In my opinion the consumer side of things is not too much of a concern
at the moment, the tradition is to get heavy with the
creator/publisher/distributor. And this trend continues in the modern
era of action, it is people who share music, and the services that
enable them to, that have been targetted by RIAA and friends. 

By far the most important element of RIAA's agenda is that by raising
awareness of digital property issues, via well publicised cases
against a few people, they are getting people's internal policeman to
recognise digital media, music etc, as products. They want people to
understand that its supposedly a much of a theft as if you stole the
CD from a store, even though there are clearly some differences.

Its not a new battle, and people have never accepted that sort of
control over music. Human beings relationship to music and other
things is not the same as relationship with physical products. We've
been here before with recording off the radio, recording tape-to-tape,
and the same with video. Its just that the removal of physical media
from the equation, and the ease of digital duplication, coupled with
the internet, scares their pants off.

This is also partly because the one area that in the past was not grey
to most people, was people selling illegal copies of cd's, videos etc.
The fact that money was involved makes the moral dimention of that
stuff much easier to agree on. But now with the internet people can do
it so easily and at no cost to themselves, so like with software and
anything else, you get some people just sharing because they can. It
starts to get grey.

But I dont think the example you gave is very grey at the moment
anyway. The defense you mentioned would almost certainly work, and
theres little chance youd need it. Your position is pretty solid, the
creators/publisher of the video's position is whats very grey. There
are reasons that the copyright holders might go after the creator and
cease/desist the video, and there are reasons they might not.
Awareness that a potential 'violation' has occured is likely to
increase the chances of action being taken, I would have thought, but
 the lack of money involved makes it less likely.  

Im sure I heard that 'fan created music videos' are becoming a
phenomenon these days, so have any of them had any legal adventures we
could learn from? 

The best reason I can think of for them leaving people alone on this
issue, is that music videos are supposed to be largely a promotional
device anyway. I know they come to mean more than that, but
traditionally they are just another part of the system that wants you
to buy the album. So in this regard, fan created music videos have
something in common with fan websites. Enlightened bands/labels can
see fansites are free marketing, whilst others may cause ill-will by
getting heavy with trademark or domain issues and closing sites down.
Still to be fair trademark owners are supposed to actively protect
their mark, wheras Im not sure the same is true for copyright at all? 

Steve of Elbows
> It all gets a little murky here. I subscribe to a feed to get content 
> created by people independent of 'big media' and I get something that 
> the RIAA might not like me being in possession of. I'm not sure if the 
> excuse of "I just subscribed to a feed, my software downloaded it, not 
> me!" is going to work.
> (I'm not trying to complain, I'm just exploring the issues here...)
> Pete
> -- 
> videoblog for the future...

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to