Its interesting that you mention air, water and food. Because when thinking of what freedoms humans should be entitled to, and what responsibilities they should take seriously, one way to approach it is to start from the beginning.
By the very nature of our existence, we are never free from the need to breath, eat, drink, sleep and go to the toilet. Or to put it another way, we are free to starve or go mad but these arent good choices. I know that these are obvious statements, but it is the connection between basic reality and peoples discussions of whether humans should be free to have the ideal job, be free to do what their will desires. We are shielded from many of the basic realities of living, in the current age. One of the things that shocks us so much when disasters strike, is how our artificial and sophisticated lives can so quickly be wiped away and real survival sets in. Before Katrina, even the poorest of New Orleans, were shielded from base reality of existence to a certain extent. Then of course there are all the other needs that humans have, for family, love, friends, callenges, etc etc. Music fits into this category for me. Really quite essentail things for human sanity, but not in the same clas as the actual bear essentials needed to stay alive, like food. So musics already a secondary 'right' to me, comes below considerations such as 'freedom not to be bombed'. Then we get onto the idea that certain restrictions being placed on music are not the same as trying to deny people the right to have music in their lives in general. I dont believe the RIAA's primary mission is to deliberately impinge on our rights for the sake of it. Its for the sake of its members, and their revenue streams. If they dont percieve there to be revenue loss due to videobloggers use of music, and people dont go too far when 'stretching' their rights to use music in their videoblogs, they wont waste money coming after videobloggers. The laws vary globally quite a bit too. The 'fair use' clause which is the best defense for so many uses of copyrighted stuff, does not exist in every country. Im no lawyer but it is talked of more in the USA than the UK for example. In certain countries the educational aspect is the main part of fair use, and rights to parody might not be enshrined in the same way as it sounds like they are in the USA. And of course if you use anything that is percieved to be of value, especially trademarks, in a way that the valueholder objects too strongly and gets upset about, expect trouble. For example somone used the oil company Essos logo, but with dollars instead of s's, as a logo for some sort of campaign against esso. They took it to court and esso won. Given that none of us can be sure and give a total, legally sound and globally accurate picture of what our rights actually are right now, and where the law stands, theres a few ways we'll learn more. We'll find out if anybody gets upset enough to send someone a cease and desist letter, or if any relevant cases come to courts in various countries. But these dont sound like nice ways to find out. Another approach is to mix what knowledge we have about the letter of the law, with an understanding of what might cause a company or industry body like RIAA to act. Roleplay, pretend to be the person whose work you are using, and imagine what objections they might ahve about your specific use of it. The primary infringements which are most likely to hit court are where its easy to prove youve damaged their primary revenue stream. If you videotape a rock concert, its going to be treated similarily to music bootlegging. For sure theres a difference between selling bootlegs and giving them away, but the people trying to make money from selling the legal output from the band, can see both as potentially reducing their sales. Unfortunately it doesnt matter what the reality is, its impossible to know how much any actions, including 'smearing' a brand, really costs anybody in revenue. I usually err on the side of caution and assume that as most courts are operating in countries where institutions are in part designed to support commerce, and protect legitimate and declared businesses that can be taxed and help balance of trade etc, the imagined financial damages are usually on the high side. I guess it boils down to risk management, tehre must be a few simple tips that people who are vaguely concerned about the issue can use. Some people will decide to steer clear of the issue entirely, but for those that feel they need to sample life that may include music, try to cover yourselves a little. I'll have a guess at a few simple ones, dont know if they are right: Dont include a whole copyrighted song in your work. 1 minute or 30 seconds may be covered under some basic fair use/common sense parts of the law, or not. If your video or activities are commercial in any way, you must be ultracautious and follow the legal rules to the letter. Otherwise the future problems could grow in direct proportion to your growing commercial success. Do the copyright holders have any history of being especially keen on legal action? Is the copyrighted material used in any sort of controvertial setting, scene or context in your work? Parody and free speech may protect you in certain jurastictions, but dont take it as a given. Ive got some vague memory that theres a case involving Barbie that is relevant here, but I forgot the details. If you are talking all over the music, and its in the background quietly, and its rubbish quality, it would be hard to convince anybody that someone could use it as a substitute for buying the song. Whether its censorship or self-censorship or not depends on the specific case, what the alleged violation is. If youve reworked something in a controvertial way, and they try to shut you up, thats censorship. If I tried to give away bootlegged copies of a film thats on at the cinema, and they threw the book at me, thats not a censorship issue. If everyone was so scared of the possible legal ramifications, then yes everyone would be indulging in self-censorship of a kind thats more often refered to to terms of 'maintaining law and order through the use of deterrants'. Also known as 'there arent enought resources to police everyone so people must be taught to police themselves'. But because these intellectual property laws have previously been used to prosecute people involved in really obvious theft & resale of intellectual property, and because they are complex and designed mostly for use by companies, they arent as easy to inform the public about, to get their inner policemen working if you will. Also because there is no physical media involved, no real world objects that youd actually have to physically and concously steal in order to profit from, humans have a problem seeing it as a crime. Thats where it is similar to water and air. They appear to be free commodities because they are around us. We shouldnt take any of thse things for granted. There I go, there I go again, ranting like I know what Im talking about, treading a fine line between giving advice and preaching. On not, and just being paranoid about how I come across in text. Still working on the realtime digital effects mask that I need to enable someone like me with a wibbled self-image to face the camera and utilise video. When that day comes you will be free of my excissive warblings in text form, I will have an alternative communication outlet to take the strain off my textathons, rejoice lol. Steve of Elbows --- In [email protected], "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People love and need music. It is right up there with air, water, food > and the perfect dress. > > If I don't record because of the accidental music in the background I > miss out on many public activities and encounters. > > Next, I would be avoiding people in clothing, especially t-shirts cuz > they have logos or copyrighted slogans. This would be followed by not > shooting cars because of the particular paint job on the vehicle is a > special color by the manufacturer. > > Then there are "public" buildings that are now off limits. > > If we let this self-censorship continue there will be nothing left but > recording naked bodies standing absolutly still. > > (Hold on, not a bad idea!) > > These are the times that we occupy. Yes, we do have to respect > copyrights and artists fair compensation. I do not steal music or > anything else. > > But I will not stop recording because someone (that I have no control > of) has music in the background. If is not fair nor would it be a > truthful representation of what I saw and observed. We can lose a lot > of history this way. > > Damn the RIAA and live in defiance! > > Gena > http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com > ********************* > > --- In [email protected], Randolfe Wicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > There have been numerous debates here about personal legal and > financial vulnerability for using unlicensed music intentionally or > accidentally in a vlog. These problems seem to be almost endless in > their complexity. For instance, Steve Watkins writes: > > "I use copyrighted music and then give my videoblog away with > > > derivatives permitted, or even redistribution permitted, the > license > > > wont stand up in court? Because I don't have the rights too the > > > original work I used, I cant give those rights away to anyone > else?" > > > > I can imagine how terrible it would be to create a work > incorporating a vlog like the one described above only to discover you > didn't have the "legal rights" you believed you had been given to use > the material. > > > > If you read the frightening details about how the lack of music > licenses can prevent the showing of otherwise original video--say an > interview taped with unwanted but identifiable music playing in the > background in a bar or even on a beach with someone's radio playing > many feet away--you have to wonder why (or if) someone has devised a > way to eliminate such unwanted background noise from a soundtrack? > > > > If this is not possible at the moment, one has to think that it > could be at least technologically possible. Wouldn't that be a help > to everyone. I find myself almost crazed while shooting footage in a > location and then realizing I probably won't be able to use it because > some passer-by has a boom box booming. > > > > > > > > Randolfe (Randy) Wicker > > > > Videographer, Writer, Activist > > Advisor: The Immortality Institute > > Hoboken, NJ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back! http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
