Darknet

Let my video go

Catching up on stuff. From the March issue of Wired magazine: Dear Hollywood Studios: Let My Video Go. Excerpt:

We have the bandwidth, the compression algorithms, and the Ethernet connections — not to mention TiVos, Apple TVs, and Vudus — for downloading movies directly to the TV. We should no longer have to drive to the video store or wait for the mail carrier. But that's not the case. The entertainment industry is blowing it once again.

To succeed in the digital realm, Hollywood needs to offer total convenience, almost infinite choice, and the freedom to watch any way we want. Instead, we have iTunes, which delivers video you can't watch on any portable device that wasn't made by Apple, and Amazon Unbox and Netflix's Watch Instantly, which feature downloads you can't watch on any device that was made by Apple. And with a mere 1,000 downloadable movies for rent on iTunes, fewer than 5,000 on Amazon, and around 6,000 on Netflix, none of them offers anything close to the 90,000 DVDs available by mail. They can't, because Hollywood is determined to protect DVD sales at the expense of electronic downloads. That needs to be fixed — because if people don't find what they want at online storefronts, pirate copies are just a click away.

Anti-piracy dragnet hurts fair use of video

Mark Glaser at MediaShift: Anti-Piracy Dragnet Could Hurt 'Fair Use' of Copyrighted Video.

Online video at risk of 'private censorship'

When college students make mashups of Hollywood movies, are they violating the law? Not necessarily, according to a new study on copyright and creativity from the Center for Social Media at American University.

It's a subject I've long been fascinated by and have wrestled with, both in Darknet and on Ourmedia.

The study, Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video, by Center director Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, co-director of the Washington College of Law’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, shows that many uses of copyrighted material in today’s online videos are eligible for fair use consideration. In short, they may be perfectly legal — the legal terrain is still murky. These uses — an exercise of freedom-of-speech rights — are now being threatened by anti-piracy measures online.

The study dentifies nine kinds of uses of copyrighted material, ranging from incidental (a video maker’s family sings “Happy Birthday”) to parody (a Christian takeoff on the song “Baby Got Back”) to pastiche and collage (finger-dancing to “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger”). The study points to a wide variety of practices — satire, parody, negative and positive commentary, discussion-triggers, illustration, diaries, archiving and of course, pastiche or collage (remixes and mashups) — all of which could be legal in some circumstances.

I've read the report (22 pages, PDF) and it's the best look at the subject I've seen. From the announcement:

The researchers followed thousands of links for videos on 75 online video platforms and discovered nine popular kinds of use (extensive database of examples at centerforsocialmedia.org/recutvideos).

1. Parody and satire: Copyrighted material used in spoofing of popular mass media, celebrities or politicians ( Baby Got Book )

2. Negative or critical commentary: Copyrighted material used to communicate a negative message ( Metallica Sucks )

3. Positive commentary: Copyrighted material used to communicate a positive message ( Steve Irwin Fan Tribute )

4. Quoting to trigger discussion: Copyrighted material used to highlight an issue and prompt public awareness, discourse ( Abstinence PSA on Feministing.com )

5. Illustration or example: Copyrighted material used to support a new idea with pictures and sound ( Evolution of Dance )

6. Incidental use: Copyrighted material captured as part of capturing something else ( Prisoners Dance to Thriller )

7. Personal reportage/diaries: Copyrighted material incorporated into the chronicling of a personal experience ( Me on stage with U2 … AGAIN!!! )

8. Archiving of vulnerable or revealing materials: Copyrighted material that might have a short life on mainstream media due to controversy ( Stephen Colbert's Speech at the White House Correspondents' Dinner )

9. Pastiche or collage: Several copyrighted materials incorporated together into a new creation, or in other cases, an imitation of sorts of copyrighted work ( Apple Commercial )

“Today, user-generated video accounts for a sizeable portion of all broadband traffic. Some of these videos add value to existing copyrighted material, usually without the copyright owner’s consent,” Aufderheide said. “This kind of work is the harbinger of an emerging era of participatory popular culture.”

The study is part of a larger participatory media project for the Center For Social Media’s Future of Public Media Project. As the report notes, next steps include further research and the convening of a blue-ribbon committee to establish best practices in fair use for online video.

Aufderheide and Jaszi are appearing at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Monday to discuss the research. To watch some of the mashups that the researchers watched, click here. A copyright and fair use blog on the subject is here.

Cross-posted to SocialMedia.biz.

On the Richter Scales' "Here comes another bubble" video dispute

Lane Hartwell: My statement regarding the Richter Scales “Here comes another bubble” video dispute.

Dave Winer: A flash conference on fair use?

Chris Knight wins battle over YouTube clip

Vindu Goel at the San Jose Mercury News: Chris Knight wins battle with Viacom over YouTube clip.

Chris Knight of North Carolina reports that he won his copyright battle with media giant Viacom.

As I wrote a week ago, Viacom had demanded that YouTube take down a TV clip posted by Knight that featured a VH1 host making fun of Knight’s own campaign ad for county school board.

With the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knight challenged the takedown notice he received from YouTube, and Viacom apparently backed down: YouTube, a unit of Google, informed Knight this evening that it had restored the video to YouTube.

You can watch the disputed YouTube clip here.

What's legal and what's fair: two different things

From today's San Jose Mercury News (Merc illustration): YouTube copyright fight shows fair and legal different.

The column was insightful, even if it could have expressed a bit more forcefully how out of whack copyright law is with the realities of the Digital Generation. It recounts the story of  Chris Knight, an independent filmmaker and blogger in North Carolina.

During an unsuccessful run for school board, he made a goofy campaign commercial that spoofed the original "Star Wars" film. The one-minute television spot portrayed Knight as a Jedi warrior - complete with homemade light saber - who promised to take on the Death Star of government bureaucracy to save the children of Rockingham County.

Knight uploaded his video to YouTube, a unit of Google, in part to make it easy to embed in his blog (http://theknightshift.blogspot.com).

Someone over at VH1, a cable channel owned by media giant Viacom, stumbled on the clip and thought it was entertaining enough to mock on an episode of the TV show "Web Junk 2.0." (You can see both versions at blogs.mercurynews.com/vindu.)

Viacom never contacted Knight before using his work. It didn't need to because the company wasn't copying it, but instead excerpting it and adding comic commentary.

Knight didn't care. He loved his 58 seconds of fame. "I was really honored," he said.

So he did what anyone would do: He copied the VH1 segment from his digital video recorder, put it up on YouTube and blogged about it. ...

Viacom asked YouTube to take down the clip under a provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and YouTube complied. ...

On Friday, Knight formally challenged Viacom's move, claiming he has every right to post the video that VH1 made from his video.

In the lingo of copyright lawyers, Knight argues that he made "fair use" of Viacom's clip, just as the company made fair use of his commercial by making fun of it on TV. ...

Alas, under the law, Knight is wrong - even though his argument makes sense.

Viacom based its clip on Knight's work, but the show's commentary and editing made it something distinct, with its own copyright protection.

Legally, that means Knight can't post Viacom's clip without permission unless he adds something that would create yet another video - in effect, a commentary on Viacom's commentary.

That's likely correct -- and shows the disconnect between copyright law and digital culture. Youtubers, brace yourselves for a harsh dose of legal reality.

Hulu: Hollywood's answer to YouTube

San Francisco Chronicle: Hulu: Hollywood's hope to hula YouTube into the dust. The site isn't operational yet.

Differences between the Blu-ray, HD DVD formats

This Associated Press story compares the differences between the Blu-ray and HD DVD formats. Excerpt:

Blu-ray and HD DVD both offer sharp, high-definition images and sound best when viewed on high-def TV screens. Both can also hold more data than a standard DVD, allowing for interactive features, games and other extras.

Both formats also require special players, which can play standard DVDs as well but not discs in the rival format.

LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics have dual-format players, but they don't play all the special features. Both are priced at more than $1,000.

In terms of differences, Blu-ray can hold more data, about 50 GB, compared with about 30 GB for HD DVD.

HD DVD requires all players bearing its logo to support picture-in-picture capabilities and Internet connections that allow for downloading of trailers and other special features. Those capabilities are optional for Blu-ray players, though most players will support similar features eventually.

The biggest difference is the availability of content.

More studios, including Sony and Disney, support Blu-ray exclusively. Only Universal Pictures supports HD DVD exclusively. Warner Bros. and Paramount release films in both formats.

Universal Music will sell songs without copy protection

NY Times: Universal Music Will Sell Songs Without Copy Protection.

Nice. I'll definitely be checking out their catalog to see what's available for purchase.

AP: Video-Sharing Site Veoh Sues Universal Music.

YouTube users to get access to EMI's videos, clips

San Jose Mercury News: Google and major music label EMI have reached an agreement that will allow YouTube users to watch music videos from EMI artists and include clips from them in videos they create, the companies said today.