Darknet

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.

Kaleidescape wins case over DVD-ripping home server

Good news for consumers: Kaleidescape   Wins Case Over DVD-Ripping Home Server.

Kaleidescape, the maker of a home entertainment server, announced on   Friday that it has won a court victory over the DVD Copy Control Association, in a case that focused on   the ability of the device to make copies of DVDs for storage and personal use.

Does disallowed DVR service foretell YouTube's fate?

Information Week: Does Disallowed DVR Service Foretell YouTube's Fate? The court accepted the plaintiff's contention that Cablevision, rather than its customers, was directing the copyright infringement. Will the same rules apply to YouTube?

Last week, a U.S. District Court in New York City ruled that Cablevision's digital video recording service, Remote-Storage DVR, was unlawful. RS-DVR was intended to permit Cablevision subscribers without a DVR to record programs on company servers for playback at a later time.

The decision affirmed that while it may be legal for consumers to record television, it's not legal for a cable company to do so on their behalf.

In a blog post, Sherwin Siy, staff attorney at Public Knowledge, an Internet rights advocacy organization, said, "In essence, Cablevision put an extra-long cable on a DVR and housed it on its own property." That, evidently, isn't legal. ...

Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban, a known defender of copyrights, called the lawsuit a huge strategic mistake in a blog post and urged the aggrieved television networks and film studios to strike deals with Cablevision instead.

"While I think the court accurately applied copyright law as it stands today, it's still anachronistic at best," said law professor Eric Goldman in his blog. "Does it really matter if the hardware is in the users' possession or operated as a service for their benefit? It shouldn't."

Would filtering YouTube make it more liable?

Liz Gannes at New Tee Vee: Would Filtering YouTube Make it More Liable?

YouTube’s defense against claims of copyright infringement has long been the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which clears service providers from liability related to material transmitted through their systems (see text).

But if Google were to implement copyright filters, proactively screening content before it’s posted to the site, would YouTube leave the safe harbor of DMCA? That’s what some competitors in the video-sharing space have told me scares them about hiring Audible Magic or someone else to police their sites.

TiVo's new tack

NY Times: On Display, the Video Frontier.

TiVo is a company that many adore — especially those who like an underdog. In 1997 it popularized the digital video recorder, or DVR, which lets you pause live TV and fast-forward through the ads. A decade later, it is floundering in the face of generic copycats and the reluctance of many cable and satellite customers to have a second box.

But there was hope for TiVo fans at C.E.S. After nearly a year of development, the company announced that it had finished tailoring its famously user-friendly service for the set-top boxes of the cable giant Comcast — the fruits of a partnership announced last spring.

This year, Comcast customers will be offered the ability to download TiVo onto their existing box (no visit necessary from the cable guy). A monthly fee has not been announced, but a Comcast representative said it would offer TiVo as a premium alternative to its current generic DVR, which it leases for $11.95 a month. ...

YouTube ordered offline in Brazil

Reuters: YouTube Ordered Offline in Brazil

A Brazilian court is ordering YouTube to be shut down until it removes a celebrity sex video from its site. Daniela Cicarelli, a model and ex-wife of soccer great Ronaldo, is suing YouTube after a video of her apparently having sex on a beach with her boyfriend was posted to the site. Thanks to IWantMedia for the pointer.

Was it smart for YouTube to make labels partners in crime?

Digital Media Wire: Analysis: Was It a Smart Move of YouTube To Make Labels Partners in Crime?

Video killed the tv star?

Vision Blog: Video killed the tv star? L'intervista integrale a JD Lasica. A Q&A in Italiano.

'Digital Prohibition' inhibits YouTube culture

Newsfactor: 'Digital Prohibition' Inhibits YouTube Culture. Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig said that we are living in an "age of prohibition" and called upon open-source developers to create technologies that challenge the notions around copyright. They have demonstrated an ability to challenge conventions before when they defeated the Windows monopoly, he argued.

The MPAA, RIAA and viral videos

Billboard: Viral video sharing is new headache for music biz. Excerpt:

One source close to the situation says that the recording industry is lobbying YouTube and other viral video sites to implement content-filtering technologies to identify and block unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.

Among YouTube's competitors, early attempts at filtering solutions are bearing out in various ways. A search on Google Video for clips from commerce partner Sony BMG yields only video-for-sale offers, while searches for videos from other labels' artists produce unauthorized video postings. MTV's viral video unit iFilm allows only music videos that it can monetize through promotional deals or ads. Meanwhile, MySpace -- which has promotional and ad-supported music videos with the labels for a designated music video area of the site -- also is seeing unauthorized videos pop up in its viral video area.

The major labels are taking the position that these sites are responsible for policing their own communities. But in the meantime, they have been targeting individuals who use these sites to share popular music videos, alerting them that they are distributing unauthorized works.

Those efforts have produced decidedly mixed results thus far. Many of the videos that labels have requested be removed have quickly resurfaced on the site in a matter of days -- a fact that industry sources suggest supports the need for more stringent filtering by all viral video specialists.

Viral video sharing would not have been an issue just 18 months ago, when the labels still viewed music videos as a promotional tool for selling albums. But today videos are a rapidly growing money-maker for the music business. The RIAA estimates that sales of music videos topped $3.7 million in three months, after being introduced in October. Meanwhile, the major labels also are sharing in the profits of ad-supported video-on-demand offerings from AOL, Yahoo, Music Choice and others. ...

In search of the video jukebox

Dallas Morning News:

It will take at least a couple of years to get from this early stage to the era of the digital jukebox, when most movies and TV shows will be downloadable from a single place, tech industry watchers say.

Copyright holders are starting out timidly, unsure whether offering programs for download will siphon money away from their broadcasts and DVD sales.

Technology makers are trying to convince Hollywood that it can protect its properties from rampant piracy. Hollywood is worried about file-sharing technology such as BitTorrent, a software tool that allows users to download large files quickly.

And no one is sure what consumers want. What restrictions will they accept on the number of devices they can use to watch their videos? And will they prefer to order shows and movies through a TV set-top box, a Web site or a software program?

"There's a lot of confusion," said Tim Bajarin, president of research firm Creative Strategies Inc. "You have multiple channels vying to try to be the best video/music distribution vehicle, period. We're in a highly competitive phase." ...

The problem is that the companies that own movies and TV shows may be limiting the potential of the video download market by taking things so slowly. If consumers don't have a central place to buy whatever show or movie they prefer, they'll probably avoid the market altogether, said Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford University law professor and leading advocate of copyright law reform.

"You only begin to have takeoff when you have total interoperability," he said. Even iTunes has kept the music download market from being as big as it could be, he said, since it allows songs to be transferred to only one portable player, the iPod.

True. And, once again, no mention of the burgeoning marketplace in free video downloads.

I hope to launch a new videoblogging site in the next week or so.

What is commercial video?

Here's a quick poll, compiled by Julian Doncaster, on the subject of what is or isn't commercial video. Writes Julian:

I've been trying to work out just what I can do with Creative Commons music. I thought it would be a good idea to ask some "borderline" questions to see where the consensus lies.

Go take the poll!

Google lets you upload video -- with strings attached

On Friday afternoon, I uploaded my first video to Google under its new video upload program. The process was pretty similar in some ways to Ourmedia's upload process, with a few exceptions:

- They have curators -- a gatekeeper function -- which isn't too surprising. But that's a competitive advantage Ourmedia will always have over Google video. Here it is three days later, and I still haven't received word one from Google about the status of my video (they haven't "verified" it yet).

- Their taxonomy sucks. I frankly expected better of Google. The video we're seeing on the Net does not fall into Hollywood categories of "drama, comedy," etc. I can be a little bit of a taxonomy snob now, having spent months working through the various metadata schemas that we settled upon for Ourmedia -- to make finding this stuff easier for our users.

- Whlie they ask for less metadata, it's interesting -- and disappointing -- that designating rights is not a part of the upload process. There's no option to assign your media a Creative Commons license, permitting others not only to access your work but to reuse it creatively -- to remix it, borrow from it, quote from it, build upon it.

Because the default for all Google videos is traditional copyright, it is presumably illegal to download a video from Google and share it, or retransmit it to another site, or use it on a commercial site (there are many works on Ourmedia that can be used by commercial entties -- because the owner specifically permitted those uses).

There's also some noise in the blogosphere about what Google may do with your video, given their Terms of Service, which is quite a bit denser (and filled with lawyerese) than Ourmedia's terms of service: You own your own material. Ourmedia claims no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to our service.

At BoingBoing, Jacob Kaplan-Moss writes:

I've taken a look at the Video Uploader terms of service, and they contain some... suspect clauses, including the provision that Google can bill you for excessive bandwidth. Thought you might be interested...

Couple of other differences:

Google video doesn't support Flash. Ourmedia does.

Ourmedia also will freely host audio files, podcasts, images, text documents, software, games and more. Google doesn't.

Overall, though, Google's foray into video is a welcome addition to the cause of spreading the personal media revolution. Now: which of the other search engines will provide free hosting for grassroots media -- and will join an open media registry so those works can be freely shared and accessed?

PVR Blog has more here.

Watch computer video on your TV

Jay Dedman talks about what videoblogs should be, and how to get them on TV. Jay interviews Dan Melinger in this fascinating 7-minute accompanying video that shows a hard drive running Windows XP using $60 SageTV pvr software and a video capture card, all connected to the TV, allowing you to watch BitTorrent videos on your TV.

Piracy shifts gaze to video industry

Dwayne Fatherree in TechNewsWorld: Piracy Shifts Gaze to Video Industry.

'Revogging': Creative reuse of video

I hadn't heard of "revogging" until today. If vogs, or vlogs, are video blogs, revogging is the art of using other people's video blogs and making something new.

Shannon Noble, a "Flame artist" from LA, has created a few. His best one, which went up just last week, borrowed unrelated video snippets from three video bloggers -- Mica, Charlene, and Jay -- to create a new narrative story. Here's the movie page directly.

Mica wrote in comments:

the idea of taking these unconnected clips of video made by people youve never met - and forming them into a story of your own conception, especially one so affecting, is amazing! Its so simple yet i feel that you have busted through a brick wall like the friggin hulk. Its so good make more more.. it's a new kind of movie. it's storytelling - reinvented. i'm going to go watch it again.

It's an interesting and creative reuse of others' works -- and just the tip of the personal media revolution. We hope the Open Media project leads to many more such efforts (with the creators' permission).