"These hard-won exemptions last only until the next rulemaking. (That’s how unlocking your cellphone went from legal to illegal, before Congress stepped in.) In three years, proponents will have to find a way to do this all over again. This is not sustainable process—not for participants and not for the Copyright Office. It’s time to level the playing field. Let’s make these exemptions less restrictive and shift the burden of proof a little. Instead of making supporters go to extreme lengths to show that an exemption is absolutely necessary, how about asking the opposition to show that an exemption is absolutely unnecessary? At the very least, Congress should remove the expiration date on exemptions. Once granted, exemptions should be permanent. I’m a repairman. I recognize broken things when I see them. I got into this fight because I wanted to help people repair their broken stuff. Turns out, copyright law is the thing that was broken all along."
Showing posts with label burden of proof. Show all posts
Showing posts with label burden of proof. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2016
Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law; Future Tense, 1/13/16
Kyle Wiens, Future Tense; Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law:
Monday, November 24, 2008
Film studios to become 'police, judge, executioner', Sydney Morning Herald, 11/24/08
Via Sydney Morning Herald: Film studios to become 'police, judge, executioner':
"ISPs argue that, like Australia Post with letters, they are just providing a service and should not be forced to become copyright police.
Conversely, the TV and movie industry want ISPs to disconnect people it has identified as repeat infringers. There would be no involvement from police or the courts and the industry would simply provide the IP addresses of users they believe to be illegal downloaders.
"To shift the burden of proof and require that ISPs terminate access to users upon mere allegations of infringement would be incredibly harmful to individual internet users in Australia," the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said.
"Every citizen has a right of due process under the law and, when faced with having their internet service terminated, every citizen has the right to ask that the case against them be proven first.""
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-studios-to-become-police-judge-executioner/2008/11/24/1227491443731.html
"ISPs argue that, like Australia Post with letters, they are just providing a service and should not be forced to become copyright police.
Conversely, the TV and movie industry want ISPs to disconnect people it has identified as repeat infringers. There would be no involvement from police or the courts and the industry would simply provide the IP addresses of users they believe to be illegal downloaders.
"To shift the burden of proof and require that ISPs terminate access to users upon mere allegations of infringement would be incredibly harmful to individual internet users in Australia," the online users lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia said.
"Every citizen has a right of due process under the law and, when faced with having their internet service terminated, every citizen has the right to ask that the case against them be proven first.""
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/film-studios-to-become-police-judge-executioner/2008/11/24/1227491443731.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)