Great overview of some of the primary FC concerns, Denver. I should clarify my earlier comment w/r/t mirroring YouTube. Although a literal mirror would be fantastic, I am thinking about less formal localized practices. For example, I often use YouTube when teaching or presenting. It would be wise for me to actually download those videos, despite the legal ambiguity of doing so.
Likewise, I hope that, for a more pop culty example, fans of Mariah Carey are create an archive of the best Mariah clips. I may be reaching way back for some of the younger subscribers but the Napster shutdown should be an instructive memory for us. Although we already had technical alternatives when Napster closed, it was nonetheless a serious setback in the project of archiving contemporary culture, free and otherwise. Kevin On 10/26/07, Denver Gingerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think that mirroring all YouTube content is a good idea. Much > of what can be found on YouTube falls into a legal gray area. The > leading example of this would be the use of music or videos in > remixing, such as using a song for background music or taking an > episode of a TV show and adding commentary. (When I say "music or > videos" here, I am referring to music or videos that are copyrighted > and for which the copyright holder requires royalties for use that > does not fall under "fair use".) > > Determining who is interpreting the law properly is a very hard battle > to fight. Perhaps Google will win this court case, but I'm sure > Viacom or some other group will soon be suing someone else. While > these cases may set legal precedents, they do not change people's > behaviors, which is what I think we need to change. > > Instead of trying to protect or save legally gray content, I suggest > that we instead start producing and using content that is completely > free of these sorts of legal issues. Naturally, content licensed > under Creative Commons licenses comes to mind, but there are lots of > other pro-sharing licenses out there. > > Another area where we need to be moving is educating the public. Most > people have little knowledge how copyright works. This is why you are > seeing all sorts of this legally gray sharing of content. People > don't know that there are alternatives such as content that uses > pro-sharing licenses. > > > Although I don't think it's useful to use a primary point of the > argument for free culture, I believe that having recording and > publishing companies winning these sorts of court cases will > ultimately be a benefit to free culture. People are starting to feel > the pain of dealing with legal issues surrounding the content they > wish to use that requires royalty payments. As people become less > able to do what they want with such content, they will see that moving > to content that uses pro-sharing licenses is much better than dealing > with the hassle of the content requiring royalty payments. Artists > will start seeing that it is unwise to sign their rights away to their > recording company and will start recording and distributing their > content themselves. > > By enforcing their copyrights more harshly, recording and publishing > companies will eventually destroy themselves. What I think they are > trying to do right now is find the right balance of annoying people > and generating income from people. Eventually I think they will push > their strategy too far toward generating income and people will start > realizing that things like the free culture movement exist. > > > But I don't think we should just sit waiting for the recording and > publishing companies to destroy themselves. We can help move the > process along by using content with pro-sharing licenses in our daily > lives as much as possible. When people don't recognize the music > you're listening to or the video you're watching and ask you about it, > you can say that it's part of a pro-sharing movement and that they are > legally allowed (without any gray area) to share it with anyone. > > Even better than just using free content is to organize events that > educate people on a large scale. It sounds like the NYU people are > doing a lot of this, like organizing a screening of Good Copy Bad > Copy. These are great steps and I'm always excited to learn about > more of these. > > > There's another part of free culture that I think is not talked about > a lot but is nonetheless quite important. When an artist that uses > pro-sharing licenses requests donations, we should be the first to > donate. One of the big arguments against pro-sharing licenses is that > they don't provide any income for the artists. This is true only if > we choose not to donate to them. If these artists are seeing huge > donations from their pro-sharing licensed content, they'll be > extremely likely to keep using pro-sharing licenses and to support the > free culture cause through activism. > > On the same note, it would be good to see some successful business > models built around pro-sharing licenses. The donation model is one, > but others, like the Street Performer Protocol > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Performer_Protocol), also exist. > There are also some of the more well-known methods such as performing > concerts or hosting art galleries that people pay for. Adapting those > to free content would be very useful. I think finding one of these > models that works is key to promoting free culture. > > > I have pretty much ignored fixing copyright laws as a way of promoting > free culture in this message. I think it's useful to do, but I'm > worried that it might have negative side-effects. For example, people > may become upset if you reduce the length of copyright protection from > 95 years to 5 years because they feel that you're not protecting > property rights, which a lot of people believe are fundamental to a > properly-functioning economy. > > > I guess I went into a bit more detail of my understanding of and > suggested action for free culture. In any case, I hope it will be > helpful to people and promote some discussion and, of course, action. > > Denver > > > On 10/26/07, Kevin Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This email just sparked a big debate in my lab about the use of > > "infinite" in this context. > > > > With the loss of Oink and TV-Links, our distributed libraries of > > culture are clearly not safe. Has anyone heard of an effort to > > archive or mirror YouTube content? > > > > I can imagine a script that downloads the .flv's of every result for a > > certain search term. > > > > Fred, can you keep the rest of us updated on the trial? > > > > Kevin > > > > > > On 10/25/07, Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The google v. viacom trial is having a hearing in NYC tomorrow... check > > > out > > > my FC @ NYU announcement: > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Fred Benenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: Oct 25, 2007 5:51 PM > > > Subject: Google v. Viacom Tomorrow > > > To: "Free Culture @ NYU's list serv" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Free Culture @ NYU, > > > So one of the benefits of living in a self-proclaimed democracy is that > > > at > > > least some of the court trials are mostly open to the public. That means > > > that when Viacom sues Google for ONE BILLION DOLLARS over YouTube's > > > "infinite amount of infringement" we're allowed to sit in on all the court > > > room antics. > > > > > > I attended the first (and last, as far as I can tell) hearing and it was a > > > scheduling hearing. Despite a stern warning from my lawyer friends that > > > the > > > hearing would be immensely boring, I really enjoyed it. The two sides > > > ended > > > up getting into their arguments in a very inappropriate and entertaining > > > way. > > > > > > Now, I have no idea whether tomorrow will have the same kind of fireworks, > > > but I am certainly intending on being there. There were mostly reporters > > > and > > > lawyers (especially one lawyer who kept on sneering when Google would say > > > stuff like "How are we supposed to take responsibility for an 'infinite > > > amount of infringement?'") last time and I felt a little out of place > > > with a > > > t-shirt, so you might consider wearing something nice if you don't want to > > > feel awkward. > > > > > > Anyway, here's the information: > > > > > > Google v. Viacom > > > 4pm, October 26th 2007 > > > Room 21C > > > Judge Louis L. Stanton > > > United States Courthouse > > > 500 Pearl Street > > > New York, NY 10007-1312 > > > Phone: 212-805-0136 > > > If anyone wants to meet up, I'll be outside (or maybe in the lobby if its > > > really going to rain) around 3:30. > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Fred Benenson > > > President, Free Culture @ NYU > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
