Copyright Ramblings

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8
Over the past eighteen months or so, I've made several YouTube videos on the subject of copyright: copyright criminals, copyright bozos, and the death of fair use.

My position has shifted slightly over this time, from just trying to explain the law, and why it's wrong to simply re-post somebody else's creative work and then claim "fair use" to focusing on the abuse by copyright owners that threaten our common culture. I've shifted from trying to correct the pseudo-libertarian viewpoint that "information wants to be free" to a growing anger at the attacks on fair use.

Certainly, I support copyright. While it's not a major part of my income by any stretch, I do get book royalties monthly and would be upset if somebody else started selling my books. But on the other hand, when I get a call asking if a certain example in the book may be used in a larger collection, I'm honored to allow that.

The constitution put in the power to make laws regarding copyright and patents to encourage "science and the useful arts" not just to make authors and inventors rich, but to enrich the public commons. These protections were for the creators, not their publishers, and only to be for a limited time before ownership would pass to all humanity.

That Warner Bros still owns (and jealously protects) the Happy Birthday Song nearly 100 years after the author's death (and really, all she did was adapt an existing folk song), to me, signals the death of the public commons. That the State of Oregon would prosecute public interest web sites that post the law is simply beyond absurd.

Yes, I still get pissed off at the teenagers who post an episode of The Simpsons and then claim it's fair use. But they just don't know any better. They can be educated, and controlled. The entire concept of fair use should not be discredited and discarded because of their stupidity.

But when high paid corporate lawyers, who do know exactly what their doing, try to reshape the law in way that goes against both common accepted use and the long-term public interest, I get angry.

Here's a couple of good links for you:

• Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use
• Freedom Of Expression ®: Overzealous Copyright Bozos And Other Enemies Of Creativity (free ebook download)

And here are a few of my videos on the subject from November of 2006 to now:



For more blog postings about copyright, click here.

(and thanks to B.K. for inspiring yet another blog post)

My Exclusive Inteview with Stephen Colbert!

I got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to interview Stephen Colbert, of Comedy Central's "Colbert more... Report." He agreed to talk about Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube, and how he really feels about people using his material in their videos. Copyright Bozos watch out!

Kenrg Interviews Stephen Colbert - LiveVideo Exclusive!

NOTES TO VIACOM LAWYERS:

1) This is called "Parody." Only an idiot would think it's a real interview. Parody is a means of poking fun of what's in the news. It's also protected as free speech.

2) The raw material was not obtained illegally or recorded off the air. It was downloaded from the colbertnation.com web site. Why did Colbert put the clips there to be downloaded? To quote from the official Comedy Central web site, "Stephen has decided to put it all out there for you. And by "it," we mean footage of an interview with Stephen that you can edit any way you like." Well, this is the way I like!

More on Viacom, Viral Video, and a word from the future

My posting the other day about the Viacom lawsuit against YouTube/Google was, of course, not the only comment in the blogging or vlogging world about this. You'd think it was the lawsuit of the century the way it's been talked about - and in some ways, that might not be too far off the mark.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which caused a bit of an uproar a few years ago when it passed, will be tested here, and the results could have far reaching effects well beyond the world of YouTube.

Are common carriers and service providers responsible for the acts of their users? The DMCA says no, but Viacom says that YouTube's business model is based on copyright violation, and therefor they have made themselves responsible. Viacom, of course, owns iFilm and other net properties that have the same attitude toward copyright as YouTube.

Beyond all this, which you can read on any blog, or hear in any vlog, I want to make one quick comment, with example, about the power of viral video. This is bigger than YouTube, and its because the content creators extend far beyond Viacom.

Whatever happens to YouTube, viral video will survive based on what we, the vlogging community, create -- not based on what we rip from our TV screens.

Among the thousands of blog posts about the lawsuit was this one from CrapHammer, 'Viacom causes quite a stir'. Within that posting, Sean embedded a video from YouTube on the subject. Here it is for you:



Recognize that fellow? Why, it's me of course. I discovered this by accident, there was no permission granted, and no permission required. In my YouTube preferences, I click the box to allow embedding. This is how viral video works.

So, while you're hearing all the shouting from each side of this Viacom versus YouTube debate, remember this: online video is not all about posting poorly encoded chopped up clips from South Park. Original content, shared among users, as a means of communications --- This is viral video.

To demonstrate my point further, here's a Viacom parable, courtesy of Dr. Metropolis:

Dr. Evil sues the future!

Yes, at long last, the lawsuit you've been waiting for... Media giant Viacom (MTV, Comedy Central, Sponge Bob) sues Google/YouTube for One Billion Dollars!

So, what's going on here, besides the dinosaurs protecting their eggs?

1 - Many YouTube users upload copyrighted material that is owned by Viacom (and others).

2 - Many other YouTube users prefer to watch such clips on YouTube at their own leisure, rather than at the times dictated by TV and cable stations.

3 - YouTube uses "passive copyright enforcement," meaning that it is up to copyright owners to file complaints, rather than an active system of screening every upload for possible copyright violations.

4 - This happens on every video site, not just YouTube, but the other video sites have no assets of their own and are not owned by asset-rich Google.

5 - Viacom, being a dinosaur, is unable to adapt to the new media realities, and prefers to throw its massive weight around in a way designed to crush the new media.

6 - Viacom may make some headway in this battle, but ultimately it cannot win the larger fight for the future of how we choose to be entertained.

Bottom line: Viacom cannot un-invent broadband, file sharing, or the desire for creativity and freedom.

What can they do (if there weren't dinosaurs, that is)?

1 - Accept that the technology to capture and edit their content is not going to vanish just because they sued Google.

2 - Embrace the users using short clips (either unedited, or re-formatted into new derivative works) as their grassroots promotional team. Continue to request the removal of complete, unedited programs from YouTube where warranted.

3 - Negotiate in good faith with GooTube (and others) for a reasonable copyright and royalty solution for the future that recognizes that media creations cannot be controlled the way they have been in the past.

And, finally,

4 - Admit that they got the One Billion Dollars figure from Austin Powers and pay a royalty on it.

Viral video infection

Part of the innovation of viral video websites like YouTube and LiveVideo - indeed, the feature that makes them viral - is the ability to embed the videos into other websites with a simple bit of html or java code. That's how I've included my YouTube videos here, and elsewhere on my web.

Using that same bit of code, other bloggers have been able to include my videos when they want to. When that happens I'm always pleased and honored. That's also how I've occasionally included other people's videos on this and my other blogs.

But when does embedding go too far and become an invasion or a copyright violation?

I was recently alerted (thanks to the Frozen Ghost!) to two websites that have turned embedding into a business model: flixya.com and sumo.tv (I'm not linking them, because I'm not sure I want to give them any more business). Users at these video sites don't create content, they simply link to it. And, they make money off of the linking.

YouTube and LiveVideo don't share their revenue with the content creators. I make nothing off the videos I create. It's a hobby, and that's fine with me. These other sites, with no much lower overhead (they're not actually hosting the videos, so it's a much cheaper site to run) split the ad revenue with their members. But do those members (or even the sites) deserve to make money off of my content?

Yes, my content. Even though I'd never heard of these sites (and others like them) until a couple of days ago, many of my videos are there - through the magic of embedding - on other users' accounts. Now, they're not making much money off it. I doubt it's more than a couple of bucks. But still, is it right?

I wrote to each company and asked that my content be removed. Sumo.tv responded that I was free to turn off embedding in my YouTube account settings, but that they would not remove the links from their site. Flixya.com responded that they would be happy to remove my videos if I supply them with a list of the URLs (in the works).

Obviously, I like the response from Flixya.com better - so much so that once the fraudulent copies of my videos are removed, I may set up an account their and post them under my own name and see just how much (or little) money is to be made there.

But, what to do about Sumo.tv? In a way, I do see their point about my being in control of embedding at the source host site. But I don't want to turn that feature off because I use it.

I also, as I pointed out, use the embed to post other people's videos here and at my Highway 17 Music guitar blog. But, when I do it, I always try to credit the video author. What I do (in my mind) is put the video into the editorial context of the blog. I don't believe I'm doing anything fraudulent or trying to rip off other people's creativity.

Am I a hypocrite, or is there really a difference between what I do and what these new embedded video sites do? In my mind there is a difference, but I'd really like to hear some more opinions on this.