Matt Wall-Smith, you just spelled out as a political agenda my feelings exactly!  Let's start a hopper of proposed legislation to keep vlogging free!  Expanding "fair use" include using music you purchased as background for personal non-commercial vlogs should be considered "fair use"!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Various types of permission forms

The fact is that we have always determined our own 'fair use' as consumers.
While I despise the illegal sharing of content for commercial gain or the
unauthorized use of music as underscore in commercial product I think that
as consumers we should ensure that fair use legislation is revised so that
its made workable. Obviously running in fear of litigation is not going to
help the industry music industry help itself and stop this ridiculous
estrangement of its best customers. If I buy a CD then I should be able to
use the contents of that CD for the production of personal media. A
Videoblog is not necessarily personal media but a lot of the time it
definitely is. If I am posting Video's to the net of my baby girl so that
the grandparents can see her grow then I should be able to play a CD track
(that I own) behind it just as I would in my lounge room. I see the act as
political, as activism, and I really think that a standard workable in
networked world needs to be asserted by the consumer as an alternative to
the insane atmosphere that is being propagated by the 'never fair' industry.

But yeah I do it knowing I could be sued. I don't ever think that somehow I
am 'below' the reach of this insanity. But that doesn't mean I am going to
take it lying down in compliance.

Yep my blog is a publication, just like my zine was, just like Fear of a
Black Planet was, just like that photocopy I might give to my students, or
the sound I might post as an example, or the use of remediated video in a
lecture, or the compilations I use to dub on my tape deck and hand out to
friends, or the cover I play at a local pub.......

You get the point.

On 6/9/05 8:29 PM, "Adrian Miles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> around the 5/9/05 Randolfe Wicker mentioned about Re: [videoblogging]
> Various types of permission forms that:
>> Actually a lot of vloggers use music they don't have a license for
>> in their vlogs.  The fact is that no one bothers "suing them"
>> because their using the music has virtually no real impact.
> this is nonsense. I can't say that strongly enough. Get slashdotted
> and your music will matter. Get shown via *any* commercial media and
> your music will matter. People once said this about anything on the
> web, it is not the case now. Just because big media haven't caught
> on, doesn't mean that when they do, they won't play serious catch up.
>> Yes, vlogging could be considered to be one step up from home
>> movies.  With vlogging you can share what might otherwise be home
>> movies with friends, even the whole world if the whole world was
>> interested enough to drop by and watch them.
> absolutely not. a home movie is played to your immediate
> family/friends in home. It is not broadcast/distributed. A blog is a
> publication.
> In video sales if you buy a home VHS tape and show it to a school
> group, you've broken the law. The home VHS is for home use only. The
> copy you buy for schools is for showing to a group and (usually)
> costs approx. 10 x the domestic cost. Such things exist and are
> standard practice. that this might be breached every now and then,
> just like photocopying a whole book because you can't get your own
> copy, doesn't make it legal. Minor moments don't matter, when it
> becomes a standard practice, it does.
>> Technically, you might be right insofar as "legalities" are
>> concerned.  However, like those labels that they used to have on
>> cigarette packages which said it was illegal "not" to break them, a
>> lot of laws are really ignored.
> which is what napster thought. Which is what lots of low budget film
> makers thought until their film can't be legally shown anywhere.
> There *are* stories of people who have film screened, only to receive
> letter from legal firm requesting tens of thousands of dollars since
> that is how much the rights to the lyrics/music costs.
> I really think videobloggers are naive if they think these rules
> don't apply to them. Without clearance your material cannot be shown
> in awards/festivals and cannot be broadcast. Basically you don't want
> to be the person that is the first one pursued for this, because the
> industry will not play nicely.

Individual Fireant Explains


Reply via email to