logo

Against Monopoly

defending the right to innovate

Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.





Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.


back

Fair Use Of John Lennon Song Upheld In Documentray Film

Per Wired -

A federal judge on Monday freed the producers of a movie promoting intelligent design to continue using a 15-second recording of John Lennon's "Imagine."

A New York judge said the makers of Expelled had a right of fair use under copyright law to use a small portion of the work without Yoko Ono's permission.

I'm not going to get into the controversy surrounding the subject of this film. But in terms of the fair use/copyright issue, this is great news indeed.

Comments

I am not so sure this is good news. I think what is shows is that fair use does have a posse, but not the one we like. When it suits a conservative agenda such as Intelligent Design, fair use is allowed to happen. But when someone is trying to make a more liberal or radical statement such as Michale Moore Fahrenheit 9/11, a lot of suits of people claiming that rights were not cleared, and Moore claimed fair use. I know the scope of these to cases are differnt, but on the surface, there appears to be a double standard.

The judge has the same last name as Ben Stein, Sidney H. Stein. However, according to Wikipedia, this judge was appointed by Bill Clinton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_New_York

Nick -

I am not aware of any successful copyright suit against Moore. His fair use claims are just as strong as those for 'Expelled', and he has successfully defended his rights as such - so I think your attempt to transform a copyright abuse issue into a partisan political issue falls flat.

I agree that copyright lawsuits are often brought for ideological reasons to suppress speech that people disagree with (rather than an attempt to 'protect rights' or spur creativity) - but that happens on all sides of the ideological spectrum. Since fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis, it also allows for ideological abuse by the individual judge involved (subject to his or her personal political whims). But that is a case for reforming copyright law, not proof that it is somehow biased against the Left. The Right has endured just as much copyright abuse.

Well said Justin, but I think it's safe to come out of the closet and agree with me that copyright's constraint of what would otherwise be natural cultural exchange is a case for its abolition - not merely its reform.

If unconstrained cultural exchange is right in fourteen years' time, why not today?

It's not like all these nearer lines people would draw in the sand aren't already submerged into irrelevancy by the instantaneous diffusion of the Internet anyway.


Submit Comment

Blog Post

Name:

Email (optional):

Your Humanity:

Prove you are human by retyping the anti-spam code.
For example if the code is unodosthreefour,
type 1234 in the textbox below.

Anti-spam Code
UnoEightQuatroTwo:


Post



   

Most Recent Comments

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry

Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace

The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default

Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without

Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do

Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous

Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:

WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,

What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic

Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the

Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples

Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Les patent trolls ne sont pas toujours des officines

Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you

Bonfire of the Missalettes!

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since

Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who

Music without copyright I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They are very convincing and will