From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the section Socially acceptable violations of copyright law, is a section (see below) that details common behavior which would be considered infringing. Wouldn't some of them fall under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, and certainly some case law?

Although P2P has been the focal point in discussions of copynorms, the phenomenon is more general in scope. Some other contexts in which copynorms diverge from United States copyright law include the following:
  • Video tape recording of copyrighted broadcast and cable television content for archival (as opposed to time shifting) use.
As far as timeshifting goes, does the allowance of timeshifting, technically require the deletion of the program once it has been viewed once? Bear in mind that the FBI could probably detect traces of an old program on a tape after it had been copied over by, say, a home video created by the owner. If so, that would be a rather harsh interpretation... ;-)
The Supreme Court's Sony decision suggested that timeshifting was fair use, but archival taping was not. --Lsolum
Have there been any cases when somebody has been convicted of "archiving", suppose you forget to delete your copy, but never watch it again after the first time, would that be "archiving"? --Lexor
The supreme court would have to be pretty stupid to not realize that "accidental archiving" would happen. In fact, if we consider Time shifting...
Time shifting is the recording of television shows to some storage medium to be viewed at a time convenient to the consumer.
The definition of Time Shifting doesnt say anything about how many times, it may be convenient to watch it multiple times. Plus, there is no way to easily delete a tape, and even recording over it (with a home movie or public domain material) wont work, since VHS is an analog, magnetic storage medium which means that the rewriting the tape will not remove 100% of the signal. Plus, simple human nature means that no one in practical terms will consider such a trivial matter as erasing a tape after viewing once - this is a process that delivers nearly zero protection (no VCR user that tapes for himself has been sued), is troublesome, and hard to remember. I'm sure the Supreme Court knew this when making their decision.
  • Photocopying of books and journal articles for academic and business use.
Certainly the photocopying of journal articles on a small scale (i.e. for individual use, as opposed to for an entire class) would under the "research" provisions of fair use, AFAIK, I don't know for sure, but I think this is backed up by case law.
No. The caselaw on this goes the other way. But this might be changed to "Systematic photocopying of books and . . . " --Lsolum
  • Audio tape record of live music concerts.
Some bands allow this, such as the Grateful Dead.
But "allowing" is not fair use. --Lsolum
OK, but it might be worth pointing out that there are cases where it is legal (i.e. if permission is given). --Lexor
  • The use of copyrighted digital images (PNG, JPEG, etc.) on personal websites.
To varying degrees, in each of these cases, copying that violates the law is socially acceptable. Anecdotal evidence suggests that illegal archiving of television programs is widely regarded as socially acceptable, and it is doubtful that many users of home Video Cassette Recorders (VCRs) are aware that this activity is unlawful.

The way it is currrently written, implies that all these activities, regardless of the scale and scope (i.e. whether for individual or personal use vs. for an entire class) would be considered illegal. I know fair use is tricky concept, but it would seem that for each of these activities to be considered as fair use or not, would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and thereby implying that one couldn't make a blanket statement that they were otherwise infringing activities. Could some legal eagles out there clarify this? --Lexor 09:15, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

All of these examples were chosen because of specific cases. User:Lsolum 15:42 12 Nov 2003.
It might be worth pointing out that there are circumstances under which some of these activities might not be considered infringing. --Lexor 23:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article says: "Social norms are enforced by informal social sanctions, ranging from simple expressions of disapproval (mild) to shunning or vandalism (severe)."

These are forms of negative reinforcement (that is, you do something, and society punishes you). Do positive reinforcements (rewards) play a norm building role too?

For instance, I can imagine that the norm 'sharing is good' on P2P networks is reinforced because both parties win.--branko

What if the ads are left in? lysdexia 07:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"many users of P2P programs believe that large music companies rather than artists are the beneficiaries of the economic rents created by copyright laws." Believe? That implies that this view isn't correct. Hardly NPOV.