Fair use is not black and white, it is specifically ambiguous so as not to curtail future uses not yet conceived. Many uses now claimed by some as “fair use” weren’t technically possible when fair use was added to the law in the 1970s; imagine if lawmakers had instead added a list of uses that were fair, the digital world would be oppressive indeed.

Some fair uses have been defined generally through frequent use (I had a sense of boundaries as a reporter) and others are part of common law now because of court decisions (fair use is actually an affirmative defense one can make if sued for infringement). Often what one views as “fair” is not legally fair use, or at least it hasn’t been settled as such in a court. That said, the DMCA calls for a triennial review at the U.S. Copyright Office, and in each one the Office has issued exemptions allowing circumvention of DRM in cases where they felt fair use was threatened. That is a process in which the public participates.

If you read a little more on this blog, you will learn that (1) various copyright industries use different DRM, based on their method of delivery, cost of production of the work, etc., (2) that DRM creates business models that allow people to buy different uses of works at different price points, and that (3) DRM can never rid us of piracy, but it can help create the affordable legal alternatives, the absence of which infringers often claim is their excuse for taking without paying.

It’s important in this debate to differentiate one’s hostility toward corporations and how protecting rights encourages creativity and the production of creative works. It is hard for many, I know.

thanks

If a DVD copy is on p2p, somebody ripped it without authorization to get it there.

I think the notion of a “best” business model (you imply a singular one) is what got some media companies in trouble; they’d find one that fit most consumer demand and offer it. The digital age forced these industries to offer more models, but that’s good for the industries and consumers. The folks in creative industries I know are trying to figure out where consumers are and reach them there in ways that are both legal and affordable, and they are increasingly succeeding (look at what a big hit Hulu is).

As for motion pictures, I go to the theater when I can’t wait to see a movie, I buy Blu-Ray for movies I want to watch repeatedly (most DVDs now include a free digital version you can download online), I will do on-demand (sometimes it’s included in subscription like HBO, sometimes it’s per-charge) when I want to see a movie right away but not own, sometimes if I can wait a couple of days I’ll use Netflix, or I’ll stream a Netflix film from my laptop to my HDTV, sometimes I’ll do Redbox if I can’t see paying more than a buck for it (I’m taking a chance) and don’t mind having to return it the next day (sometimes for convenience sake I take another day, it’s only one more dollar), sometimes when I’m bored I’ll watch part of a movie on cable or broadcast that I come across. All of these models work on different price points and different levels of protection. I like them all. The studios would prefer I always buy Blu-Ray and never do Redbox (they don’t get any revenue from Redbox rentals unless they strike a special deal with the company), that maximizes their revenue streams, but they’re all legal and I enjoy all of them.

Thanks
Jeremy

Incidentally, you too are a DC advocacy group (“prominent” I don’t know) seeking dilution of copyright law. Specifically, you seek to dilute the rights that the existing copyright law grants to users of copyrighted works.