Difference between revisions of "Talk:CSE590TU"

From CSEP590TU
Jump to: navigation, search
(Talk on Electronic Voting for MS Employees)
(→‎Fair use: parody vs. satire)
 
(33 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==590TU Discussion==
 
==590TU Discussion==
  
−
Welcome to the Discussion Page for CSE590TU.  Please use the + sign in the top of the screen to add comments to the page.
+
Welcome to the Discussion Page for CSE590TU.  This is for general comments and announcements for the class.  If you have a comment on a specific topic or lecture, please visit the [[Main_Page#Lecture_Notes_and_Discussion | lecture-specific page]].  Please use the + sign in the top of the screen to add comments to the page.
  
−
== Rights for NBA scores on pagers - what if? ==
+
== Talk on Does IT Matter for MS Employees ==
  
−
I'm an engineer, not a policy wonk, so bear with me.  In class we learned about the Hearst VS AP case that said that you couldn't protect facts unless someone taking those facts would "destroy" the underlying service.  In the case about the NBA trying to block the scores of games being broadcast on pagers without them taking a cut of the $$, the quite reasonable claim is that those scores being broadcast would not destroy the NBA and hence it's OK.
+
Nicholas Carr will be speaking on Does IT Matter on Thursday, Nov 4 in 113/1021. [apardoe]
  
−
OK - suppose that I founded SpaithCO Limited and in 2003 I gave the NBA a wad of cash to have exclusive rights to sell those scores on pagers.  (Pretend the real life court case never happened.)  Then some heavy weight (say Moto) in 2004 comes along and doesn't want to play ball with SpaithCO.  If Motorola can broadcast out NBA scores without paying SpaithCO, then SpaithCO's wise and handsome CEO could argue that his company would be destroyed by Moto's action.  Never mind what happens to the NBA.
+
== IT Worker Demand and Outsourcing ==
  
−
Does SpaithCO have a claim here?  I've been speculating and I believe it depends on whether the NBA had a right to *exclusively* sell this information to SpaithCO for this use in the first place. I'm thinking the answer is no or the NBA would've pulled something like this already to get at least a little $$ out of some SpaithCO. Can anyone out there shed some more light on this? The idea of some underlying service being "destroyed" really seems like a grey area in many cases.
+
I moved this thread to the [http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/CSEP590TU-wiki/index.php/Talk:Outsourcing_and_its_impact_on_innovation%3F "Outsourcing and its impact on innovation?" project idea discussion page] so that we can concentrate the discussion on the impact of outsourcing in one place.
  
−
[Author: John Spaith]
+
== Fair use: parody vs. satire ==
  
−
--[[User:Jackr|Jackr]] 22:32, 6 Oct 2004 (PDT) To me this sounds like the Cable Company phone directory case also mentioned in class, just with the addition of money being paid to get the initial information. It would seem the NBA managed to sell something it never really owned. Of course, I'm just an engineer as well.
+
(This is about a reading for lecture 4, but there isn't a section for that yet ...)
  
−
-- [apardoe] I believe that the NBA issue stems from the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the PGA vs Morris Communications appeal ( http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1071719761758 ). The PGA is able to protect golf tournament scores and statistics because they are a private company producing this IP (the scores) on private property and license this information to spectators and news organizations. This is to say that the tournament scores are in fact company trade secrets developed at great cost.  
+
The "fair use" section in Ch. 7 of ''Chasing Moore's Law'' mentions satire as an example of such. Did they mean parody? I first learned there was a distinction a couple weeks back when JibJab's ''This Land'' (''Sue You: This Song Is Our Song'' [http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64376,00.html]) was released. From what I understand, a parody uses the source material to comment on the source material. A satire uses the source material to comment on something else.
  
−
My assumption is that the NBA has never "owned" basketball game scores and statistics because they produce this IP on public property. If they are able to align their efforts closely enough with the PGA's IP development process they may be able to protect their IP in the same way that the PGA is able to do so. I can't imagine a basketball team buying a stadium (as opposed to buying a stadium-funding election) but there's gotta be a loophole.
+
I am a little confused on what is fair use, though. I think parody is always fair use. From what I heard around JibJab's case, satire is never fair use. Searching on FindLaw.com [http://www.findlaw.com], I got the impression that there was no meaningful distinction. Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page] suggests that satire can be fair use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use], depending on circumstances, but has a tougher burden of proof because "the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody].
−
[/apardoe]
 
  
−
== Talk on Electronic Voting for MS Employees ==
+
So when, if ever, is satire fair use?
  
−
There is going to be a talk given on electronic voting by a Microsoft researcher for Microsoft employees on October 18th. You can register for the talk through MSTE. [jameswelle]
+
[[User:Jantos|Jim Jantos]]:  It is my understanding that parody takes aim at the copyrighted work, while satire borrows from the copyrighted work but aims at some other target. 
 +
 
 +
There is no presumption of fair use with respect to parody or satire.  Based on the result of the Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ("Oh Pretty Woman" Roy Orbison song parodied by 2 Live Crew - Supreme Court held: fair use), one may conclude that all transformative parody will likely be deemed fair use under section 107.  However, the Supreme Court emphasized that parodies are not entitled to a fair use presumption and that each fair use factor under section 107 must be analyzed based on the context of the situation.
 +
 
 +
Therefore, the fair use implications of parody and satire must be made on a case by case basis analyzing the four fair use factors of Section 107: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purpose; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 +
 
 +
Looking at the factors, parody requires the original copyrighted work to make its point by defininition, and therefore a parody has a basis to use the original work. However, satire theoretically can stand on its own without the copyrighted work, which requires some justification for the act of using the copyrighted work in the first instance.
 +
 
 +
== IT & Health care ==
 +
 
 +
Here is an op-ed piece in the [http://www.washingtonpost.com Washington Post] by Senators Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton about [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30277-2004Aug24.html ''How to Heal Health Care'']. (They encourage the use of IT.)
 +
 
 +
Can others attend the Carr talk at MSFT?

Latest revision as of 20:25, 6 December 2004

590TU Discussion

Welcome to the Discussion Page for CSE590TU. This is for general comments and announcements for the class. If you have a comment on a specific topic or lecture, please visit the lecture-specific page. Please use the + sign in the top of the screen to add comments to the page.

Talk on Does IT Matter for MS Employees

Nicholas Carr will be speaking on Does IT Matter on Thursday, Nov 4 in 113/1021. [apardoe]

IT Worker Demand and Outsourcing

I moved this thread to the "Outsourcing and its impact on innovation?" project idea discussion page so that we can concentrate the discussion on the impact of outsourcing in one place.

Fair use: parody vs. satire

(This is about a reading for lecture 4, but there isn't a section for that yet ...)

The "fair use" section in Ch. 7 of Chasing Moore's Law mentions satire as an example of such. Did they mean parody? I first learned there was a distinction a couple weeks back when JibJab's This Land (Sue You: This Song Is Our Song [1]) was released. From what I understand, a parody uses the source material to comment on the source material. A satire uses the source material to comment on something else.

I am a little confused on what is fair use, though. I think parody is always fair use. From what I heard around JibJab's case, satire is never fair use. Searching on FindLaw.com [2], I got the impression that there was no meaningful distinction. Wikipedia [3] suggests that satire can be fair use [4], depending on circumstances, but has a tougher burden of proof because "the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work" [5].

So when, if ever, is satire fair use?

Jim Jantos: It is my understanding that parody takes aim at the copyrighted work, while satire borrows from the copyrighted work but aims at some other target.

There is no presumption of fair use with respect to parody or satire. Based on the result of the Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ("Oh Pretty Woman" Roy Orbison song parodied by 2 Live Crew - Supreme Court held: fair use), one may conclude that all transformative parody will likely be deemed fair use under section 107. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that parodies are not entitled to a fair use presumption and that each fair use factor under section 107 must be analyzed based on the context of the situation.

Therefore, the fair use implications of parody and satire must be made on a case by case basis analyzing the four fair use factors of Section 107: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purpose; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Looking at the factors, parody requires the original copyrighted work to make its point by defininition, and therefore a parody has a basis to use the original work. However, satire theoretically can stand on its own without the copyrighted work, which requires some justification for the act of using the copyrighted work in the first instance.

IT & Health care

Here is an op-ed piece in the Washington Post by Senators Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton about How to Heal Health Care. (They encourage the use of IT.)

Can others attend the Carr talk at MSFT?

Retrieved from "http://cubist.cs.washington.edu/CSEP590TU-wiki/index.php?title=Talk:CSE590TU&oldid=4952"