearly liability bill and just about $4.5 billion USD.

Tehranian does not engage in p2p file sharing as some might wonder upon seeing that tidy sum.  Tehranian tries to illustrate that the poor legal language of U.S. copyright law makes nearly everyone in the country civil offenders in a sense.  He sees the "vast disparity between copyright law and copyright norms" as a mandate for copyright reform. 

Tehranian raises many valid points.  The key issue is whether there is a point to laws with no enforcement or arbitrary enforcement.  This is the current state of copyright law.  Big business advocates such as the RIAA, MPAA, and IFPI use the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for everything from taking down websites, press charges against site owners, deny publication education funding, and to sue people for hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The artist Prince now is even trying to use them to take down YouTube, Ebay, and The Pirate Bay.

Meanwhile, people everyday commit hundreds to thousands of equivalent violations, entirely unknowingly.  The fact of the matter is that U.S. copyright law today remains a mess of ambiguity and shadows, but has allowed for tremendous legal campaigns against U.S. citizens.  Perhaps the U.S. needs to let citizens rewrite the copyright law via wiki, as New Zealand recently did for its new law enforcement guidelines.  Whatever its form, copyright reform, however seems far away, and until then -- according to Tehranian -- we are one nation united by infringement.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2007 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
Well, cops dont have tools on them to know that you signaled 49ft as opposed to 50ft. You are talking technicalities, when the point of the law is to signal far enough in advanced so that other motorists have time to see and react to that signal. They arent going to ticket you for 49ft, but they will if you dont put it on until you are already turning.

Also, there is a minimum speed on freeways for "normal traffic patterns" - which is designed to prevent accidents. Traffic jams are not considered "normal traffic patterns".

You need to read the rest of the driving laws before just picking and choosing certain phrases to argue with. because they are more detailed and just than what you are describing.

RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By iFX on 11/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2007 11:48:52 AM , Rating: 1
im not the perfect driver at all, never claimed to be. I like to drive fast, im too lazy to use turn signals, i dont use two hands on the wheel, i tailgate, and often time i cut people off on the freeway swerving in and out of traffic. I never claimed to be a "traffic law" abiding citizen.

But it is possible that i could stop all that and obey the traffic laws? Absolutely. The traffic laws are laid out clearly at the BMV, local police station, online, or even the library. Go get a copy and read through if you are confused or questioning the laws.

RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By iFX on 11/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By Spuke on 11/20/2007 12:01:00 PM , Rating: 3
You have a valid point mdogs, but, like the man said above, if the law says 50 feet then it's 50 feet regardless. Any other distance is indeed illegal. Whether it's enforceable or not is a different story.

RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By rcc on 11/20/2007 12:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
So signal at 100', or after the preceeding turn, whichever is closest. You can easily comply with traffic laws, most people choose not to.

Just like you can comply with copyright law, but many people choose not to. For pretty much the same reasons, it's easy to do, and chances of getting caught are fairly low with basic precautions. Doesn't make it right.

RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By masher2 on 11/20/2007 12:24:44 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. The law doesn't say "signal at exactly 50 feet", it says "signal at least 50 feet before". Traffic laws are not impossible to follow.

RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By sj420 on 11/20/2007 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't anyone ever hear the phrase:

"Rules were meant to be broken"

Consider that when the country was founded most of these ignoramous laws were not in existance and were NEVER considered. Now suddenly they are in the books (1976, big whoop, oh authority, yyyeeeaars of experience </sarcasm>) and everyone acts like they have to follow them to the books.

Well, Heres what good ol' George Washington Says:

"If America does not have an Armed Revolt every 30 years the will not maintain their Freedoms."

How many years has it been?
Lets get busy, the "People in power" are just "people"
with too much power. If you LET them control you they do.

Gather up your gear. Fear only exists if you believe in it.

By theapparition on 11/21/2007 7:17:39 AM , Rating: 3
You are talking technicalities..........

I think that's the point of the OP's analogy and relevant to the article (although a poor one, I understand what point he's trying to make). There's no point in trying to argue this. There are many laws on the books that are outdated/irrelevant now, and are in dire need of being updated or removed.

Let's see in South Carolina (just picked a random state):

No work may be done on Sunday.
An exception to the above law is that light bulbs may be sold.

Horses may not be kept in bathtubs.

It is illegal to give or receive oral sex in South Carolina.
(I'd like to see how they plan to enforce that!)

It is perfectly legal to beat your wife on the court house steps on Sundays.

Every adult male must bring a rifle to church on Sunday in order to ward off Indian attacks.

All of these are real laws on the books in South Carolina. Yet not enforced, and I'd like to see the man who beats up his spouse on the courthouse steps not get charged, reguardless of what the law says. You may be breaking the law, without even knowing it. That was the point of the original article, and arguing about driving laws is pointless.

Take a look at some in Ohio..... :-)

Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in public.

It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.

It is illegal to get a fish drunk.

The Ohio driver's education manual states that you must honk the horn whenever you pass another car.

Participating or conducting a duel is prohibited.

Breast feeding is not allowed in public.

It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house.

No one may be arrested on Sunday or on the Fourth of July.

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki