I agree, those warnings don't provide viewers with any idea about fair use. But how much information does a company need to provide? Do they have to say "blah, blah, blah...except for fair use?" Because people will take that to mean any number of things that they'll qualify as "fair use" without any knowledge or understanding of the law.

If you want people to know about fair use, and it's your pet issue, maybe you should try an awareness campaign. I don't see how a corporation failing to put that kind of information in its warnings constitutes any kind of violation.

The wording could be clarified, but then we're stepping into a block of text showing up every time you pop a movie in. I think that if people want more of the public to be aware of fair use, they have to get their message out themselves, don't make the companies do it for you, that's just silly.

The NFL thing, though, that's just messed up and I agree they should change their wording.

The prior comment hits it - while the NFL warning is certainly misleading, DreamWorks' is not and to require the companies to provide a full summary of copyright law prior to broadcast is a bit much.

Moreover, what the claimants suggest (at least in the article) is inaccurate - there is no fair use "right," only a fair use "defense." There are six areas of exclusive rights. Some particular activities are specifically excluded from those exclusive rights. Fair use relates to certain uses that are in fact infringing but are considered permissible infringements.

The DreamWorks notice is not misleading in that it says no "unauthorized" use and enumerates a few of their exclusive rights. Most reasonable people should see "unauthorized" to mean unauthorized by law or by the copyright owner. To that end, it does what the claimants' suggest it should.

Maybe in the statute where in the government grants the monopoly called copyright, fair use is listed as a defense, not as a right. Anywhere else it is a right, just as the right to self defense is a “defense” to the charge of murder, but is clearly the right to self defense.

Many stores and restaurants assert the right to refuse service to anyone, but if they put out the sign “Whites Only” they brake the law. Lying about the law of copyright ought to void all rights. After all, there is no God given right to government granted monopolies.

No consumer wants to set through that fake warning and if consumers ruled, that lie wouldn’t be there. But monopolies are just that.

A hypertechnical response to a hypertechnical claim. The distinction is important because it goes straight to the point of the lawsuit. The claim is that media companies are misrepresenting the state of the law. The author then lumps together certain non-infringing activities which are expressly permitted under the Copyright Act together with activities that ARE infringing but are excused as fair use.

The first set of activities are authorized under the law, the second set are not authorized but might be defensible. One is a *right* that can be asserted, the other is a defense which can only be raised if the copyright owner claims infringement against the user. It's a matter of which side of the courtroom you are sitting on, which is a very big difference.

If the concern is with the validity of the warning, it is accurate - more so than what the author suggests in its place. And if your primary concern is not wanting to sit through a copyright warning, why endorse a much longer and more intrusive one? Perhaps we could simply agree that all individuals are responsible for their own actions. Ignorance of the law is no defense; it is not the media companies' responsibility to inform the public.

That said, I am an entertainment attorney who represents artists - I am no fan of media conglomerates and my comments should not be construed as being in their defense. I concur - a monopoly is a monopoly . . . but a stupid lawsuit is still stupid, no matter who the defendant is.

I'm curious to know whether any media company is providing a copyright warning that satisfies the CCIA. I noticed that not all media providers were name in the suit. What do their warnings look like, and how do they pass muster?

I also notice that the NFL warning says "...for the private use of our audience." Could this not be construed as allowing fair use? Depending on how "private use" is defined, of course.

The "Warning" is just what it says it is: a threat. It’s an attempt to extort money for use of material that users are entitled to use for free. It’s an attempt to limit/control free speech. Only in that narrow sense is it to inform: like “Halt or I’ll shoot”. Only to an attorney would that be educational.

You don’t need to tell us who you represent. We can tell by your “truth”. What will it be next week? Who will you be taking money from then?