The Rest Of The Story: Fair Use School Created To Respond To YouTube's Questionable Copyright School
from the fair-use-tube dept
Back in April, we were pretty surprised to see YouTube launch a "copyright school", with a video and quiz that seemed woefully limited, and at times, misleading -- especially on fair use. Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues, so it was unexpected that it would put out one of those kinds of propaganda videos, especially one that implied fair use was something you shouldn't bother with at all, and that all videos should be entirely new and original. Public Knowledge responded by offering up $1,000 for whoever could create a better video.The winner has been announced, and it's Patrick McKay for his "Fair Use School," that takes the same basic style and makes a video about fair use, and which explains YouTube's DMCA counternotice setup:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, education, fair use, videos, youtube
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But definitely not unexpected that Public Knowledge would put out an exponentially more propagandistic video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVJNNR3s0U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But-But ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First post is obviously some pro-copyright. Can't say he's a troll though since he was somewhat polite in expressing his opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Taking cheap shots at people/organisations: good.
Telling cheap shooter from previous line to say something constructive or pipe down: censorship?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and absolutely certain that someone like you would display their ignorance of what exponentially means...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The word exponentially is just one of many in the layman adjective arsenal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you prove to us that you can look it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fair use should be the fucking default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not A Nasally Teen.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not A Nasally Teen.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues"
Specifically to Youtube: of course they turn a blind eye to copyright when that's in their direct interest. -- I'm not saying Youtube is huge violator of copyright, merely that Google makes money off any copyright violations, IF there are any: they've a motive. -- And so you're only promoting your limited Pollyanna views of Google and copyright.
But Google with its book-scanning project still has the potential to lock up all those books: how many times have you complained that works are taken out of the public domain? You simply ASSUME, at best, that Google isn't just playing nice for now, and won't be revealed as a monster when it's consolidated and there are effectively no other choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues"
Unfortunately, Larry and the others aren't eternal and may be replaced at some point. While they are at key positions on Google I'd say the company will be alright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably fair use is a reason to have a lawyer on speed dial. Probably don't cut it. It's horrible legal advice from someone who isn't a lawyer. When you get to probably, the answer is "don't do it... you will probably get sued or get your video taken down". If you aren't 100% certain, you know you are at risk.
It's a shame that a video like this would be held up as a good tool, it's mostly a way to lead the sheep to slaughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If MAFIAA says that something is probably commercial use would it be nutty too if it passed?
BUT BUT... YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair use is remarkably clear about 99% of the time. What gets discussed here is the last 1% that sits right on the border. Typical of what goes on, the 99% is never discussed, and the 1% is held up as reasons to toss the other 99% of the cases out.
99% of the time, it's clear as it comes. The last 1% is always what will end up in court or on a blog. Just try to remember that on planet earth, 1% isn't a majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your "correct answer" is also false. Please, stop pretending you know fair use. You do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's really stupid when such topics are dumbed-down to the point neither side is taken seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other words: this was never about the issue from this contest's point of view.
That's how I'm seeing it. It's a bad attitude, I know, but it's also the reality and it's why I believe it trivializes the issue.
Again, I mean no offense to anyone. This is merely my personal opinion. Feel free to disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
video not accurate
Best example, doing a Remix or a Mash-Up does not in ANY WAY constitute Fair Use. If you use ANY portion of the original copyrighted music without written permission of all of the copy right holders, then what you are doing is illegal. That's the law. If you don't like it, work to change it.
But as someone who has made his living as a Remixer, Producer and DJ for over 20 years, Just because I can get my hands on a Madonna, Rihanna, Beyonce A capella (and I can and do all the time) and do a "remix" of it, doesn't me I have the legal right to make it or release it on YouTube. The law is written in the following manner: As a producer/DJ I could do a remix and use it out at my gigs. They won't come after me for that even though technically you are not legally allowed to even do that. But as soon as I release it to the public, it automatically is competing with the original. If just one person doesn't my a 99 cent download because they downloaded my unauthorized mix or mash-up, then my version is competing. So his video is false and misleading.
It's really unfortunate that the Internet has created an entire generation of child-like thinking and mentality that just because I want it, I should be able to have it. You can't walk into a car dealership and take the vehicle without paying for it, nor can you walk into a grocery store and take food, or books, or dvd's or CD's without paying for them. It's stealing. So why do people think it's OK to steal music and movies off the intenet, or use pieces of other peoples work without asking?
Most artists would gladly give their permission for people to use bits of their material into something new. In fact, I just sent a email off to a major 80's UK New Wave icon the other day asking to sample a 10 second verse of one of his hits and he said "sure, just put it in writing and I'll sign off on it." People get pissed off when you just do it without asking. Now sure Madonna is probably not gonna say yes. But it's her right to say no. She labored long and hard to create her work. And by releasing it doesn't release her of control of it. I see very little difference between music and children. They are both labors of your love, work, sweat and tears and just people don't have the right to steal them, hurt them or destroy them just because they can get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
Why should you be held to a different standard then the one set by the original notice. Just abuse the weasel phrase "Knowlingly" like they do. Or blame an underpaid functionary; eg My dog improperly submited that notice.
I've yet to see any real punishment on the the fraudulent dcma notices submitted daily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]