backtop


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 RandallMoore on 11/20/2007 11:42:56 AM , Rating: 0
I have a question for you. Is your parking break engaged right now?? If not, then you could technically get a ticket for that.

Are all four of your tires pressurized to the correct amount? I think not. You could technically get a ticket for that.

Do you check for debris and normal function of your car every time before you get behind the wheel? That means check signals, lights, relative tire pressure, windshield wiper function, etc.

When you get to a stop sign do your tires always (absolutely 100% of the time) come to a complete stop? If not, then you just broke the law and can get cited.

If you want to continue to argue then thats fine. But if you have never heard of a cop "throwing the book" at someone, then you should know that every little thing you do can get you a ticket.

By the way, I live in the country. I pass through a town every single day that cites people for speeding even if its a little of the limit. The part i said about using common sense come into play here. Common sense tells me that I cannot go 40 in the 35 zone in this town because they ticket for any amount of speeding.

Just admit that what you said was a little outlandish and I will not continue to prove you wrong.


RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By mdogs444 on 11/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By rcc on 11/20/2007 12:43:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We know what the common sense laws are, and everyone has access to do them.


"We" is too broad mdogs, most people do, some have no common sense.

Then there are the ones that argue that it's impossible to comply with the law because they feel that it empowers them to break it. They have no desire to try to fix it, because that would require effort, and would take away their excuses.

: )


By mdogs444 on 11/20/2007 12:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
some have no common sense.


Good correction. It appears that we have a bunch of that type in this article - arguing that they just cannot stop when the sign says stop!


By EricMartello on 11/27/2007 12:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't make an issue out of whether traffic laws are difficult or easy to follow, but I think that there are a lot of superfluous traffic laws on the books that would require an 'questionable' effort to comply with. For example, on the matter of the speed limit...if it is posted as 35 MPH, yet the road is wide and straight, most people will travel around 50 MPH on that road because they can. If you decide to comply with the law, which is to drive at the posted 35 MPH limit, you are disrupting the flow of traffic (potentially a violation in itself).

Anyway, the original issue is the poorly worded Copyright act of 1976, and like the newer DMCA, it has many open-ended statements and leaves far too much to interpretation. Copyright and IP law needs a serious revision, and unfortunately, all revisions to date have been biased more toward corporate interests rather than to consumers.


By kextyn on 11/20/2007 11:56:01 AM , Rating: 3
Not everybody breaks the law everytime they drive their car. Many people have tire pressure monitoring systems which would let them know if their tires are low. Some vehicles can even air them up themselves so that would prevent that. Some vehicles also can tell you if any of your lights are out due to the change in resistance and whatnot in the wires. Not everybody checks the wipers but people do drive in the rain so they would obviously be checking them at that point. Not everybody rolls through stops, speeds, or doesn't use their signal early enough. And my parking brake wouldn't matter because I park on private property most of the time (and I drive a manual so it's always on when I park.)

This is a stupid argument. Not everyone breaks the law when they drive, but many do.


RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/20/2007 12:29:49 PM , Rating: 1
> "Are all four of your tires pressurized to the correct amount? I think not. You could technically get a ticket for that"

Err, no. I believe some states could fit a 'dangerously incorrect' tire pressure into a safety code violation, but the idea you're breaking the law if your tire is set to 45 rather than 50 psi is just plain wrong.

> "Do you check for debris and normal function of your car every time before you get behind the wheel?"

There is no law to require you to do this in any state I know of.

> "When you get to a stop sign do your tires always...come to a complete stop? If not, then you just broke the law..."

Of course. That's why the sign says "stop", not "slow down a bit".


RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By gradoman on 11/20/2007 6:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Lol...the people of NYC need to have a f*cking dictionary slammed on their heads to help them understand the word Stop and a Powerpoint presentation to help recognize a Stop Sign.


RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2007 6:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ive heard that many people actually think that 8 sided signs with the word "STOP" is optional - when the sign has white boarders.

lol - jk.


By Lord 666 on 11/20/2007 6:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yellow speed limit signs are just a suggestion. The white ones mean an actual speed limit.


By Lord 666 on 11/20/2007 6:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Tiene que ser bilingüe señor


RE: This is sort of similar to DOT laws...
By RandallMoore on 11/20/07, Rating: 0
By Keeir on 11/21/2007 12:14:47 AM , Rating: 3
I believe Masher was referring to the "debris" part of your statement in that minor cosmetic damage is not prohibited by law in any state.

As for the Tail Light Issue. Yes you should check out your rear mirrors at the least to assure that a light is on. Checking all the major functions IS a part of driving safely. Thankfully I have an Auto that does the majority of this checking for me, but I definitely still check functions such as parking brake, mirrors, etc before I drive.

The point is that driving laws ARE able to be followed, even if its such a pain very few do, but Copyright law as it is currently written is essentially unfollowable in the course of normal activity... because your almost sure to be involved in another person's violation each and every day.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki