NYC/NBCUniversal Pro-Copyright Propaganda Contest For School Kids: Facts Not Allowed And Your Rights Don't Count

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Wed, Sep 21st 2011 11:15am — Mike Masnick

There has been plenty of concern recently about companies sneaking their own marketing material or one-sided corporate propaganda into schools. And while some may differ on how big a problem this is, I think most people would agree that a local government shouldn't be aiding the process -- especially without revealing the corporate sponsor. And yet, that appears to be exactly what New York City is doing. And, to make it even more ridiculous, they're doing so by putting forth a corporate-sponsored contest about the importance of copyright... and hiding in the fine print that by entering the contest, you may be giving up your own copyrights.

You may recall that, last year, New York City began running a dreadfully misleading (and at points downright false) ad campaign to try to "stop piracy in NYC." At the time, we suspected that the campaign was really put together by NBC Universal, and the city did nothing at all to check the veracity of the claims used in the PSA. It later took a freedom of information request to the city to reveal that, indeed, the StopPiracyInNYC video campaign was actually "owned" by NBC Universal.

We were troubled to learn that the Federal Government, in the form of Homeland Security's ICE division, had also started using the same videos, never once mentioning that they were NBC Universal's videos. That's troubling enough, but it's even worse to find out that New York City has ratcheted up the campaign, still using the same NBC Universal video with false claims in it, and going into city high schools and colleges, asking students to create their own bogus propaganda video that repeats NBC Universal and the MPAA's debunked talking points.

In fact, the contest rules (in the smallest print possible) make it clear that if you produce a video that provides actual facts about how piracy has not harmed the industry -- but a failure to adapt has -- then your video won't be considered. Every entry will be given a series of points, and the single biggest point category is if the video "clearly advocates against digital piracy and content theft." So if you make a video that advocates that NBC Universal and the other major studios stop whining and start embracing new business models, well, too bad. You're out of luck. This isn't about truth. This is about corporate propaganda in NYC schools, sponsored by the city.

If you dig into the actual "rules" (pdf) for the contest (which are quite buried on the site, but are embedded below), you discover some interesting tidbits. While nowhere on the contest website does NYC admit that NBC Universal is the real sponsor behind this campaign, you do find that information buried in the rules. The rules make it clear that this is a joint project of NYC and NBCUniversal, along with some design agencies.

And, um, must we point out the seeming irony that this video contest is supposed to be about promoting the importance of the protection of copyright... but in order to enter, you agree to completely give up your ability to assert your own copyright?

All Submissions become the property of the Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned.... BY MAKING A SUBMISSION, ENTRANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HIS/HER SUBMISSION MAY BE POSTED ON SPONSOR�S WEB SITE, AT SPONSOR�S DISCRETION. Making a Submission grants Sponsor and its agents the right to publish, use, adapt, edit and/or modify such Submission in any way, in any and all media, without limitation, and without consideration to the entrant.

Oh, but that's not the best part. You see, if you win, you have to agree to turn over the copyright, and admit that this video is a "work made for hire" under copyright law, so you can't ever use termination rights to get it back:

By accepting a prize Winner (and Winner�s parent or legal guardian if Winner is an eligible minor) agrees that his/her Submission will be deemed a Work Made For Hire under the Copyright laws of the United States, but if it cannot be so deemed, then Winner irrevocably assigns and transfers to Sponsor all of his/her right, title and interest in and to his/her Submission, including all but not limited to all copyright and trademark rights which he or she may have, in the United States and worldwide, therein, for consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. Winner hereby waives in favor of Sponsor, all rights of �Droit Moral� or �Moral Rights of Authors� or any similar rights or principles of law that winner may now or later have to his/her Submission. Sponsor reserves the right to alter, change or modify Winner�s Submission, in its sole discretion. Upon request of Sponsor, Winner (and Winner�s parent or legal guardian if Winner is an eligible minor) shall execute and deliver such additional instrument of assignment (�Assignment�), as may be solely deemed by Sponsor, reasonably necessary to establish the ownership of record of the right, title and interest in and to the Submission and of the copyrights transferred and �Moral Rights of Authors� waived under these Official Rules. Should Sponsor fail to request Assignment as stated, that shall not be deemed a waiver of Sponsor�s rights and Sponsor may at a later time request Assignment.

In other words, the real message of this "contest" is that you should create a video about respecting copyrights... and if you do so, we'll trample all over your copyrights.

Anyway. The grand prize for this is a mere $500. We must be able to do better than that as a community. If anyone is interested in contributing to a fund to create a "competing" contest, hit us up over email, and we'll see if we can offer a better prize for a more truthful contest...

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: contest, copyright, new york city, propaganda
Companies: mpaa, nbc universal

91 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:21am

The first quoted paragraph is pretty standard for contest entries. They want to be able to use all or parts of your work in promoting the contest and future contests.

The second quoted paragraph is an abomination.

I hope this contest fails and fails hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pitabred (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re:
  Just because it's standard doesn't make it right. Especially considering the subject matter the contest is about, it makes the inequity and abuse that much more glaring.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - WysiWyg (profile), 22 Sep 2011 @ 1:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, but the fact that you wouldn't be able to have any kind of contest without that part does make it "right".
    
    Or are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to publish the entries?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:25am

But, um...
Doesn't a minor have a right to reneg on any contract prior to the age of consent? What happens if a HS student wins and later declares the contract void?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:27am
  
  Re: But, um...
  I believe you are right. From what I learned in one business law class, a minor can only be held to a contract for necessities like food and shelter. A bicycle or propaganda add isn't a necessity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - TheBigH (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 1:14pm
    
    Re: Re: But, um...
    Propaganda is a necessity to NBC Universal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:26am

I think I am turning into a pirate
The more I read here, especially about stuff like this where private business is in bed with government, the less I am inclined to respect copyright at all. As I have stated here in the past, I don't pirate anything. But that may soon change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill W (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:28am

Put it up on Kickstarter, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re:
  Definitely! It would be far better to put up the money to do a proper contest than to criticize theirs from the sideline.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave, 21 Sep 2011 @ 6:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    But the best is to do both.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ed C., 21 Sep 2011 @ 7:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry, I should have said "than to only criticize theirs from the sideline." I was just commenting that running a real contest was better, not that they were mutually exclusive.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:34am

Mike, you need to get out more.

Almost every "user submitted" contest includes part of full transfer of the copyright to the contest organizers, it's part of the deal. Why would you consider it such a shocking thing here? It's about as common as dust.

I think you would step on your own mother to get a slam at the "industry", no matter how stupid the argument is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re:
  Apparently irony is lost on you. Let me slow it down and explain it to you. You must surrender your copyright on the video about the importance of copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ed C., 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    The sad part is that it's hardly ironic nowadays. The media industry is trying to contort copyright into a perpetual private monopoly privilege for themselves; it's not surprising that their contest reflects that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, rights are assigned only if you win and receive the award. In all other instances rights remain with the submitter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "All Submissions become the property of the Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - WysiWyg (profile), 22 Sep 2011 @ 1:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not the copyright that is being transfered, it's the physical medium used for submission. Also pretty standard.
        
        While I'm not a lawyer, I would say that that part does NOT cover a transfer of copyright. If it did, they wouldn't have had to bother with all that legalese later.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 5 Oct 2011 @ 9:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How do you submit physical medium on-line?
        
        "3. HOW TO ENTER
        To enter online
        , go to www.StopPiracyinNYC.com (�Web
        Site�) during the Promotion Period to register and submit your written submission, which should be a concept statement (�Concept Statement�) of your idea for the Anti-Piracy Theft campaign along with a video submission of your PSA (�Video�) that illustrates your Concept Statement (altogether, �Submission�).
        
        All Submissions become the property of the Sponsor and will not be acknowledged or returned.
        
        BY MAKING A SUBMISSION, ENTRANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HIS/HER SUBMISSION MAY BE POSTED ON SPONSOR�S WEB SITE, AT SPONSOR�S DISCRETION. Making a Submission grants Sponsor and its agents the right to publish, use, adapt, edit and/or modify such Submission in any way, in any and all media, without limitation, and without consideration to the entrant."
        
        Sounds like a transfer of rights to me. But I am not a liayer either.
        
        "By accepting a prize Winner (and Winner�s parent or legal guardian if Winner is an eligible minor) agrees that his/her Submission will be deemed a Work Made For Hire under the Copyright laws of the United States, but if it cannot be so deemed, then Winner irrevocably assigns and transfers to Sponsor all of his/her right, title and interest in and to his/her Submission, including all but not limited to all copyright and trademark rights which he or she may have, in the United States and worldwide, therein, for consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. Winner hereby waives in favor of Sponsor, all rights of �Droit Moral� or �Moral Rights of Authors� or any similar rights or principles of law that winner may now or later have to his/her Submission."
        
        Again, not a liayer, but certainly sounds like a transfer of copyright to me. Trademark too!
        
        I wasn't going to bother replying, but obviously you didn't see it and if you don't see it, you won't get it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        WysiWyg (profile), 6 Oct 2011 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The first one, with the submission, is NOT a transfer of rights, it just means that you assign them a license (potentially an unlimited one). You still have the right to do whatever you want with it though.
        
        Should you WIN however, you transfer all your rights to the work, meaning that you can't do anything with it anymore.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 6 Oct 2011 @ 2:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...without consideration to the entrant."
        
        Can you provide an example of another license such as this?
        
        Covers, remakes etc. all give credit/s.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110901/12231815769/insane-chain-sampling-rights-how- folk-song-collector-became-co-author-jay-z-song.shtml
        
        The extra legalese is to cover their asses.
        
        From my first quote, if you enter, it is their property.
        Physical medium cannot be transfered over internet yet. So what property are we/they talking about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  So, your argument is that "common" == "fair"? Sorry, but abuses passed off as a stand practice are still abuses all the same.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cowardly Anon, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'll take you one further Ed; do you think that 'common' == 'right'?
    
    There have been plenty of abuses throughout history that use to be common, but were not right or fair. Eventually we realized this and moved past them.
    
    I guess this AC has come to accept the common and doesn't think past it. Who cares about rights so long as it's common place?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prisoner 201, 21 Sep 2011 @ 2:32pm
      
      Case in point
      Slavery was common not so long ago...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 3:41pm
        
        Re: Case in point
        So was the Crow car...
        
        Just because something was common doesn't mean that it's right at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:47am
  
  Re: Cutters
  About 1000 years ago, it was "as common as dust" to capture assholes like you, cut their tongues and genitalia off and keep them as slaves.
  
  Does something being common make it right? Do YOU want to be a slave?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Cutters
    Are you naturally this much of an asshole, or do you get up each day and study hard? I mean, what the fuck are you talking about?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cutters
      I started with taking by-mail courses and then took it as my college major. In fact, I'm not far from having my PHD in being an Asshologist.
      
      This, of course, is what makes it so very easy for me to recognize other budding young assholes.
      
      ;-P
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cowardly Anon, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Cutters
        I wouldn't promote that AC to asshole status. Just another 'common as dust' troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - :Lobo Santo's ugly chair, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Cutters
        n fact, I'm not far from having my PHD in being an Asshologist.
        No. You have an advanced degree in Asshatology. There are several key differences.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cutters
        As someone with a major in Studyology, (The study of studies), I assure you that the differences you perceive are merely semantics, and in the view of different base assumptions between the two studies, they never fail to reach the same conclusions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cutters
        I disagree a-holes have subgroups that have minute differences and some could be categorized as new species because how different the shit that come out of them is and how they manage to shit everything they come in contact with.
        
        Also the composition of the shit is a great factor in determining what type of a-hole one is dealing with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cutters
        Look, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, why do I care if it has diarrhea?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hmm (profile), 2 Oct 2011 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cutters
        if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck then Disney will claim its infringing on Donald......
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ed C., 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cutters
      If by "asshole" you mean making you look like a fool, then yes--but it doesn't seem that you need his help for that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 5:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cutters
      He is talking about your merda lawyerensis(aka coprosnomikos or scathosnomikos) verborragic tendencies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  Over the last 3 years or so, I have read contest rules for numerous video game contest. In all those rules, every one of them had a paragraph similar to the first one quoted by Mike above. It is standard permission to use the entries for promotion of the contest and future contests.
  
  However, out of everyone one of those contests, I have never read anything like the second quoted paragraph. Never once have I read anything that states that you transfer all rights to the work upon winning the contest. That is absurd.
  
  By winning this contest, a future film maker would not be able to use this film as part of an online portfolio. They wouldn't be able to put the film on Youtube or their own site. They wouldn't be able to use it at all.
  
  You think that is fair? I think my rights are worth far more than $500.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jimbo, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    what makes it even worse is that 'the Sponsor and its agents are granted the right to publish, use, adapt, edit and/or modify such Submission in any way, in any and all media, without limitation, and without consideration to the entrant'!
    
    do what you can to help promote our copyright, while we take away all the winner's rights to any form of copyright.
    
    is that taking the piss or what?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 1:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    To be fair, if you don't like the agreement, don't enter the contest. How hard is that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 7:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, that would be fair, but we're not talking about fair. We're talking about the massive disconnect and hypocrisy, as well as government so openly teaming with corporations. Don't care if you don't mind your little 'units' being brainwashed, but keep my family out of it. We don't want this bullshit being foisted on our kids.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re:
  And yet it seems like you would step on your own mother to get a slam at Mike, no matter how stupid the argument is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 3:19pm
  
  Re:
  'It's about as common as dust.'
  
  Well, and that makes it perfectly acceptable, of course.
  
  NOT.
  
  In Nazi Germany, horrible atrocities were performed on daily basis on a huge amount of people. And since that was common place, it must've been allright...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WysiWyg (profile), 22 Sep 2011 @ 2:17am
  
  Re:
  You don't happen to have an example or two of other contests that have similar rules?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:36am

Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
While I agree that there are odd folks but most of the folks I know who can make a video start to feel more and more sympathy with the RIAA/MPAA with every push of the button. It's hard work.

The natural audience for this site are the couchpotatoes who sit around thinking that they should be given everything for nothing. Then they look for moral justification to make them feel good for taking it without asking permission.

Alas, all that sitting around isn't good training for doing real work. I doubt many committed copyright-sucks folks will get past setting up the video camera without getting bored and heading off to the fridge to look for something to drink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:46am
  
  Re: Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
  Absolutely agree.
  
  http://youtu.be/IeTybKL1pM4
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:47am
  
  Re: Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
  most of the folks I know who can make a video start to feel more and more sympathy with the RIAA/MPAA with every push of the button. It's hard work.
  
  and are they also OK with giving up their copyright for a measly $500?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 6:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
    Doubt anyone has a gun to their head. If they want to enter the contest and try for the cash (and recognition) they have to consider the price of admission. If not they should just CwF + RtB.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re: Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
  I couldn't help but laugh. There are a lot of creators, my self included, that don't respect the media corps and the mockery that they're making of copyright. Face it, their only real interest is in creating more privileges for themselves at the expense of all others. Sorry, but getting continual expansions on copyright and passing the expense of its enforcement onto governments, ISPs, payment processors, etc. at no cost beyond their "investment" in political bribes is wanting something for nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
  Obviously you must be too busy working for the RIAA/MPAA to realize that most of the points made on this site are for appropriate use of copyright not abolishing it.
  
  Mike has made many points that its not copyright that is the problem it is the content holders who abuse their copyright to the point where it is hurting the legitimate consumer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re: Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
  more sympathy with the RIAA/MPAA with every push of the button. It's hard work.
  I didn't realize pushing buttons was hard for you and your friends. I have sympathy for you guys just for that.
  
  On a different note, while I don't know many video producers (just a whole one), I do know quite a few musicians, and every single one of them hates the labels and completely ignores copyrights. Copyrights would only get in their way and ensure they remain a nobody. Letting their fans copy their works freely is helping them. They get money from touring & doing gigs. Selling CDs (although they recognize this isn't a great way to do things, some people still buy just to show support). This crowd is about 16 to 38 years of age. Makes me think you either know people who are easily brainwashed to try to stay in 1998 or are really old. One of the two, but I am not sure which.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:23pm
  
  Re: Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
  The natural audience for this site are the couchpotatoes who sit around thinking that they should be given everything for nothing.
  
  You have the demographic of Techdirt completely wrong.
  
  Quantcast shows that most readers here are 35 or older, make 60k+ a year (ie: professionals) and are college educated. So with that in mind, the rest of your comment is just plain silly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 10:24pm
  
  Re: Bummer. Anyone with the wherewithal to make a video will probably support copyright
  Oh man, you sure convinced us to join your vested interests with that eloquent posting style. I'm sure everybody here agrees with everything you say and will totally wire your Mafiaa bosses everything we own.
  
  /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cowardly Anon, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:51am

While the first clause is rather boiler plate material (much of the reason is stopped entering various contests), I do find it very concerning that the actual sponsor of the contest is hidden. Especially as it's being pushed on high school and college kids.

I find it even more concerning that actual facts aren't going to allow a student to win. They aren't telling the kids to research and form an opinion and make a video, they are telling them to regurgitate the crap that has already been fed to them.

I can only hope that some parents will wake up and say no to this sort of blatant propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:53am
  
  Re: OR!
  In other words, the most colorful & interesting vomit wins?
  
  That's a hell of an image...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cowardly Anon, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:59am
    
    Re: Re: OR!
    Well no, I wouldn't have put it that way. But now that you've said it...it is one hell of an image.
    
    Also, given what they were fed, I'm not sure what comes out will be colorful or interesting......
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: OR!
      Are you advocating violence toward NBC Universal? It sure sounds like it to me! AC, call the US Marshal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: OR!
        Doh! This was supposed to be Re: The eejit's Second Amendment reference.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 3:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OR!
        Dammit, i was trying to be sarcastic, given that story! DAMN YOU, POE'S LAW!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re:
  I can only hope that the Second Amendment trumps stupid. Sadly, I'm a pessimist, but one can dream...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Nemesh, 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:55am

a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
This is not isolated behavior. MANY companies are "crowd-sourcing" everything from TV commercials to web site design. Usually a "contest" that gives the sponsoring company full rights to the contributor's work, these contests exist solely to provide cheap creative labor. A "prize" is provided for the winner...at FAR less value than what it would cost to, you know, actually HIRE someone for the job!

The best thing I can recommend to everyone is to never participate in "contests" of this nature. Remember people, nothing in life is free...either you give away your personal information for a contest entry, or you give away your time and creativity for the benefit of the contest promoter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 11:58am
  
  Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
  Ah-hem: "There's always free cheese in a mouse-trap."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- HuwOS (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
  So you're saying that this is competition is one of many that put people working in the at least a segment of the moving picture industry out of jobs?
  
  Wow.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob, 21 Sep 2011 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
  Hmmm--
  
  I would guess that if Mike were called in by NBCUniversal, he might recommend a contest just like this one as a way to build a connection with fans. Of course he wouldn't want to pay the winner $500 because the winner should want to be paid in exposure or accolades.
  
  This is rich irony folks. They're using a play right out of Mike's playbook.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 2:32pm
    
    Re: Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
    I think the conductor just made the last call to get off at "The Point", and the train's chugged on for a couple of minutes.
    
    If Mike made such a contest, I think I can guarantee there would be no such copyright clause. And if there was, there'd be a lot of angry readers and article writers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 2:37pm
    
    Re: Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
    Do you even know what connect with fans even means? It means you reach out to your audience in order to give them a reason to buy. How is a "contest" like this, where I lose my copyright to the video and cannot make a video rejecting their claims, called connecting with fans? They basically want to do a PSA on the cheap, and figure that they can cut costs to a measly $500, by getting a school-kid to do it.
    Do you not see the irony here? They say respect copyright, respect the jobs of those who work with copyright (like yourself). Yet, they're not hiring someone to make this video. They're going to pay a kid a measly 500 bucks and keep his/her copyright. It's pure "Do as I say, not as I do".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 4:02pm
    
    Re: Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
    Ah, the irony is steaming.
    
    He's always asking for businesses to make these kind of remixing contests. And I'm sure I've seen several posts where he congratulations some company that uses a fan-made video.
    
    He's a big fan of fans and this contest if for fans of MSNBC.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 4:40pm
  
  Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
  It depends I have no problems donating anything to a just cause, but copyrights are not a just cause.
  
  I write code for free and donate it all anonymously to open source, I make art for free and never once I asked for recognition or money for anything like that even when it got used in a way that I object, I just don't do it for those type of people again ever.
  
  Now I'm learning how to make chemical compounds because I just don't trust the pharma industry to keep me safe.
  
  So I would like to say is that if you want to do something for free to others do it with the full knowledge that you want be able to control it once it is out of your hands learn to live with it and more importantly choose to whom you work for.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Samuel Abram (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 5:29pm
    
    Ironically, I think copyright *is* s just cause
    Ironically, I think copyright *is* s just cause, or rather, copyright that is
    -limited in scope and time.
    
    Also, those open-source copyleft projects you love so much can't exist without copyright. Free Software has a requirement that any requirement that any modification use the same license. How is that enforced? Copyright. How are the conditions in creative commons licenses enforced? Copyright.
    
    Even Creative Commons works are copyrighted, because otherwise the conditions couldn't be enforced. They'd be in the public domain instead.
    
    As anyone who has seen my posts here knows, I have numerous issues with copyright law as it stands now (the most glaring being the perpetual term extensions). And the AA's have expanded the scope and duration of copyright law to benefit not artists like me or consumers like me, but themselves.
    
    Basically, what I'm saying is that Copyright needs a reboot. I mean, I don't know about you, but I'd get my computer fixed if it's not working (if resetting it or fiddling with the settings after following the documentation failed). I wouldn't throw it out the window, viral videos notwithstanding.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 5:35pm
      
      Re: Ironically, I think copyright *is* s just cause
      or you could just buy a new computer? We can re-format the laws, and write new ones on a more stable partition instead of on the system drive like they are now. And also add a few de-bugging Daemon routines as well for a fail-safe.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2011 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Ironically, I think copyright *is* s just cause
        Or you know there could be no law and nobody would need to enforce anything, since nobody would be able to stop anybody from using anything in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2011 @ 2:11pm
      
      Re: Ironically, I think copyright *is* s just cause
      I don't think you understand what open source is.
      
      If copyright didn't exist, we wouldn't need GPL licenses in the first place because everybody would already have the 3 freedoms already, the freedom to copy, the freedom to redistribute and the freedom to modify, what makes you believe that wouldn't be possible without copyright?
      
      Copyright is the exact thing that made GPL a necessity, in a world where you can't stop others from using things you don't need GPL.
      
      Open source can live without copyright you on the other hand apparently cannot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2011 @ 2:16pm
      
      Re: Ironically, I think copyright *is* s just cause
      Please show us how open source couldn't exist without copyrights.
      
      Without copyrights who would stop you from copying anything?
      Without copyrights who would stop you from distributing anything?
      Without copyrights who would stop you from modifying anything?
      
      Explain how exactly open source wouldn't exist?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 6:57pm
  
  Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
  @John Nemesh
  
  Oh, please. Kids who aspire to be filmmakers will line up to have a go at this. I'd be surprised if anyone spends more than $50, much less $500 on this. And it puts the kids video in front of a pretty interesting panel of judges and gets them exposure. That has value, win or lose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 10:18pm
    
    Re: Re: a disturbing trend to bilk workers out of pay
    @asshole
    
    @stop @using @shitty @at's @ll @the @fucking @time @you @stupid @fucking @sshole! @This @isn't @fucking @twitter. @Wh@t @do @you @think @the @"reply @to @this" @button @is @for @you @fucking @ret@rd
    
    -@love
    @your mother
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:11pm

You don't need an opposing contest. By showing kids (and their parents) the points made in this article and preventing them from entering the contest, you not only teach them the value of copyright, but teach them how to not get taken by multi-national corporations and not to completely trust the supposed good intentions of the government. That's a much more valuable lesson. Then the kids can go off and make videos about whatever they feel like making.

I'm actually less appalled that they have to give up their copyright than I am that the contents of the video are pretty much dictated to them. "We want you to be creative, but you can only create what we want." As an artists, this disgusts me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Samuel Abram (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:57pm
  
  This is why the AA's position is not a "pro-copyright" position per se
  I'm an artist too (an an artist who lives in NYC, nonetheless). Far too often the MPAA/RIAA's position is misrepresented as "pro-copyright" when it's really "pro-themselves". They just have the lobbying muscle to argue for more draconian laws in congress.
  
  In my opinion, society would be better off if copyright laws were adjusted for the 21st century, and find ways that will enable freedom whilst compensating artists. This kind of incentivization fits with the idea of "promoting the progress of useful arts". The near-total monopoly that the MPAA and the RIAA have over our governmental policy enables that copyright law will benefit them, regardless of the harms done to our culture. This is evident in laws such as the DMCA (passed 15 years ago) and the Sonny Bono CTEA (passed 13 years ago, challenged in 11 years ago and upheld by the US Supreme Court 9 years ago). Granted, this has resulted in Creative Commons, which was so mainstream that even Jack Freakin' Valenti was supportive of the project, but think of what our culture would be like if copyright actually expired (and not subject to infinite term extensions): More books, movies, music, etc. would be free for us to access, share, remix, and remake every new year's day. However, the MPAA's extremism in advocating for draconian new copyright laws has not made people respect copyright more, but less. The MPAA's and RIAA's self-serving intransigence has made a younger generation see copyright more as an tyrannical obstacle to overcome than an incenting lubricant to a free culture. Plus, It's not as if artists aren't making money with less restrictive copyright (key word is "with less restrictive"; keep in mind that I wrote that and not "without"). Just look at Cory Doctorow and Jonathan "$500,000-in-2010" Coulton. Or you could see any other success story in the case studies tab above. My point is that the MPAA and the RIAA believe that they are entitled to their business model, and if they (i.e. The AA's) win, then we (i.e. artists and consumers) lose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 4:06pm
    
    Re: This is why the AA's position is not a "pro-copyright" position per se
    The Mafiaa are also destroying any chance that copyright will survive in the future in any form. Like you said, we all lose
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:18pm

Here's an entry!
From the IT crowd
I wonder if the people running the contest are too stupid to recognise a spoof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg&feature=related
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:41pm

In other words, the real message of this "contest" is that you should create a video about respecting copyrights... and if you do so, we'll trample all over your copyrights.

Mike, you seem to be under the impression that copyrights apply to normal people. This is a myth. Everyone knows that copyrights only apply to giant corporations or those with enough money to enforce them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vastrightwing, 21 Sep 2011 @ 12:50pm

A great introduction to publishing
I find this contest an excellent introduction and learning experience for budding artists. This will be their first contract where the publisher gives them a few pennies and steals all their work and they will feel proud having done so. The publisher will recognize they will be be able to continue doing this with this artist and they will have a great relationship going forward until the artist wakes up, which won't be until the publisher has made millions from him/her. I say, this is just the beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prashanth (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 3:00pm

Goody Two-Shoes
Just a few years ago, I would have been enough of a goody two-shoes that if this came to my school, I would have done this just as they asked. It just goes to show how much some people change in just a short while. Now, all I can do is puke as I read the quoted sections (I feel like if I read the entire contest rule sheet, I would need to be hospitalized).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 21 Sep 2011 @ 3:43pm

well
I wish I had kids...their video would go something like this:

Evil Terrorpirate: who wants to buy my lovely DVDs?
Innocent mother: OMG, one of your DVDs just flew off the table and cut mah babies head off! you monster!!
Evil Terrorpirate: MUHAHAHA you owe me $5 for that DVD its got your babies blood on it....you broke it, you bought it.
Evil Terrorpirate: Oh and BTW.../points to a nearby counter reading 98..98.100..
Innocent Mother: NOOOOOOOO....a bittorrent seed counter slash detonator timer!!!!!!!!

(a huge explosion blows up the nearby orphanage and pieces of orphans fly everywhere!)

Terrorpirate: /turns to camera/ MUHAHAH and thats just the start, AMERICA!!! Cut to scene of nuclear explosion at the white house with the top of the mushroom cloud shaped like the napster logo.

Cue a message about how everyone should abandon their human rights until the evil alien copyright thieves have been tortured live on pay-per-view.

The copylobby is stupid enough to think its awesome and let it win....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 22 Sep 2011 @ 6:08am
  
  Re: well
  That actually sounds pretty funny. It reminds of the "RIAA PSA" where they bust in that guys front door, shoot his sister, slit his dads throat, kill him and his mom. And they look like monsters. If I wasn't at work I would find the youtube video and link to it. Pretty funny. Its a 'don't pirate' type PSA parody.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 21 Sep 2011 @ 5:01pm

Interesting
This clearly states what it is all about. Not "copyright" of authors, but the right to exploit their work for commercial purposes without being nagged with stupid thinks like ... uhm: the author's copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Sep 2011 @ 10:47pm

Getting them while their young is the oldest strategy in the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 22 Sep 2011 @ 6:08am

YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT!

This isn't about whether the rules are typical or not. The kids having to give up their copyright is just the ironic part of all this.

The problem is a major corporation has gone to the city government, and the government has then gone to the schools and buried the fact that they're supported by a major corporation. Go to their website and look for the NBC Universal logo. It's not there. http://stoppiracyinnyc.com.

This isn't education. It's corporate propaganda. In your schools. And your government is okay with it. If they just came out and said they were shilling for NBC, it would be sad, but it wouldn't be as problematic.

This is how they describe it:

"Piracy, or content theft, is the illegal consumption of movies, music, books and other creative materials. It happens every day, all over the world. That's a lot of lost revenue for the film, TV, music and fashion industries. In fact, more than 140,000 jobs have already been lost to content theft."

"In your TV spot, and in real life, the most important thing to say to young people is� 'don't do it.' Help them understand that watching a pirated movie or downloading free copies of bands' albums is not a victimless crime. It could affect people they know and care about. It chips away at our creative industries, and ultimately, our city."

If you live in NYC, you should be complaining to your schools and to your government to disclose who's behind this and shut it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 22 Sep 2011 @ 11:22am

piracy video contest
This entire article is false. It's as if you argued to a shop owner, "Shoplifting hasn�t harmed you; your failure to adapt to shoplifting has."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re: piracy video contest
  No it is if you said "this is now illegal" and other said "screw you" and you got upset.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Sep 2011 @ 4:55pm
  
  Re: piracy video contest
  Don't worry Brian, I know you're retarded but maybe someday you'll learn about the magical thing called "physics"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marco Fioretti, 24 Sep 2011 @ 12:06am

Google and Vodafone did similar propaganda in Italy
Check out for details the two pages below. IIRC the second story was also mentioned here on Techdirt. For the record, Vodafone backed down, Google didn't (as far as I know)

Google, schools, the Police and the Ministry of Youth? Don�t get lost!

Does VODAFONE really ignore how copyright works? Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 25 Sep 2011 @ 6:48am

actually
Since NBC universals belief in "copyright is good and more important than human rights....here are some completely fictional numbers to back this up that we just created by randomly mashing buttons on a keypad" is basically a religion (its blind belief with NO facts to back it up, doesn't this mean that NBC universal/government working together is a violation of church & state?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 25 Sep 2011 @ 6:50am

and
I'm more than willing to give NBC a tax-exempt status as long as they are not allowed to lobby any government department or person and stay away from schools and local government elections.....after all they only paid like what $50 in tax last year anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]