Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Why Yes, Copyright Can Be Used To Censor, And 'Fair Use Creep' Is Also Called 'Free Speech'
Techdirt: So, as we'd been discussing, Congress recently had a hearing about copyright reform that was supposed to be about the "content creators'" view of copyright -- but which actually mostly presented the views of the legacy industry which makes money off the backs of creators, rather than hearing from any creators themselves. The hearing was about as silly as you might expect, with Parker Higgins from EFF presenting a good run down of the problems, including the claims that it's copyright that enables free speech, that copyright is good because it's "about control" and that "fair use creep" is dangerous. Of course, if you want a funny, and nearly totally wrong counterpoint, you can read the overview from Tom Giovanetti, who runs a "think tank" that is a favorite of copyright maximalists. Let's compare and contrast, and add some reality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It is incredibly important that creators be getting copyright safety as well as the compensation they deserve when that copyright is broken or when their work is borrowed. Copyright should not be about control because copyright is about safety. There is no reason that copyright should stop work from being shared or copied, it should just have to happen with recognition or payment. Copyright is used to give creators the ability to put their name on their work whether they are putting it out to the public or not. Copyright began as censorship, but copyright has to become a safety for creators whether they are on the internet or in the tangible world.
Post a Comment