What is Digg?46 Comments
- austin63, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20DRM programmers lobbying for "fair use"? I'm so confused.
- DeliveryGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I'm all for anybody that wants to stick up for fair use.
- tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14They have to code DRM though, not by choice but because content creators wouldn't sign any licenses without it. It's in MS/Google/Apples interests not to have DRM, firstly because it's less work for them, secondly because it's easier for them to publish content and thirdly because it could improve sales.
- tizz66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Why can't you have a htaccess that allows the charity site access to hotlinking but no-one else...?
- AcidPhysx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I agree that people leeching expensive bandwidth is a nuisance, but I believe, that most who do it have little to no idea that it's wrong, or even what hotlinking is. Dealing with the cut and paste generation of myspacers, and other popular social sites, has made hotlinking quite prevalent. Yes, you may have to implement .htaccess and that can be a pain, but what are you going to do? Educate the masses? Tell them what bandwidth is and how much it cost? It seems like a losing battle to me.
- radiofrequency, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The other day I came across Einstein's Theory of Relativity on the web (it was at bartlby.com). Bartlby claims copyright of the work in 2000 even though the original text was copyright in 1920... and has already long lapsed out of copyright can cannot be renewed (http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.htm - "Works registered before 1/1/1923 - Copyright protection for 75 years has expired and these works are in the public domain.").
So, in fact, Einstein's work titled "The Theory of Relativity" is public domain.
Claiming copyright on the work is copyright abuse.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/ - comptr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2its a good thing someone is sticking up for fair use.
- shampoovta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Copyright has gotten crazy. People are copyrighting there babies names now. Whats next copyright fire? The wheel. I don't think HG Wells could have dreamed this looniness up. This is about fair use so I will stay on target. Pulling down The Daily Show clips or Colbert when they clearly benefit from that content being up is just back asswords. Maybe these companies are slaves to there army of lawyers or the law is a shambles. It just all seams to be at cross purposes.
No one has an original thought. We all billed on what has come before. To stop this public dialog because we are using a clip from TV to push the subject threw the tubes for discussion is wrong! This whole thing is stifling and smothering our interaction and discussion on the web.
I used a lot of big words I can't spell and non of these spell checks I use has a thesaurus ( that I know of) so no grading my paper please. - SpyDerMann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Of course not. "Fiar Use" doesn't mean ANYTHING! :P
- Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, the industry doesn't do a good job of explaining fair use - hardly doing it in a nonbiased, factual way to begin with, no wonder people don't understand fair use, especially when the industry, and those like you distort the language to make the point about respecting copyrights and copyright infringement being bad.
Infringement is infringement, theft is theft, one isn't the other and is irrelivant to teaching fair use. - radiofrequency, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Andi - have you considered asking people who link/post your images to pay for them? Are they cooperative when you ask them to take the images down? What's the size of compensation you would typically look for as renumeration for taking an image from you?
- tribecom, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Where did the article or a poster say anything about doing anything they want.
Dug down for being a moron. - SpyDerMann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The enemy of my enemy is... my enemy? O.o
- AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I looked, but I didn't see a copyright notice in the actual text of Einstein's Theory of Relativity that they have there, just the copyright notice at the bottom of the page for their website. Although Einstein's theory is now public domain, Bartleby's can copyright their presentation of it -- they just can't copyright the theory itself.
So that might be what they're doing. Have you asked them about it? - omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Of course Google and Microsoft are looking to ease at least a few of the constant lawsuits regarding copyrights that they have to constantly deal with. That's not to say it doesn't benefit the rest of us as well.
- SpyDerMann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's called "betting against your team". If they lose one, they win the other one.
- aaronadms, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i totally agree... i was so pissed when they pulled all the NFL clips from youtube (as soon as google bought it)... it's not like there's an official alternative place to find highlights. ...not sure if sharing highlights falls under "fair use" though?
- AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1One guy who downloaded all my images apologized when I talked to him about it. He didn't realize that it was copyright infringement. He deleted all the images from his computer and added a link to my website to his favorites instead -- which means he gets to see new images, articles, and stories when I add them, too. He was really nice about it.
But none of the hotlinkers have been cooperative at all. They ignore me until I change the image to one that just includes the URL to the page on my site that contains the image, encourages people to go there to see it, and asks them to support independent artists by not violating our copyrights or stealing our bandwidth. They usually remove the hotlink within 24 hours of that.
TBH, if those people had asked me first, I probably would have let them use the images for free, as long as they included a link to my site. For me, it's less about money (probably why I definitely qualify as a starving artist at this point -- I hate asking people for money ) than it is about having a right to decide how my work will be used. There are certain kinds of sites that I don't want it on, because I don't support those things. That's why I ask people to request permission, so I can check the site they want to use it on and make sure it's something I want to support.
So, really, I'm not looking for remuneration. I'm looking for people to respect the time and effort I spend creating these things enough to ask permission to use them -- and to accept it if I say no.
If they want to support me financially, I'd rather they buy something from my online store. Then they get a t-shirt or poster or something they can use, too. - rattsabre, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mistakenly added apple to your list of those companies that don't want DRM.
- Septimus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The comments about promoting fair use in the context of day to day internet use is extremely flaky and hasn't been tackled yet. People are stupid, and ease of use tools like MySpace and other web coding apps have allowed stupid uncaring people access to republish that content.
Handling this issue is another problem. The film industries approach of "You Wouldn't Steal A Car!!!11", (to them: ***** off) is far too heavy handed and simplistic. But I guess no one else has come up with an approach which caters to your every day moron and to people who understand yet do it out of choice (or principle after buying the DVD and seeing said ***** advery from the MPAA).
It's good to see Google and MS promoting fair use... lets just hope it is for the users benefit in the end. I doubt it. - JPie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"When someone then hotlinked to one of my images, I had to expand the copyright notice even further to state that hotlinking wasn't allowed. Now that someone else has ignored it and hotlinked to another image -- leeching my bandwidth yet again -- I'm forced to implement .htaccess to block hotlinking -- something I really didn't want to do, because I allow a local charity to host larger files on my site to save them bandwidth costs. If someone steals stuff from my site even after that, though, I'll have to consider taking the images down entirely."
Well hotlinking isn't a copyright issue. If you put up a sign on the highway and I put up a sign next to it pointing to your sign you really have no legal standing asking me to take it down. Also in Canada and other fair dealings countries you can copy friend's CDs. - AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hotlinking is copyright infringement because it's redistributing copyrighted content for something not covered by Fair Use without the copyright holder's permission. It just goes one step further and steals bandwidth, too. The example you gave is more like a hyperlink, though, which is fine. A more accurate analogy of hotlinking would be if you created a poster with a section cut out of the middle, and then put that poster over the top of mine, so that one of the pictures on my poster showed through as if it was part of your poster. You'd get the benefit of my picture, and people wouldn't even know it was coming from my poster.
And in that scenario I'd have every right to ask you to take your poster down so it stopped covering up mine. - Matt2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What?
- JPie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/news/c19992000fs-e.html - Government of Canada Site
http://www.cata.ca/Advocacy/Copyright_Board/levyarticle-Jan400.html - Another site
Also googling is a good resource. http://www.google.ca/search?q=Private+Copying+site%3Agc.ca&btnG=Search
Edit: This site spells it out http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/cp_circ_15-e.html - AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's what I'm going to try to do. But I've held off on implementing .htaccess because, from what I've read, some browsers can interpret it incorrectly and not display the content even though the site is listed as allowed -- or even on your own site. I didn't want to risk messing anything up on the charity's website, because their visitors aren't the most tech savvy.
- radiofrequency, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Defending "fair use" against the copyright cartel is critical to growth, adoption and utility on the web. This is about the best thing Microsoft has ever done and, believe me, I almost puked praising Microsoft right now.
If we were to apply copyright in as draconian a manner as the copyright cartel claims is the rule of law, there would never have been a google or any other search engine because it requires "copying" of content to local servers in order to process information like page rank, search terms, etc. Sites like Digg would be under constant attack because they are aggregators of content owned by someone else.
Then again, this is Microsoft, the DRM champions, we're talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if they joined this panel to sabotage its efforts to protect fair use. - Travelsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I can't make heads or tails of this statement at all.
- JPie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So if I set up a billboard on the highway so that there is a big hole in the middle and you can see the nice picture on your billboard but put my logo on top that would be copyright infringement? That is like saying by looking through a window at a painting in your house I'm infringing the painter's copyright.
- AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's exactly what we need to do -- educate the masses. I don't have a problem with people using my work for the things that Fair Use allows. Wanna quote one of my stories or essays in a research paper? I'd be flattered! Wanna do a parody of one of my CG images? I'll laugh. Steal my stuff, or hotlink and pass it off as your own, though, and I get annoyed, because I worked really hard on it. Imagine spending a couple of weeks or months working on a project at work only to have one of your coworkers pass it off as his own to your boss. Even if he says, "Oh, so-and-so helped, too," it still pisses you off.
DMCA is flawed because it puts the onus on content creators to ferret out violations and then try to get people to take things down. RIAA is wrong because it files suits against people without the copyright holder's permission. DRM isn't going to work because geeks love puzzles and break it easily. The only way to come to a solution that will satisfy both sides is to get the masses to understand why copyright is important, how it benefits both them and content creators, and what things fair use really allows. When piracy becomes less rampant, content creators won't have to be so draconian about not allowing anything in the hopes of only having a little stuff stolen. - AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can't copyright an idea. You can only copyright the fixed form or expression of something. So they can't copyright their baby's name, but they could draw a picture of it with some funky letters or something and that picture would be copyrighted. But that doesn't prevent you from creating your own, unique picture using that same name.
They could try to trademark it, though, which is a whole different set of IP law. And things like the wheel or fire would be patent issues, not copyright. But the basic idea of the wheel or fire? I don't think those would qualify for patents, even if they hadn't been around since the dawn of time. If you develop some special new wheel, yeah, I imagine you could patent that design, but not the whole concept of a wheel.
As for pulling down clips of TV shows being okay "because it benefits them", it doesn't matter if you think it benefits them. The purpose of copyright law is to allow the person who created the content to decide how their work will be used and distributed. It's not your decision how someone markets their work, any more than it would be their decision how to market something you've done. And "because it benefits them" is not a Fair Use exemption; it's a rationalization of copyright infringement.
Copyright Basics: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
Fair Use: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html - AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How did I distort anything?
And infringement is theft. - williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If "so strict" is claiming rights you don't have, that's illegal.
- KayMan2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Here are two stories, in order of appearance, which made the front page today. Timing is everything.
- Microsoft Ceases AutoPatcher Project
- Google, Microsoft-backed group ready to Defend Fair Use LOLz - CalipsoII, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1l2spell
- AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That would constitute distribution. "Copying for private use" refers to the person who bought the CD, DVD, etc, making another copy for his or her own private use.
- AntiTheist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Microsoft-backed??? who the ***** is ***** kidding?
- Matt2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You can not copyright a name in any country I know of. Maybe in Bizarro world.
- WileEPeyote, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Hey JPie, I think you need to do a little more research into Canadian copyright laws. You can make copies, but not for distribution (which includes giving to your friends). See below...
Copying for Private Use
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public. - WileEPeyote, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The link you provided is the interpetation of one person, not the Canadian courts. I would say you would have a tough time in court over this, so if ya get caught better get a good lawyer and hope the other side doesn't have a good lawyer.
- JPie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You should read what you just copied and pasted.
"onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording."
I can copy my friend's cd for my own personal use. See http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#copy_for_friends. and if I give my friend my cd and he copies it that's fine too as long as I'm not getting anything in return for it. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Got any sources for copyrighting baby names? Or did you just make that up because you thought it made your otherwise weak point a little stronger?
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Their alternate version is just as confusing as the one used now. Basically saying you can do all this stuff...as long as it's legal. Duh.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Contrary to what the idiots here on Digg think, "Fiar Use" does NOT mean "I can do anything I want."
- AndiN, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4The problem with the CCIA's copyright notice is that most people don't understand what Fair Use actually allows. They think it includes things like making a copy of a movie, CD, video, or computer program to give to a friend, or downloading one of those for free, creating derivative works, or anything "as long as I'm not charging money for it". That's not the case.
A better copyright notice for CIAA to encourage copyright holders to use would be one that includes what Fair Use allows: using portions of the work for commentary, parody, criticism, research, and educational purposes.
FWIW, content creators like myself wouldn't have to be so strict in our copyright notices if people respected our copyrights. I started out with a basic "Copyright (year)" notice on my online gallery. The first time someone stole an image from my site, I expanded the copyright notice to explicitly state that copying, distribution, or reproduction -- including downloading for personal use -- without written permission wasn't allowed. When someone then hotlinked to one of my images, I had to expand the copyright notice even further to state that hotlinking wasn't allowed. Now that someone else has ignored it and hotlinked to another image -- leeching my bandwidth yet again -- I'm forced to implement .htaccess to block hotlinking -- something I really didn't want to do, because I allow a local charity to host larger files on my site to save them bandwidth costs. If someone steals stuff from my site even after that, though, I'll have to consider taking the images down entirely.
So if you want to blame anyone for heavy-handed copyright notices and DRM, blame the pirates. They're the ones forcing me to implement more and more strict controls on my content, just to protect what little income I get from my artwork. It's having a chilling effect on online content, because I already know other artists who don't put their work online -- or at least not their best work -- because they don't want it to get stolen. - austin63, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Hypocrisy? Yes. But while there on our side of things lets call it irony mmmK.
- schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4This is hilarious. Only a week ago Microsoft slammed Google and incited companies against Google after Google did exactly *that* -- took advantage of *FAIR* use.
Hyprocricy. Oh, dear! More coffee. Need more coffee.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is