I didn’t realize that improvisational acts that the actor wanted to make permanent were not copyrightable unless they had a script or had it on video. I suppose I’ll have to start recording my amazing one-man improvisational plays before I get bamboozled.
The belief “If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation.” was a good reminder of something that is NOT true with regards to copyright. I didn’t fully understand the legalities of that before these videos. The best reminder for me was the statement: “Copyright is not about usage, it’s about permission.”
The story about Pirate Bay was enlightening. The Swedish interviewee had some interesting points but I think it’s all based on perspective. Had he created something that provided him his major source of income, I wonder how he would feel about others using it and it’s affect on that income. That being said, international piracy seems like an impossible problem because of the lack of international laws against this.
On to the Fair Use discussion:
The part that surprised me the most about fair use was that there was no definable amount that could be reproduced when using copyrighted content. While there is no black or white area here, I do like that some documents about fair usage in documentary films and online video were created to at least give a general guideline. The shocker for me was when I learned that if you can teach the content or subject without the copyrighted material being used, then you don’t really have Fair Use rights to use it, no matter how little you take.
It sounds to me like those that want to be able to use copyrighted content for free have some very impressive arguments. However, ultimately the music belongs to the big music producing companies and as long as there is ANY threat to their bottom line I anticipate they will fight against the free use of their music. I believe a change to copyrighting IS possible but think that it would have to be made by independent artists that become popular through social media sites rather than the big labels. Then they would have to vocally support the free use of their content. All the while ignoring the promises of riches from the big music companies. Possible, yes. Likely…?
(Bettyx1138, "copy", September 5, 2007, Creative Commons License)
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI can relate with you in more ways than one when it comes to being surprised about certain copyright laws. I felt the same way when I learned that improvisational acts were not copyrighted. The first thing that I thought of was a stand up comedian. Although most of them I am sure have a written script, I am sure that there are some that really get into their act and start improvising just because it feels right at the time. Technically, if there act was not being recorded, someone can literally steal their entire act and make a fortune off of it (barring that it is funny ☺).
When it comes to fair use, I still have many questions on that. Per our assignments this week, there is no defined limitations on fair use however you have to be careful of how the materials are reproduced. From what I have known in the past fair use was only a few seconds of a certain song or production but then again that was hearsay while this is fact.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteIt had never even occurred to me that “If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation” until the last few years. I guess part of that comes from being part of the Original Napster and Limewire users. I was most surprised about the Pirate Bay group and the Tecno Brega remixer. I thought it was sort of funny how the artists in Brazil weren’t worried about making money for their remixes, which was the sort of misconception I had about downloading illegally. In other words, that it was more about getting the music out and then the fans would support the artists that they liked.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThe points that you highlight in your blog about Copyright were right to the point and sum up what I found to be most important also.
Your points were:
• Copyright is about permission
• The Fair use document is helpful because of the fact that there is no definable amount
• Possibility of artists not going after the big bucks is there but the likelihood is questionable
The concept of permission makes me think of politeness. How polite is our culture when it comes to letting others have the right of way or using our stuff? Two examples that come to mind is when we have to drive on the road or when we ask our kids to share. My experience on the road is the bigger the vehicle the less likely they will give right of way. Disney is a big truck! With my kids the opportunity to share becomes more a time to conduct negotiations. I’m still trying to break them of this tendency.
In the Fair Use ideas, I thought it was interesting that the Judges that are making decisions are looking for direction from people involved to help define what the acceptable practice is. Since there is a lot of a grey area it is good to be proactive and create the documents that guide best practices so that people can follow them and Judges have something to look towards as they make decisions. I wonder if there is any activity in the educational arena to create such a document.
I too wonder if the market culture in America would have the likelihood that people would willingly forgo compensation for the altruistic goal of a better healthier culture. Are people too much about their own gain? Time will tell.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteYou have amazing talent and your improv. act absolutely needs to be videotaped to secure your rights of your intellectual work. Without some tangible artifact such as a script or video thousands that see your work have the legal right to use your material with out paying royalties. The Swedish perspective is very different than most other parts of the world on many topics. I remember Napster, LimeWire, Bearshare, Kaza, and many other peers to peer file sharing programs. Today we have Pirate Bay, Supernova, and handfuls of torrent sites that specialize in sharing everything that exists in the digital realm. International piracy is an epidemic that will only continue to grow as it has become socially acceptable to the majority. When Napster hit the streets it's heavy users were still geeks with the knowledge and large hard drives to handle all that information. Over the years with an advancement in how this information is shared and access to high-speed Internet anyone from age 6 to 86 are listening and viewing copyrighted material downloaded he legally. No laws whether from the United States or international will change this. Society has made it very clear what they are point of view is on sharing digital media. The large companies have tried many scare tactics and public service announcements to educate our society on this topic. With technology there is always a positive and negative. And they do feel that there are some companies out there that are trying to find a happy medium. The Apple Corporation is one company that met a lot of resistance from the large record companies when opening the iTunes store. Now they are thanking Apple as they've brought back millions of dollars into the industry. Netflix is another example that has faced resistance and now bringing consumers back to legal ways to stream and review copyrighted material. This type of business model appeals to the majority because of its ease of use and access to a large library of digital media. You will always have a group that will push the law to its limit and break it at all costs. I have always used the phrase the lock on my front door truly only keeps honest people honest. If a thief wants to break into my home they will no matter what. So in conclusion as more companies follow a business model that allows access to their intellectual content at a fair price the majority of users will choose a legal service over an illegal piracy service. This will in effect change our society and what it accepts from each other. A quick comment about the Brazilian artists. Music is life! It is meant to be shared and experienced by all and those who seek fame and fortune are truly not interested in sharing the music. Yes you have the right to make a living but as we all know the big music corporations are only interested in the bottom line. That is filling their pockets until they overflow.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteYou brought up some great points in your response about copyright. I was very interested in the Swedish interviewee as well. The video showed the benefits of no copyright law however it did not show the perspective of the original artists. One thing to keep in mind is that the record industries cannot determine how much revenue has been lost due to file sharing and other forms of piracy. Does Sweden know something that the U.S. does not know?
Fair use has always been a gray area and this is where copyright gets confusing to understand. We need to come up with a better way for the general public to understand what is and is not illegal. Creative Commons has made a real solid effort to help change copyright as we know it. It will be interesting to see what role Creative Commons will play in the future. One thing is for sure something has to change. Nice work Brian!