Good one.

Not that the courts even need to make such a ruling. The fair use exception to copyright infringement is EXPLICITLY set forth in the federal statute on copyright. In other words, fair use is built directly into United States copyright law.

Better yet, the fair use statute sets forth a highly flexible four-pronged test to distinguish infringing uses from fair uses. So, fair use is not necessarily limited to either “scholarly,” “productive,” or other foreseeable uses, and can potentially extend to many uses that have not yet been truly tested at trial. (Uses like, duh, file sharing.)

The courts have long ago ruled that Fair Use has legal standing. That’s why copies for backup can be burned, it has nothing to do with whether the approval is there by the cartels. The whole copyright infringement by p2p is a very grey area because this has not been addressed. Instead, the cartels made an end run around it by getting the DMCA passed. A law that may well be illegal once Fair Use comes into the picture. What DMCA allows is criminality for breaking digital locks. Locks that were put in place to prevent Fair Use without having to go get legal authorization for support. In otherwords, an end run around the law. Fair Use also allows you to record from the broadcasted air waves, regardless of whether the cartels approve or not.

Still it is the public stance of the cartels and their lapdog the RIAA that this should be illegal and that making copies for Fair Use is proclaimed infringement without getting into mentioning the Fair Use in their “Educational Messages”. You can trust this bunch about as much as you can trust a cobra at your feet.

Beware their hidden little legal assumptions, however, which they are not qualified to make. For instance, Roth says ‘illegal’ instead of ‘unlicensed’ downloading– a legal conclusion. Later, Spanier implies schools, as ISPs, are ‘obligated’ to comply, as though by statute, with John Doe subpoenas. More likely, ISPs enter into secret agreements to avoid frivolous but costly indirect infringement lawsuits, or at the very least, are coerced by the lingering threat of such lawsuits.

Also, hey, the first 1:17 of the video is pretty darn good.

> Can’t wait until EFF gets a hold of that video.

I, too, snickedly anticipate the “scholarly and productive” parody… or two… or twenty… that will come of this.

I imagine a simple response: Perhaps someone will take a video camera to a law school, and ask real students and knowledgeable faculty the same questions about unlicensed downloading. It’s stand in start contrast to this video, in which no speaker is qualified to address the legal controversy, or even admits a controversy exists!

(A controversy, by definition, has more than one side.)

beware ‘free’ advise from corporations or their front organizations;

beware ‘free’ press releases from corporations or their front organizations; (news reporting by press release anyone?)

beware of ‘free’ content players from corporations or their front organizations; (sony’s new motto: got rootkit?)

bassically beware of anything comming from corporations or their front organizations, whether written, pressed (cd/dvd), verbally ejected or otherwise;