Yesterday, as the inevitable fallout from David Letterman's who-gives-a-shit "sex scandal" began to drift down from on high like magical cable-news-ratings-booster pixie dust, this word from the New York Times, letting us know about CBS scrambling to scrub the Web of Dave's on-air mea culpa from Thursday night's show. Never mind that there are plenty of "Late Show" clips online, whether on YouTube, CBS's official TV.com or everywhere else, somehow only these specific clips are causing copyright concerns.
Does CBS have the legal authority to take down these clips? Sure, though no one could fully explain to you why they would bother - logically, that is. But this is obviously a case of a mega-corporation using copyright law (specifically the DMCA) to censor clips they don't want the public to have a chance to view, which makes it a perfect example of the deep flaws in our current system of "intellectual property."
Showing posts with label copyfight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyfight. Show all posts
Monday, October 5, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Vegemite, Delicious Vegemite
Saw on Boing Boing today a mention of a ludicrously restrictive Terms of Use agreement over at the Kraft Corporation site for their product, Vegemite, apparently a delicious Australian spread that I have heard mixed reviews of, let's say, from people who have actually eaten it, which I have not. Evidently, you are not allowed to link to the site "in any way whatsover."
And you can check it out on their site by following this link.
And you can check it out on their site by following this link.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Lego of My First Amendment Rights!
This story is a week old now, but I've been away and I had to make a comment about it, because it's just ridiculous and a perfect example of corporate censorship due to abuse of intellectual property law. Here's the rundown:
Spinal Tap has been on tour, a kind of acoustic, old-timers tour (called "Unwigged and Unplugged"), which is pretty funny in and of itself. In addition to playing Tap songs and Folksmen songs, they joke around and show videos and stuff. Here's one of the videos, which was made by a high school kid and uploaded to YouTube and which Tap loved:
They loved it so much, for obvious reasons, that they actually played it at their shows. So this was all fine and good until it came time to put out a DVD of the tour, which would have included some of the kid's Lego video. Long story short, Lego balked.
Julie Stern, a Lego spokesdrone, told the New York Times, "We love that our fans are so passionate and creative with our products. But it had some inappropriate language, and the tone wasn't appropriate for our target audience of kids 6 to 12." (Because corporations apparently have the right to dictate, under the threat of a lawsuit, how consumers use their products.) The article continues:
"Kia Kamran, an intellectual property lawyer representing Spinal Tap, said the band could have prevailed had Lego sued alleging copyright infringement, because Mr. Hickey’s video does not show the brand’s logo and is satirical. But the band did not deem the fight worth the expense, he said. 'In my heart of hearts, I do think this is fair use' of copyrighted material, Mr. Kamran said."
And, after explaining that numerous Lego parody videos exist on YouTube, some with much more "inappropriate" content and pointing out that Lego has not attempted to take them down, the article returns to the aptly named Ms. Stern:
“'YouTube is a less commercial use,' Ms. Stern said. 'But when you get into a more commercial use, that’s when we have to look into the fact that we are a trademarked brand, and we really have to control the use of our brand, and our brand values.'"
Finally, the kid (Coleman Hickey, now 16) who made the video, after acknowledging his disappointment says, "It’s not like I was going to get any money for it, but it’s too bad. Lego has the right to do that, but it’s unfortunate that they don’t have a little more of a sense of humor.”
First of all, young Coleman, Lego does NOT have the "right" to do this. It is not your fault that you think this is the case, because we have allowed corporations to control the way young people are taught about intellectual property and the propaganda that they release is almost never challenged by the news media (which are, of course, almost entirely owned by the same corporations). Lego is merely throwing its weight around because they judged, correctly, that Spinal Tap would not want to pay the gigabucks required to fight them in court - NOT because they thought they had a legitimate case. Who can blame the band? Tap is three comedians in their 60s milking their most popular act prior to retirement. Lego is a privately held Danish company worth hundreds of millions, if not several billion, dollars.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that Lego doesn't have a sense of humor; it's more unfortunate that corporations are allowed to strong-arm artists (whether they are corporate artists or not) and effectively prevent them from exercising their First Amendment right of free speech without getting smacked down. The term for this is "prior restraint."
Second, the writer of this article blithely goes along with - or even creates - the impression that Lego was somehow asserting copyright in this case, by attributing the notion that, if Tap had used the video and Lego had sued, the suit would be based on a claim of copyright, to an IP lawyer (notice, however, that he's not actually quoted saying that). But that's a highly specious assertion.
The United States Copyright Office defines copyright as "a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works." Further, copyright protects "original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."
Note that plastic toys do not seem to be one of the protected categories. However, this is not made explicitly clear, as it would perhaps be a waste of time to attempt to list all of the specific things in the world copyright does not protect. Plus, since copyright applies to artworks like sculptures, perhaps a lawyer could make the case that Legos are sculptures and therefore subject to copyright.
It doesn't matter, though, because this dispute is not about a copy of Legos. It's about a depiction of Legos in a video and whether that video can be incorporated into another video. Legos used to be under a patent that prevented other companies from marketing similar plastic bricks, but that patent expired in 1988. Trademark law prohibits someone from calling their similar plastic brick a "Lego," but not from calling it anything else. Trademark certainly does not have anything to say about your "brand values," whatever the fuck that corporatist oxymoron is supposed to mean. Nope, all trademark means is that someone can't make the exact same thing that you do and call it the exact same thing that you call it.
Common sense - and case law, which is mostly all we have to go on in this type of case, since there is not much that is explicit about IP laws and these cases can only be decided by going to court - would seem to suggest that neither copyright, trademark or patent protections apply in this case. Maybe look at it this way: If you owned a Mustang, what's happened here is the equivalent of the Ford Motor Company telling you can't put your Mustang in a movie. If you are under the impression that this is Ford's "right," then you, too, have succumbed to the aggressive propaganda by which corporations have been siphoning up our rights as citizens when it comes to freedom of expression.
As a kid, Legos were my favorite toy, for many years. Now, they largely suck because they went from being a highly interchangeable creative building toy to being sold in super-specialized packs with much less interchangeability and much more cross-branding. That alone is a real shame; but what the company has done in this instance is simply a disgrace.
Spinal Tap has been on tour, a kind of acoustic, old-timers tour (called "Unwigged and Unplugged"), which is pretty funny in and of itself. In addition to playing Tap songs and Folksmen songs, they joke around and show videos and stuff. Here's one of the videos, which was made by a high school kid and uploaded to YouTube and which Tap loved:
They loved it so much, for obvious reasons, that they actually played it at their shows. So this was all fine and good until it came time to put out a DVD of the tour, which would have included some of the kid's Lego video. Long story short, Lego balked.
Julie Stern, a Lego spokesdrone, told the New York Times, "We love that our fans are so passionate and creative with our products. But it had some inappropriate language, and the tone wasn't appropriate for our target audience of kids 6 to 12." (Because corporations apparently have the right to dictate, under the threat of a lawsuit, how consumers use their products.) The article continues:
"Kia Kamran, an intellectual property lawyer representing Spinal Tap, said the band could have prevailed had Lego sued alleging copyright infringement, because Mr. Hickey’s video does not show the brand’s logo and is satirical. But the band did not deem the fight worth the expense, he said. 'In my heart of hearts, I do think this is fair use' of copyrighted material, Mr. Kamran said."
And, after explaining that numerous Lego parody videos exist on YouTube, some with much more "inappropriate" content and pointing out that Lego has not attempted to take them down, the article returns to the aptly named Ms. Stern:
“'YouTube is a less commercial use,' Ms. Stern said. 'But when you get into a more commercial use, that’s when we have to look into the fact that we are a trademarked brand, and we really have to control the use of our brand, and our brand values.'"
Finally, the kid (Coleman Hickey, now 16) who made the video, after acknowledging his disappointment says, "It’s not like I was going to get any money for it, but it’s too bad. Lego has the right to do that, but it’s unfortunate that they don’t have a little more of a sense of humor.”
First of all, young Coleman, Lego does NOT have the "right" to do this. It is not your fault that you think this is the case, because we have allowed corporations to control the way young people are taught about intellectual property and the propaganda that they release is almost never challenged by the news media (which are, of course, almost entirely owned by the same corporations). Lego is merely throwing its weight around because they judged, correctly, that Spinal Tap would not want to pay the gigabucks required to fight them in court - NOT because they thought they had a legitimate case. Who can blame the band? Tap is three comedians in their 60s milking their most popular act prior to retirement. Lego is a privately held Danish company worth hundreds of millions, if not several billion, dollars.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that Lego doesn't have a sense of humor; it's more unfortunate that corporations are allowed to strong-arm artists (whether they are corporate artists or not) and effectively prevent them from exercising their First Amendment right of free speech without getting smacked down. The term for this is "prior restraint."
Second, the writer of this article blithely goes along with - or even creates - the impression that Lego was somehow asserting copyright in this case, by attributing the notion that, if Tap had used the video and Lego had sued, the suit would be based on a claim of copyright, to an IP lawyer (notice, however, that he's not actually quoted saying that). But that's a highly specious assertion.
The United States Copyright Office defines copyright as "a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works." Further, copyright protects "original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."
Note that plastic toys do not seem to be one of the protected categories. However, this is not made explicitly clear, as it would perhaps be a waste of time to attempt to list all of the specific things in the world copyright does not protect. Plus, since copyright applies to artworks like sculptures, perhaps a lawyer could make the case that Legos are sculptures and therefore subject to copyright.
It doesn't matter, though, because this dispute is not about a copy of Legos. It's about a depiction of Legos in a video and whether that video can be incorporated into another video. Legos used to be under a patent that prevented other companies from marketing similar plastic bricks, but that patent expired in 1988. Trademark law prohibits someone from calling their similar plastic brick a "Lego," but not from calling it anything else. Trademark certainly does not have anything to say about your "brand values," whatever the fuck that corporatist oxymoron is supposed to mean. Nope, all trademark means is that someone can't make the exact same thing that you do and call it the exact same thing that you call it.
Common sense - and case law, which is mostly all we have to go on in this type of case, since there is not much that is explicit about IP laws and these cases can only be decided by going to court - would seem to suggest that neither copyright, trademark or patent protections apply in this case. Maybe look at it this way: If you owned a Mustang, what's happened here is the equivalent of the Ford Motor Company telling you can't put your Mustang in a movie. If you are under the impression that this is Ford's "right," then you, too, have succumbed to the aggressive propaganda by which corporations have been siphoning up our rights as citizens when it comes to freedom of expression.
As a kid, Legos were my favorite toy, for many years. Now, they largely suck because they went from being a highly interchangeable creative building toy to being sold in super-specialized packs with much less interchangeability and much more cross-branding. That alone is a real shame; but what the company has done in this instance is simply a disgrace.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Okay, I'll talk about copyright for a second
I have so far largely avoided talking about one of my pet issues on this blog, namely the tangle of thorns known as the current take on copyright law in the U.S. I've avoided it mostly so I wouldn't end up writing only about this topic, though I have mentioned it on occasion, because in my experience people hate this issue and find it incredibly boring. I'd like to tackle it at some point, though, and try to make it interesting to people, and try to make it matter to them. I think fixing our broken copyright system matters a great deal and gets to the very heart of our democracy, our First Amendment right to free speech.
Today, though, I just wanted to mention a very specific case. Back in February, I wrote about the Oscars which had just been handed out. At the time, I embedded a YouTube clip from the broadcast of a skit performed by Seth Rogen and James Franco as their Pineapple Express characters. It was a hilarious skit, one of the (few) highlights of the telecast and, after watching PE again the other night, I wanted to watch the skit again.
Alas, when I went to my post to watch the embedded clip, I clicked on it and got this message instead: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by AMPAS Oscars." In other words, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which hands out the Oscars and produces the awards show, did not authorize that clip to be shown on YouTube. I'd like to point out a few things about this:
First, if you followed the above link back to that post, you'll notice I have reembedded the clip from a different website. AMPAS's takedown request was completely useless, even though it seems to have been effective with regard to YouTube, because there are hundreds of other video sharing sites on the Web and once a popular clip has been passed around it's as near to impossible as makes no difference to take it down. The fast Google search I performed to find the clip somewhere other than YouTube yielded dozens of sites on the first results page. Bottom line: this brand of corporate censorship - oh, what? you think that's not the right word? you want me to grab a dictionary? - literally does not work.
Second, I'd like to know by what reasonable calculation the Academy loses one stinking dime by allowing fans to share a clip like this. I don't see it on their website. I don't see it exclusively licensed to another site, like Funny or Die. Is AMPAS going to release the clip in some other form, for instance, an Oscar highlights DVD? Maybe they will - and if that's the plan, would someone walk me through how leaving the clip up on YouTube fucks up that plan? Maybe you think that the argument is that no one would buy the DVD, or download, or whatever, if the clip was available for free. Really? How do you know that? How do you know that the kind of person who would actually buy such a DVD even knows that YouTube exists? How do you know that, even if they know the clip is on YouTube, that they wouldn't buy the DVD for the far superior quality and for all the other clips that such a DVD would theoretically contain? The truth is, no one has any idea but I would suggest that the tiny little market for such a DVD would not be hurt - in fact, with the right kind of promotion, it could be helped - by allowing that clip to be seen online.
Third, fuck AMPAS and its cadre of overpaid lawyers, billing hours just to justify their retainers. This is the kind of reflexive, thoughtless, overzealous, anti-consumer, anti-fan copyright protectionism that we, the people, need to crush like a mob hit in a trash compactor. This is the toughest aspect of the problem, though - getting "the people" to care about any of this. Much in the same way that some people are not in favor of taxing the wealthiest Americans a bit more to provide important services for poorer people because they think they themselves are going to be rich someday, even though there is almost no chance of that (amidst many other, much better arguments for the stupidity of their position), other folks think that the draconian copyright protections lobbied for and won by the media corporations might help them out when they create valuable content one day. Which they almost certainly will not. The "common sense" argument, that, well, of course AMPAS should take down the content, because it's their property, deserves a longer dissection than I feel like doing right now, but I will come back to it.
Fourth, and finally, at some point a different kind of common sense will have to prevail, by which media corporations will realize that they aren't getting anywhere with this type of behavior. Like the political argument that says the war on terror has ended up creating more terrorists, the war on "piracy" will only create more pirates. That is, when I hear that some mom in the Midwest - whatever her true motives - did some minor music sharing and so now has to fork over a million bucks to the recording industry, it makes me want to steal music and give it away to everyone I know. Ah, but will I actually do so? So, my hating the industry for being total dicks, so long as I don't steal anything, is of no concern?
Today, though, I just wanted to mention a very specific case. Back in February, I wrote about the Oscars which had just been handed out. At the time, I embedded a YouTube clip from the broadcast of a skit performed by Seth Rogen and James Franco as their Pineapple Express characters. It was a hilarious skit, one of the (few) highlights of the telecast and, after watching PE again the other night, I wanted to watch the skit again.
Alas, when I went to my post to watch the embedded clip, I clicked on it and got this message instead: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by AMPAS Oscars." In other words, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which hands out the Oscars and produces the awards show, did not authorize that clip to be shown on YouTube. I'd like to point out a few things about this:
First, if you followed the above link back to that post, you'll notice I have reembedded the clip from a different website. AMPAS's takedown request was completely useless, even though it seems to have been effective with regard to YouTube, because there are hundreds of other video sharing sites on the Web and once a popular clip has been passed around it's as near to impossible as makes no difference to take it down. The fast Google search I performed to find the clip somewhere other than YouTube yielded dozens of sites on the first results page. Bottom line: this brand of corporate censorship - oh, what? you think that's not the right word? you want me to grab a dictionary? - literally does not work.
Second, I'd like to know by what reasonable calculation the Academy loses one stinking dime by allowing fans to share a clip like this. I don't see it on their website. I don't see it exclusively licensed to another site, like Funny or Die. Is AMPAS going to release the clip in some other form, for instance, an Oscar highlights DVD? Maybe they will - and if that's the plan, would someone walk me through how leaving the clip up on YouTube fucks up that plan? Maybe you think that the argument is that no one would buy the DVD, or download, or whatever, if the clip was available for free. Really? How do you know that? How do you know that the kind of person who would actually buy such a DVD even knows that YouTube exists? How do you know that, even if they know the clip is on YouTube, that they wouldn't buy the DVD for the far superior quality and for all the other clips that such a DVD would theoretically contain? The truth is, no one has any idea but I would suggest that the tiny little market for such a DVD would not be hurt - in fact, with the right kind of promotion, it could be helped - by allowing that clip to be seen online.
Third, fuck AMPAS and its cadre of overpaid lawyers, billing hours just to justify their retainers. This is the kind of reflexive, thoughtless, overzealous, anti-consumer, anti-fan copyright protectionism that we, the people, need to crush like a mob hit in a trash compactor. This is the toughest aspect of the problem, though - getting "the people" to care about any of this. Much in the same way that some people are not in favor of taxing the wealthiest Americans a bit more to provide important services for poorer people because they think they themselves are going to be rich someday, even though there is almost no chance of that (amidst many other, much better arguments for the stupidity of their position), other folks think that the draconian copyright protections lobbied for and won by the media corporations might help them out when they create valuable content one day. Which they almost certainly will not. The "common sense" argument, that, well, of course AMPAS should take down the content, because it's their property, deserves a longer dissection than I feel like doing right now, but I will come back to it.
Fourth, and finally, at some point a different kind of common sense will have to prevail, by which media corporations will realize that they aren't getting anywhere with this type of behavior. Like the political argument that says the war on terror has ended up creating more terrorists, the war on "piracy" will only create more pirates. That is, when I hear that some mom in the Midwest - whatever her true motives - did some minor music sharing and so now has to fork over a million bucks to the recording industry, it makes me want to steal music and give it away to everyone I know. Ah, but will I actually do so? So, my hating the industry for being total dicks, so long as I don't steal anything, is of no concern?
Monday, June 22, 2009
Finally, an end to music piracy!
Now that the latest trial of international digital music thief, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, has ended with a fine of $1.92 million levied against the Brainerd, Minnesota, mother of four, for having offered 24 songs for free download on the Kazaa file-sharing service, I must express some relief that digital "piracy" has finally been stopped once and for all! I have lost so much sleep over the last decade on behalf of the noble corporations that produce our music and other popular entertainment, just thinking about the sadness and sense of helplessness they must have felt as they've watched themselves get robbed again and again by their own "fans."
Real fans--for these despicable scofflaws do not deserve that name--know that the only morally correct way to consume media is to do so in exactly the way the giant media corporations tell us to. So if we have to pay $18 for a new CD of mostly filler from a mediocre band that cost perhaps $6 to actually make, so be it. Or if we have to keep buying the movies, music and television shows that we have already bought each time a new format is introduced, well, of course we'll do it. It's only fair.
We are here--the fans, the real fans--to prop up the old business models for as long as necessary--maybe forever! Consumers, after all, are not the leaders in the marketplace. Just because we have the capability and the technology to consume media the way we want to when we want to, there's no way we should do so until the corporations have given us permission. It's so cool of them that they are slowly beginning to do so, too! Now a lot of music can be bought on the iTunes store--movies, too! Of course, these files can't be given away, swapped, shared or remixed in the same way that, say, a CD could have been, but that's probably for the best--I mean, I'm sure that the corporations have the best interests of their fans at heart. If they think I don't really need to be able to copy and remix a digital movie--or that I should pay more for that ability--well, surely, they know best, right?
I do, I do trust them--the media corporations and their consortiums, like the RIAA--and I just know that they all do business fairly, with integrity, and without a whiff of greed. I mean, if they didn't--perish the thought--the people just wouldn't stand for it, would they?
Real fans--for these despicable scofflaws do not deserve that name--know that the only morally correct way to consume media is to do so in exactly the way the giant media corporations tell us to. So if we have to pay $18 for a new CD of mostly filler from a mediocre band that cost perhaps $6 to actually make, so be it. Or if we have to keep buying the movies, music and television shows that we have already bought each time a new format is introduced, well, of course we'll do it. It's only fair.
We are here--the fans, the real fans--to prop up the old business models for as long as necessary--maybe forever! Consumers, after all, are not the leaders in the marketplace. Just because we have the capability and the technology to consume media the way we want to when we want to, there's no way we should do so until the corporations have given us permission. It's so cool of them that they are slowly beginning to do so, too! Now a lot of music can be bought on the iTunes store--movies, too! Of course, these files can't be given away, swapped, shared or remixed in the same way that, say, a CD could have been, but that's probably for the best--I mean, I'm sure that the corporations have the best interests of their fans at heart. If they think I don't really need to be able to copy and remix a digital movie--or that I should pay more for that ability--well, surely, they know best, right?
I do, I do trust them--the media corporations and their consortiums, like the RIAA--and I just know that they all do business fairly, with integrity, and without a whiff of greed. I mean, if they didn't--perish the thought--the people just wouldn't stand for it, would they?
Friday, March 6, 2009
Matt Zoller Seitz on Kevin B. Lee
Came upon a fine essay by critic and filmmaker Matt Zoller Seitz on The House Next Door blog, about more YouTube takedowns. This time, YouTube has apparently taken down critic Kevin B. Lee's entire archive of video essays because they make use of copyrighted film clips for the purpose of scholarly commentary. Rather than drone on about this myself, I'll just encourage anyone interested to read Seitz's essay.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
OMG, UMG, WTF?
Amidst ongoing reports of the Universal Music Group's abuse of YouTube's automated Content I.D. system, which uses a digital "fingerprint" to identify copyrighted content and remove it from YouTube without regard for Fair Use, comes an article in today's NYT, which begins thusly:
"Google's YouTube and the Universal Music Group, the world’s largest music label, are in advanced discussions over a licensing agreement that could lead to the creation of a premium site for music videos, according a person briefed on the talks."
The backstory here is that the sub-divisions of the sub-divisions of the media leviathans that control all the world's music, probably going back to our simian ancestors' rhythmic stick-banging, if they had their way, had worked out a way to accept uses of their music tracks in YouTubers' uploads, namely by running advertising against those videos on the YouTube site. This arrangement was worked out as a way for the labels to avoid looking like Super-Colossal/Special-Gigantic Dickheads for, say, taking down 30-second videos of toddlers dancing around to music by Prince (even though such a use is absolutely, unequivocally and obviously an instance of Fair Use, a legal principle neither the music labels nor the film and television studios appear to grasp, and not a violation of copyright in any way).
Except, apparently, UMG decided there wasn't enough money in this arrangement which, to be fair, would also have allowed potentially infringing uses to stay up and generate ad revenue. So now UMG has changed its policy to Automatic Takedown when the Content I.D. system finds one of its songs on YouTube. This has led to the usual indiscrimate corporate censorship, in which even uses of Universal content falling under Fair Use result in robot takedown with the added chilling effect that the victims are afraid to seek redress because they don't want to be sued by the Big Bad Wolf. Don't think this is happening? Well, here's an example:
This viral video, made by DustFilms, was a smash on YouTube until UMG took it down. Now it's a smash on Funny Or Die.
Parody has long been acknowledged as Fair Use - and it's not even one of those difficult-to-figure-out Fair Use cases. The US Supreme Court, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., a landmark case, held unanimously that a parody that reproduces a substantial portion of a copyrighted work, even for profit, is still protected speech under the Fair Use clause of the 1976 Copyright Act. DustFilms' amusing series of "literal" music videos are clearly parodies. Case closed.
So, automated takedown or not, YouTube's removal of this video (and subsequent "literal music videos") at UMG's request is nothing less than illegal corporate supression of protected speech. The trouble is, when this kind of thing happens, no small-time artist has the financial ability to take on Universal's legal machine. This is where we are today with copyright in America. The corporations that control the vast majority of the intellectual property that makes up our popular culture - which many would suggest is the stuff of our collective consciousness as a people, and very much a subject for art and criticism - are rich enough to illegally cock-block anyone who dares to create that art or criticism.
I know this firsthand, after having worked at a smallish media corporation with a giantish fear of being sued for infringement and seeing the chilling effect, every single day, of that fear on the media we were trying to create. That's bad enough, but at least that company had a legal department and a world-famous top executive; hell, if we had gotten sued, we could have noisily fought back. Individual artists rarely have that chance.
Then today comes this news that UMG's new "solution" for this "problem" is to start a new "premium" website with YouTube for their music videos. Sigh. Just what we need, another fucking online video site.
I get that these old media companies are desperately trying to navigate the uncharted waters of the new media space - or rather, are desperately trying to ignore the long-existing charts because they don't like the lay of the land and hope to miracle some kind of Northwest Passage through it - and it's not easy to do. Nor is it easy for them to watch their old business models crumble all around them. I can sympathize with them, if I screw up my face and squeeze my eyes shut and clap really loud and believe in fairies, just a little bit.
Maybe this UMG/YT premium site will be the answer to old media's prayers. But if it incorporates the same censoring, restrictive, Big Brother-ish, anti-fan oafishness of their efforts so far, there's little chance of success.
"Google's YouTube and the Universal Music Group, the world’s largest music label, are in advanced discussions over a licensing agreement that could lead to the creation of a premium site for music videos, according a person briefed on the talks."
The backstory here is that the sub-divisions of the sub-divisions of the media leviathans that control all the world's music, probably going back to our simian ancestors' rhythmic stick-banging, if they had their way, had worked out a way to accept uses of their music tracks in YouTubers' uploads, namely by running advertising against those videos on the YouTube site. This arrangement was worked out as a way for the labels to avoid looking like Super-Colossal/Special-Gigantic Dickheads for, say, taking down 30-second videos of toddlers dancing around to music by Prince (even though such a use is absolutely, unequivocally and obviously an instance of Fair Use, a legal principle neither the music labels nor the film and television studios appear to grasp, and not a violation of copyright in any way).
Except, apparently, UMG decided there wasn't enough money in this arrangement which, to be fair, would also have allowed potentially infringing uses to stay up and generate ad revenue. So now UMG has changed its policy to Automatic Takedown when the Content I.D. system finds one of its songs on YouTube. This has led to the usual indiscrimate corporate censorship, in which even uses of Universal content falling under Fair Use result in robot takedown with the added chilling effect that the victims are afraid to seek redress because they don't want to be sued by the Big Bad Wolf. Don't think this is happening? Well, here's an example:
This viral video, made by DustFilms, was a smash on YouTube until UMG took it down. Now it's a smash on Funny Or Die.
Take on Me: Literal Video Version - watch more funny videos
Parody has long been acknowledged as Fair Use - and it's not even one of those difficult-to-figure-out Fair Use cases. The US Supreme Court, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., a landmark case, held unanimously that a parody that reproduces a substantial portion of a copyrighted work, even for profit, is still protected speech under the Fair Use clause of the 1976 Copyright Act. DustFilms' amusing series of "literal" music videos are clearly parodies. Case closed.
So, automated takedown or not, YouTube's removal of this video (and subsequent "literal music videos") at UMG's request is nothing less than illegal corporate supression of protected speech. The trouble is, when this kind of thing happens, no small-time artist has the financial ability to take on Universal's legal machine. This is where we are today with copyright in America. The corporations that control the vast majority of the intellectual property that makes up our popular culture - which many would suggest is the stuff of our collective consciousness as a people, and very much a subject for art and criticism - are rich enough to illegally cock-block anyone who dares to create that art or criticism.
I know this firsthand, after having worked at a smallish media corporation with a giantish fear of being sued for infringement and seeing the chilling effect, every single day, of that fear on the media we were trying to create. That's bad enough, but at least that company had a legal department and a world-famous top executive; hell, if we had gotten sued, we could have noisily fought back. Individual artists rarely have that chance.
Then today comes this news that UMG's new "solution" for this "problem" is to start a new "premium" website with YouTube for their music videos. Sigh. Just what we need, another fucking online video site.
I get that these old media companies are desperately trying to navigate the uncharted waters of the new media space - or rather, are desperately trying to ignore the long-existing charts because they don't like the lay of the land and hope to miracle some kind of Northwest Passage through it - and it's not easy to do. Nor is it easy for them to watch their old business models crumble all around them. I can sympathize with them, if I screw up my face and squeeze my eyes shut and clap really loud and believe in fairies, just a little bit.
Maybe this UMG/YT premium site will be the answer to old media's prayers. But if it incorporates the same censoring, restrictive, Big Brother-ish, anti-fan oafishness of their efforts so far, there's little chance of success.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Streaming Bullshit, a Rant
From an article in today's NYT called "Digital Pirates Winning Battle With Studios":
“Streaming has gotten efficient and cheap enough and it gives users more control than downloads do. This is where piracy is headed,” said James L. McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research. “Consumers are under the impression that everything they want to watch should be easily streamable.” [emphasis added]
This points to one of the most infuriating aspects of the whole online "piracy" issue. We live in a society that, in certain sectors, elevates capitalism and the "free market" to the level of divinity, and all compassion, virtue, humility, morality, common sense, intelligence and even life itself is to be sacrificed, as the ancients would spill the guts and blood of goats and sheep on the marble temple mount, to this fearsome godhead - let us consider finance or the oil industry or pharmaceuticals - whereas, in other sectors, we believe in crushing into dust any emerging market that threatens the present business model, no matter how dead that model may be. I'm talking about you, Hollywood - which today means a handful of giant international conglomerates.
Is it possible, has any of these brilliant analysts even stopped for a second to consider, that if "consumers are under the impression that everything they want to watch should be easily streamable," that consumers might be right? As far as the MSM is concerned, the only people who would put forth this argument are wild-eyed, long-haired, dirty-hippie anarchist pirates - a word that is used to make ordinary college students sound as dangerous and criminal as those crazy motherfuckers in Somalia who hijacked that oil tanker a couple months ago.
Do you think college students are as dangerous as those crazy motherfuckers in Somalia who hijacked that oil tanker a couple months ago?
Just as suing Napster, P2P software companies and, eventually, music fans themselves did absolutely nothing to help the music industry (1) stop music file-sharing or (2) save its business model or (3) not look like miserable cunts, so will trying to stop "piracy" completely and totally fail to save Hollywood's old business model. Yes, the stakes are THAT low - this is just about a freaking business model!
Capitalism is, by fucking definition, about rooting out and CAPITALIZING ON emerging markets; once a business model fails, a company that clings to it is doomed to fail, too! Didn't you pricks go to business school? Sorry, I mean, didn't you pricks go to elementary school?
But what's much worse is the way the MSM is telling only the studios' version of the story. It makes sense, of course - it's the same industry. That doesn't mean it's not a disgrace.
“Streaming has gotten efficient and cheap enough and it gives users more control than downloads do. This is where piracy is headed,” said James L. McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research. “Consumers are under the impression that everything they want to watch should be easily streamable.” [emphasis added]
This points to one of the most infuriating aspects of the whole online "piracy" issue. We live in a society that, in certain sectors, elevates capitalism and the "free market" to the level of divinity, and all compassion, virtue, humility, morality, common sense, intelligence and even life itself is to be sacrificed, as the ancients would spill the guts and blood of goats and sheep on the marble temple mount, to this fearsome godhead - let us consider finance or the oil industry or pharmaceuticals - whereas, in other sectors, we believe in crushing into dust any emerging market that threatens the present business model, no matter how dead that model may be. I'm talking about you, Hollywood - which today means a handful of giant international conglomerates.
Is it possible, has any of these brilliant analysts even stopped for a second to consider, that if "consumers are under the impression that everything they want to watch should be easily streamable," that consumers might be right? As far as the MSM is concerned, the only people who would put forth this argument are wild-eyed, long-haired, dirty-hippie anarchist pirates - a word that is used to make ordinary college students sound as dangerous and criminal as those crazy motherfuckers in Somalia who hijacked that oil tanker a couple months ago.
Do you think college students are as dangerous as those crazy motherfuckers in Somalia who hijacked that oil tanker a couple months ago?
Just as suing Napster, P2P software companies and, eventually, music fans themselves did absolutely nothing to help the music industry (1) stop music file-sharing or (2) save its business model or (3) not look like miserable cunts, so will trying to stop "piracy" completely and totally fail to save Hollywood's old business model. Yes, the stakes are THAT low - this is just about a freaking business model!
Capitalism is, by fucking definition, about rooting out and CAPITALIZING ON emerging markets; once a business model fails, a company that clings to it is doomed to fail, too! Didn't you pricks go to business school? Sorry, I mean, didn't you pricks go to elementary school?
But what's much worse is the way the MSM is telling only the studios' version of the story. It makes sense, of course - it's the same industry. That doesn't mean it's not a disgrace.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
We'll always have Pirates.
Casablanca repurposed as an anti-piracy PSA. Copyright Warner Bros. I am posting this video as a public service because I think piracy is very, very wrong. I also wanted to offer my support for Warner Bros. efforts to stamp out the repurposing of its intellectual property for contemptible ends.
I ripped this video off the Get Smart DVD. Yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
