Isn't there a concept of fair use when it comes to copyright?

Did I miss the mention of it in the article? What is fair use, or is it totally irrelevant to copyright? Has a substantial issue been purposely omitted?

I think the dance with fair use is a much more interesting angle because it is harder to define.

I believe copyright abusers should pay restitution and/or go to jail (It is obvious if we are going to continue having works created that merit copyright protection).

There are fair use guidelines that people can use. For example, libraries can make copies of copyrighted materials to use in case the original gets damaged. People can also ask for permission to use parts of a copyrighted work.

<link>

I agree with you that the Fair Use issues are even more complex. The problem is that this fair use idea sprung up after so many people had problems with copyright laws. Fair vs. (I guess?) Unfair use would be a much newer issue, and these laws are clearly inching along at a significant time lag. It is much easier to discuss the original problem with copyright laws, rather than move on to the "new" issue that the laws have barely begun to consider.

I see your point about needing some sort of copyright protection in order for people to make a living from their work, but I think an overhaul of the laws needs to be thrashed out. New distribution methods, encryption, ownership understanding (e.g.: limiting portability and use of a song), and the penalty for infractions should be debated. This will probably never happen. I know that. But I think the copyright issues will only get worse as technology continues advancing.

I’m not comfortable giving a wronged corporation the ability to decide if I’ll be prosecuted and how I’ll be punished. All these lawsuits and settlements for millions of dollars make me wary of this method. If I kill someone, I can expect to go to court, be convicted by a jury, and spend some years in jail depending on the circumstances of the crime (assuming the judicial system works). If I download a song illegally, I might be sued and have to pay thousands of dollars, depending on the whim or the lawyer or company who catches me. I want there to be a specific penalty, set by a court, and enforced regularly. Whoever gets caught is charged and assessed the specified penalty. No lawsuits, no people getting off with a small fine while others are screwed for life, no weird mélange of consequences and judgments (school, record company, legal system) based on who you are and where you commit the offense.

I think this ties back in with Wu's point about how ignoring laws works in some ways (society gets to advance without having difficult conversations about what we think should be ok) but is awful in others (stuff that is unofficially legal is unregulated). In this case, illegally downloading songs and movies is prosecutable but there doesn't seem to be a reasonable or uniform penalty assessed for each offense. The lack of a real debate (taking into account the needs of the consumer rather than just the media company) and updated laws makes it a legal crapshoot. Or as Wu put it elsewhere, "a large cloud of illegality from which thunderbolts came come down unexpectedly."

Well stated. :-)

Thanks for the link.

I agree with you about the capricious and draconian nature of the RIAA(?). I wished they could be gotten rid of with some wholesale revamping of copyright and new technology.

But for technology solutions in the end, if you have output wires to speakers or video, you'll always be able to get around copyright protection.