OZ: Fair Use Copyright Laws - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 03:04:06 am
content: Australia doesn't have Fair Use copyright laws.Take action to get this changed:https://www.faircopyright.org.au/take-action/

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 04:52:11 am
content: The US doesn't have it either. All we have are a load of politicians dicking around with our rights while pocketing a substantial amount of money.I mean we elected the spiciest, saltiest cheeto ever manufactured as a president. He's insulted more cultures than any other president on the books.Even still, AU should have those laws. As troublesome as they are to us, at least we have something. Good luck on your endeavors, the US is waiting for you.also rq can you throw constitutionally protected free speech in? it's something few countries have, and something that every country needs. it's real nice in the US, you can say whatever you want so long as it doesn't directly harm someone, and in most cases, feelings don't count.

author: PointyOintment
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 06:23:27 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on May 27, 2017, 04:52:11 amQuote from: Wikipedia: Fair usehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 07:23:42 am
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on May 27, 2017, 04:52:11 amAustralia doesn't have a Bill Of Rights, or any formal free speech declaration.But we do have "free speech" defined in case law, which is all that protects us for most things.We really do a need a bill of rights.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 08:50:43 am
content: I thought you had fair dealing, like the UK. Fair use is a US law.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 09:19:41 am
content: Well, that comes down to what people consider "fair use". Although not worded that way, the Copyright Act includes some provisions under certain circumstances where it would not be considered an act of infringement. Some examples being (there are many others):For literary, dramatic and musical works:Section 45 - Reading or recitation in public or for a broadcastFor computer software:Section 47B - Reproduction for normal use or study of computer programsSection 47C - Back-up copy of computer programsSection 47D - Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable productsSection 47E - Reproducing computer programs to correct errorsSection 47F - Reproducing computer programs for security testingFor artistic works:Section 47J - Reproducing photograph in different format for private useOther works:Section 40 - Fair dealing for purpose of research or studySection 41 - Fair dealing for purpose of criticism or reviewSection 41A - Fair dealing for purpose of parody or satireSection 42 - Fair dealing for purpose of reporting newsSection 43C - Reproducing works in books, newspapers and periodical publications in different form for private useThe act also allows you to "format shift" items you own such as books, photographs, audio CDs and films on videotape (but not DVD/Bluray). For example, you can copy an audio CD you own into another format (such as MP3, FLAC etc...) for use inside or outside domestic premises (for example, your own car) but only for private and domestic purposes and for use by the owner of the item and members of their household. Under the act, you are only permitted to make one additional copy and that copy must be in a format that is different to the original. You obviously can't sell or distribute the copy and if you cease to own the original, the copy must be disposed of (otherwise it will be considered an "infringing copy").Interestingly, the act also allows you to circumvent "copy control technological protection measures" (but not access control technological protection measures) and it is also lawful to circumvent region coding mechanisms on DVD as it's not considered an "access control TPM".Also, people seem to confuse "making infringing copies" with "downloading". In Australia, there is no law against merely downloading or possessing infringing copies (provided you didn't make the infringing copy). Not that I condone torrenting etc... but as long as you don't upload, you aren't breaching the copyright act (at least, for now).Sources:http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/http://www.copyright.org.au/acc_prod/AsiCommon/Controls/BSA/Downloader.aspx?iDocumentStorageKey=aa2b1da4-ae92-4e86-adcc-ffeb1c36bed6&iFileTypeCode=PDF&iFileName=Copying%20and%20Converting%20Formats%20for%20Private%20Use

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 10:21:54 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on May 27, 2017, 08:50:43 amIt's not nearly as good, and more has to do with legal defense should you get sued, rather than companies (like Youtube or other online CDN's for example) being confident to simply dismiss any such claims like they do with Fair Use. It's about "The Vibe".And looks like there is an actual Wiki on it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fair_use_proposals_in_Australia

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 12:06:46 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 27, 2017, 10:21:54 amBut that is all that "Fair Use" amounts to in the US. It is a defense strategy with a growing amount of case-law history. But there is no specific exemption that you can cite a priori. It is always a legal judgement-call.It is always a gamble when you assume that you can get away with "fair-use". It is a gamble whether the rights-owner will perceive your use as "fair". And it is a gamble whether they will come after you. And it is a gamble whether you will prevail in court, etc, etc. Even if you prevail, the cost of legal defense is a gamble.That is why there is a brisk business in stock images and stock sound effects, etc. And why you can find "sound-alike" but non-infringing production music which you can buy license for your video production, etc.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 01:18:53 pm
content: Yes I know the US has fair use, but it's effectiveness is not great. To use it to defend yourself requires thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees you will never get back, for content that could never even hope to make it back. Just look at H3H3, they are spending tens of thousands of dollars per month in legal fees just to defend themselves from some jackoff who has 0 legal ground anyways. All it's gonna do is leave both parties broke and de-moralized.And yeah, free speech is awesome. It's something many European countries lack, and is the main con for me moving to Europe later in life. This may seen a bit stupid, but take the developers of Prison Architect for example. They put a red cross in their game, which in much of Europe is a symbol that cannot be displayed in media without the consent of the Red Cross organization, but in the US, I see no way that could stand up in court, because it's like Apple trying to trademark the word Apple. You just can't take something that simple and generic and prevent people from using it here, but not in Europe.Another example is the use of WW2 and Nazi symbolism in much of Europe. While I am by no means a Nazi, I do want people to have the guaranteed right to be one. We shouldn't block others from practicing their ideas, no matter how disturbing it is. I want to have the right to express my opinion and beliefs freely without any legal intervention. This will not and should not save me from public ridicule, and as much as I should have the right to express my opinion, other should have the right to express even the deepest hatred about it. The only exception is when another law is broken in the process.But back to the matter at hand, if you do move for a fair use law, try to get some clause in it to fix our problem of larger companies bullying people using the law around. It's the single greatest failing in our copyright law.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 02:56:15 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on May 27, 2017, 12:06:46 pmSure. But look at Youtube for example where it's a different ball game. Youtube effectively becomes the arbitrator of the Fair use system in most cases.The copyright holder complains about a video (or it's auto-flagged), video gets flagged and pulled/de-monetised as a result, content creator appeals due to fair use, and Youtube investigates and reinstates the video. Not a lawyer or judge in sight unless it's taken to the extreme.That's an example of the fair use system at work and the weight of "the vibe" behind it. And yes, you can sucessfully argue that the system doesn't legally work like that, but in practice it does in many cases.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 04:30:36 pm
content: YouTube is only acting preemptively in their own legal defense. They are also vulnerable to the whims of the legal system and they have very deep pockets. It is cheaper/simpler to take the very conservative response at the mere suggestion of infringement. And there will always be people out there who take advantage of that.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 04:36:07 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on May 27, 2017, 01:18:53 pmThat's just not true. In the interwebs digital realm it may be problematic but it is widely applied and utilized in the non-internet realm.I spent 20+ years in the academic world as both a student and instructor at various colleges and universities. In that environment Fair Use is used widely and effectively. It allows instructors to photocopy or print out large portions of published works and distribute them to students for teaching purposes without fear of reprisal. It allows researchers to photocopy or print out journal articles and distribute them to colleagues for discussion and critique. The same is done in the medical world where I now reside. (And increasingly in these environments the distribution is done digitally) And no, there is no gamble or risk in doing so in that context in those environments - all because of Fair Use.

author: RGB255_0_0
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 06:02:11 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on May 27, 2017, 04:30:36 pmShoot first, ask questions later. It's pretty much forced upon them by the MPAA/RIAA et al.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 06:44:09 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on May 27, 2017, 04:52:11 amThe First Amendment does nothing more than allow you to complain about the government. It does nothing to protect you against libel or slander against others. Nor does it allow rioting as an expression of free speech.QuoteEven the freedom of the 'press' has limits as the Hulk Hogan case shows:http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2016/03/21/402457.htmThe US does have "Fair Use" copyright laws but the devil is in the details:https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 07:02:03 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on May 27, 2017, 06:44:09 pmI disagree. It is much broader than that. But the Supreme Court has imposed some limitations - as you say.QuoteYep. Note the use of "or"s.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 08:23:51 pm
content: Because the general rule is Free speech if there isn't an exception. In Europe I would get charged, arrested, and/or fined for flying a Nazi flag at my house, however in the US that's completely legal. I'm not annoyed at the fact that I can't fly Nazi flags, and I would never do it, but a very similar thing does happen here, and that's our confederate flag.The confederate flag is flown in many of the confederate states as a matter of pride, but to a lot of people it references a movement of racism and slavery. While I have no opinion on the matter, it's part of our free speech amendment to fly that flag if we so choose.However even our might first amendment can be broken. This happened during the cold war with the communist witch hunt for anybody who agreed with communist ideas. You would be tried for treason, and locked up for a long time, and in some cases, executed.Even still, American freedom of speech and expression goes beyond badmouthing the government. It's a rule that allows you to fly whatever flag, wear whatever costume, think whatever thoughts, and express those thoughts so long as it doesn't damage the lives of other people. This is something in many cases you can't do in most other countries, and while this hasn't come up that often, there is no irremovable rule in said countries saying that they can't arrest you for voicing your opinion.Not to get to political here, even though this has already gone in that direction, my main gripe with this is the SJW insanity that has plauged the world. Not the people who are actually for free and equal treatment of everybody, but the people who harass other people, and give unequal treatment in the name of equality. There have been few cases yet, but a lot of people are falling for this cult of perpetual offense, and coming in to defend them. In the US I think my self largely safe as I have a for the most part respected constitutional right to voice my opinion regardless of the feelings of others, but there is no constitutional rule in, let's say Germany, that will prevent me from being held accountable for something of opinion or truth I said to someone.This brings me to a similar matter. Jokes. I once asked my dad, who has spent most his life in Germany what he would do if a co-worker made a joke about Nazism towards him. My dad stated he would bring him to court, which would probably work in Germany, but not only would he lose the case here, he probably wouldn't even get a court to hear the case. His co-worker would probably get fired in both cases, but the difference is in the US he would not have to answer to criminal charges. This is another of my main reasons to have protected free speech. I want to be able to make a bad joke to anybody, and not have to face legal consequences. I would of course face social consequences, but this is between me and another person, not the government.As a final note, don't take my continual example of Nazism to mean I support anti-semetic views. I do not, and am only using it as an example.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 08:37:51 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on May 27, 2017, 08:23:51 pmI doubt you remember the McCarthy era. The "penalties" were generally blacklisting. Give one example of a person beingexecutedfor expressing pro-communist sentiment? Or, someone being locked up for a long time. Your arguments are trashed by your propensity to fabricate.John

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 09:32:51 pm
content: Quote from: TwoOfFive on May 27, 2017, 08:23:51 pmThat's a silly thing to say because Europe is not one country but many. Each with its own laws and attitudes to what is acceptable and what isn't.Flying the Nazi flag would certainly be illegal in Germany, but I doubt it is in Sweden.In the UK speech is restricted in that one can't advocate killing large numbers of people, which renders some far right wing and Islamist extremist material illegal.I think some if it has got out of hand, such as some of the silly anti-racism laws, which make some comedy illegal. An Indian person who I work with even thinks it's silly and it was better back in the old days when people could joke about their differences. He still hates racism, just that now people are paranoid about it.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2017, 10:49:06 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on May 27, 2017, 06:44:09 pmWow, you must live in a very different part of the US. I live here in "Baghdad on the Willamette" (Portland, OR) where the First Amendment is cited by rioters and local "government" alike as permitting rioting, violence, intimidation and destruction.Typical Saturday night rioters block Interstate Highway I-5...The USA is effectively abrogating the First Amendment. Perhaps Australia can acquire it as government surplus (BrEnglish: "redundant") and clean it up and recycle it. We won't have much more need for it.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2017, 12:55:30 am
content: I hate those protesters as much as the next reasonable guy, but they should have the right to go out in do it in a manner that doesn't disturb the peace. This right here is illegal, blocking a major highway through a protest.I also will admit that Killing may not be correct. That and arresting, but you will get into legal trouble either way.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2017, 01:38:18 am
content: Seems fair use in general does not exist anymore. That requires a human to decide, and most copyright stuff seems to be decided by robots now, which can't make that distinction. It's BS, just like red light cameras. Some of those sometimes mess up and even ticket parked cars. There are certain things that should only be done by humans.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2017, 02:25:07 am
content: This seems relevant:

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2017, 02:52:56 am
content: I will never understand the blocking roads thing. I can hardly think of a way to completely turn me off to whatever message they have than trapping me in my car against my will. I don't give a damn what cause they're protesting, they should all be arrested for detaining people against their will. Blocking the road is not only dangerous but it's a sure fire way to piss off the same people who's support they wish to gain. Free speech is supposed to protect us from being punished by the government for speaking unpopular opinions, it doesn't give people the right to force others to hear their message. When I see pictures like that I see a bunch of grown toddlers throwing a temper tantrum.