Likewise, legislation
requiring compulsory licenses for reasonable
fees would be a way to prevent copyright owners
from refusing permission because they don’t like
the content of the borrower’s speech; but they
assume the need for a license. Fair use works
on the opposite principle – that it should not
cost money or require compliance with any
procedures to make reasonable use of words and
images that are part of our culture. Fair use is
irreplaceable precisely because it does not don payment, procedures, or permission.

from the title through the fist few pages, this report appears to argue from the position that “fair use” is a fixed and inviolate set of “rights” instead of a living concept that should – and obviously must – evolve in the face of technological advancement.

it is more than a little disappointing and sadly ironic to see, in the Brenan center report and in the other “fantastic report” linked by professor lessig, that original authors and artists have so few friends among the academic intelligensia – and so many committed commonsists struggling against them.

funny. stifling artistic development used to be the game of corporate lawyers and moral crusaders, now it’s de riguer amongst university professors and students.

squares.

UNQUOTE

You are doing a great job at making people think artists are the most selfish, shortsighted people in the world. What are you trying to achieve?

Everyone [childish] wants their voice heard by millions each day and paid well for it, but no one has the time or money to watch and pay for a million narcissitic clips (er works) a day.

Can’t you accept that as more artists express themselves the value of the media goes down? Can’t you accept that as more artists succeed and emerge it’s a mathematical certainty that audience sizes will lower?

The word ‘artist’ is starting to have a really bad conotation: lame-o’s trying to work the system.

btw, you are trapped in your own unscientific dogmatic convictions.

How rediculous would it be if only a few people could have conversations on phones and the others got to chose what conversation they listened to and paid to listen? That’s what the dieing, ailing media conglomerates are trying to do to video (and all other digitally transmitted expression).

from the title through the fist few pages, this report appears to argue from the position that “fair use” is a fixed and inviolate set of “rights” instead of a living concept that should – and obviously must – evolve in the face of technological advancement.

it is more than a little disappointing and sadly ironic to see, in the Brenan center report and in the other “fantastic report” linked by professor lessig, that original authors and artists have so few friends among the academic intelligensia – and so many committed commonsists struggling against them.

funny. stifling artistic development used to be the game of corporate lawyers and moral crusaders, now it’s de riguer amongst university professors and students.

squares.

“Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control”
– from the Free Expression Policy Project at the Brennan Center for Justice, NYU School of Law
http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/WillFairUseSurvive.pdf