tennenbaum opposition to entry of judgment and injunction

public freedom versus copy right
copy right versus public freedom
which side are you on?
should public freedom bear the burden of proof?

Move with the development of creative commons and the lack of copyright registration to a cyber world in which amateur and professional entertainment mix, in which who knows whether bits are “copyright” bits or “creative commons” bits. how can one know this without having additional information not communicated directly through the medium? one has to have another mode of knowing. there has then to be another mode of teaching a rule of behavior with respect to the cyber bits in question.

This is wrong, in the sense of bad construction of cyberspace. One can see the impossibility of educating man woman and child world over about which bits are copyrighted and which bits are not. the bits themselves give no evidence either way.

Copyright’s rule in cyberspace will be built into the code that runs the space. If fair use for we the people is to be preserved for the future then its constraint on copyright must likewise be built into the code. The challenge of building cyberspace so as to preserve human freedoms is immense. Resolving the challenge by crushing consumers with blunderbuss statutory damages at the copyright holder’s behest is neither intelligent nor fair. This is a time in our nation to trust the code of our Constitution. A presiding judge should respect the deliberative roles of Congress and the jury instead of deciding for herself.

make a line going forward that the generation of digital natives can live with proudly instead of a blurred line that leaves them vilified and condemned as thieves. make it the predicate for advancing the right to jury trial as the ultimate bulwark of our freedom

Tenenbaum Opposition to Entry of Judgment and Injunction

2 Responses to “tennenbaum opposition to entry of judgment and injunction”

  • This makes no sense whatsoever. The bits reassemble themselves into creative works that can be perceived by human beings. Once they do that, it ain’t so hard in many, many cases to determine which are copyrighted. Of course there will be times when one cannot determine the answer, but that’s not what Joel’s case was about and that shouldn’t simply void copright in cases when the status of a work is clear. Joel knew what he was copying consisted of big name artists whose record companies claim copyright in that material.

    That has nothing to do with whether the damages are appropriate here or anywhere, but the argument that the bits never give evidence of their attributes just isn’t true. Or, at least, it isn’t any different than the situation as it existed before the advent of cyberspace. If in 1976 one heard someone singing a song on a street corner, did he or she know whether the author of that song intended to commit it to the public domain or maintain copyright over it? Of course not, as the medium did not convey that sort of information. In fact, it’s easier now to determine whether someone claims proprietary rights as the internet allows instantaneous research to help make such a determination.

  • “The bits reassemble themselves into creative works that can be perceived by human beings.” Like mp3 music files, exactly the point. And with no registry you put the burden on the consumer of doing research. Again, that’s the point. You would put the burden on the consumer and tell him to research it.

Comments are currently closed.