Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission

RiP: A Remix Manifesto... Taken Offline Due To Copyright Claim?

from the remix-this dept

Wed, Jun 13th 2012 8:59pm — Mike Masnick

A few years ago, we wrote about the ridiculous hoops filmmaker Brett Gaylor had to jump through in making his film, RiP: A remix manifesto. If you haven't seen it, you should. As you might imagine, it's a movie all about culture and remixing, focusing quite a bit on the artist Girl Talk, but also featuring a number of other folks you probably know, including Cory Doctorow and Larry Lessig. Here's the trailer: It's absolutely worth watching. Hell, if you've got an hour and a half to kill, you can watch it right here (via Vimeo): The full video is also available on Hulu and a number of other places -- including off of Brett Gaylor's own website, where you can pay what you want for it.

However, as I just discovered, if you head over to YouTube, you can find the movie in pieces... but apparently part I has been disappeared down the copyright hole thanks to a copyright claim by eOne, an "independent music company."

Perhaps this isn't a surprise. Hell, in the very section that is not viewable, the voiceover by Gaylor says, quite clearly:

Whether or not you think this music is original isn't the point. Because the rules of this game don't depend on who made the songs. They depend on who owns the copyright. And according to the people who do, sampling even a single note is grounds for a lawsuit. That means these kids should not be dancing. And you shouldn't be watching, because using these songs in my movie is against the rules too. And the fact that there are people out there calling my favorite artist a criminal, is exactly why I need to make this film.

To be honest, I have no clue how long that clip has been down, but it does strike me as quite ironic. As far as I know neither Gaylor nor Gregg Gillis (who is Girl Talk) has been sued for infringement. And even though the movie (and Girl Talk's music) are widely available all over the place...apparently eOne decided that it couldn't have that on YouTube.

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: brett gaylor, cory doctorow, fair use, larry lessig, remix

58 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

droozilla (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 9:24pm

Youtube can go.
Seriously, at what point do we just stop using Youtube, and find another video hosting service that will tell these companies filing these bullshit claims to go stick it?

There's plenty of alternatives out there now. I'm sure there will be more in the future. Vote with your content, take away those ad revenues. Show the system who's running this show. That's the only way progress will be made.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 9:33pm

Youtube can go?
But what other company has the cash Google does to fight back against companies filing bullshit claims and lawsuits?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 13 Jun 2012 @ 10:44pm

The more I see things like this the less respect I have for copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2012 @ 10:48pm

The more I see things like this the less respect I have for criminals who steal from others and try to profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mr rudeforth, 13 Jun 2012 @ 10:51pm

unable to watch the film on HULU "Sorry, currently our video library can only be watched from within the United States" for copyright reasons no doubt :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
technomage (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 10:53pm

Re:
yeah I don't care for the government either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2012 @ 11:07pm

Re:
The more I see things like this the less respect I have for criminals who claim people stealing from others and try to profit.

FTFY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 12:04am

Re: couldn't resist
The more I see things like this, the less respect I have for people who try to confuse theft and infringement and imply that sharing is done only for profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 12:50am

Best quote ever
"I don't own the rights to the concept of love... I wish I did."

-Rick Cairns, Music Industry Lobbyist

This is the type of mentality that the copyleft is up against.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 1:01am

WOW
I wonder if any of the lawyers defending Jamie Thomas or the judges in the case are aware that Spotify exists NOW.

Think about that, because it means that what Jamie Thomas did is basically legal now. There was no service to legally meet her needs at the time of her lawsuit, but there is now. Her basic human nature has not changed, wanting to listen to what she wants when she wants, but the technology caught up. So exactly why is she guilty now?

This seems simple. Jamie should have to pay whatever Spotify would pay for the use of those 24 songs. Let's assume she listened to each song 20 times.

I really want to say, let the RIAA figure out the math on that, but they would arbitrarily assume she listened to each track 10 million times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 1:47am

Calling all trolls
I'm really not sure how any of us can watch this video and not comment excessively.

I really want to hear from the trolls on this one. Jamie Thomas is being held accountable for listening to music for personal use while Girl Talk is PROFITING from "samples" (cue the Darth Vader music).

Why? The copyright laws were clearly meant to prevent Girl Talk not attack the consumer base. Tens of thousands of lawsuits were initiated against consumers but NONE against Girl Talk. Why?

What about RiP? Besides being a documentary, it is clearly for PROFIT and should have to pay millions in license fees, according to the law. So rally the troll troops and give us a response that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 1:53am

Re:
The more I read comments like this, the less faith I have in humanity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just John (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 2:35am

Taiwan works
Ironically, it is not blocked in Taiwan. That's a change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shen, 14 Jun 2012 @ 2:47am

Interesting.
http://www.hulu.com/studio/eone-entertainment-distribution?sort=name
(Page 3, 2nd from bottom on left). I find this oddly amusing, and yet disturbing at the same time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 3:53am

Re: Youtube can go?
if they dont take the necessary steps to ensure that the content that's being asked to be removed, should be removed, it doesn't matter how much money the company has.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Austronymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 4:18am

Re: Taiwan works
Funny enough, Part 1 on YT can be watched within Australia as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 4:44am

Re: Interesting.
Uh... WHAT?

For those who don't want to go look, on Hulu, the film is one of the titles filed under eOne.

Issuing a false takedown "in good faith" is allowed under the DMCA, but this casts serious doubt upon eOne's intentions. On Hulu, they're claiming ownership of the film, and presumably they're the ones getting paid when people watch it there. If they are hijacking the film's profits, then actual financial harm is being done and Gaylor may have grounds for a 512(f) case.

Oh, but I'm sure it's all just an honest mistake, a computer glitch or something. Gosh darn those automated processes.

(Attn: Gaylor�talk to a lawyer about this.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 4:51am

Rap Hip Hop Pop Girl Talk Mashup
So GT makes a mix. Oh yeah so did most of the urban music artist known across the US. GT gets invited to music Festivals. RapHIPHOP dead to the people because they sampled and pissed the world of music off. GT famous and makes some cash, OR did they just exploit his ability to draw a crowd into one arena and they got PAID. When they can not pull a penny from the process they will stop it. When they figure out how to MONETIZE from the Thieves then every thing is A-OK. BTW Spotify is owned by a Major Label. Look it up. As stated above, "WHEN THEY FIGURE OUT HOW TO MONETIZE FROM THE THIEVES" then it is OK. It is not about Copyright, its about maintaining the flow of cash into one centralized location. I am all for free speech, yet I am annoyed that several artist took from the poor folk and uneducated and profited. When the poor folk repeated the business model the heavy metal hammer came crashing down. If you read between my lines then you understand what I am saying. It's all hear in black and white.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jewell/Quepea (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 4:53am

Re: Rap Hip Hop Pop Girl Talk Mashup
I wrote the above comment and did not know I was signed out. just wanted to stake my claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:21am

Re:
Damn right! Down with the record labels! Glad you see the light!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:21am

Why????
Because it's so very easy to take something down on youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 6:33am

Re: Why????
And to think paywall bob complains about having to jump through hoops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 6:34am

Use INDIE Music in your TV & Film Projects and this issue will disappear.I would love to see someone use my wacky punk stuff somewhere and would never charge money to do that.
Use My Stuff and never worry about stupid MAFIAA Greedy Tactics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 14 Jun 2012 @ 6:37am

Re: Youtube can go.
*shhhhh* don't tell them! If they still think there's only YouTube then all of the alternatives stay around longer!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 14 Jun 2012 @ 6:39am

Re:
Me too! But how does that relate to this post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 8:44am

Re: WOW
Didn't you know everyone was supposed to patiently sit and wait years for the music industry to give us an approved and legally sanctioned and highly profitable way to listen to digital music online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 9:15am

It's back up. I just watched the whole movie on YouTube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 9:53am

A big problem with this is that once you get one of these strikes against you on YouTube, an account in "Good Standing" gets your account limited to 15 mins. per video again.

If you sign up for a YouTube account today, the max video length is 15 mins. If you go for a certain amount of time without a copyright/vulgarity/nudity claim against your account, (In my case it was about a year) They lift the time limit and you can upload videos that are any length.

If you upload a video that uses video or music, fair use or not, you can be flagged for a copyright copyright violation. If you don't fight it, and really, who wants to, you're now on YouTube's shit list for some undetermined time. When YouTube decides you've been good for long enough, then they give you back your video length freedom.

I have a Non-Monetized YouTube account with subscribers in the hundreds, around 400 I think, and recently got a strike. It was for a video that had been on YouTube for 2-1/2 years, and had almost 80,000 views. Now my account is limited to 15 min. videos for the foreseeable future. They also warn you that if you violate again during your punishment, your account could be permanently banned.

Content owners claim copyright theft left and right, and I think they do it more often than they should because they know most people don't have either the power or the will to get into a pissing match in court.

=====================

The other thing about YouTube that bugs me is that someone will claim copyright over one of my videos, and monetize it. That's fine with me, I just want the video to stay up. But I'm also notified at the same time, that they (the content owner) could change their mind at any time and have the video removed and I will get a strike against my account. It's all these mixed signals about what is right and what is wrong to upload that bugs me.

Hey, You uploaded copyrighted material, but it's ok, we're going to put ads on it and make some money. *2 years goes by* "Hey we don't like that you uploaded this, have a strike!"

Uploaded one video that immediately got tagged as Blocked Worldwide, and it put my account status in the red. Immediately deleted it. Not 5 mins later I checked my email and it said that the video was ok, but there would be ads on it. WTF? I didn't uploaded it again.

Anyone who has had these notices on YouTube knows how weird the wording on these things can be, and how unclear they make it as to what's ok and what's not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Youtube can go?
if they dont take the necessary steps to ensure that the content that's being asked to be removed, should be removed, it doesn't matter how much money the company has.

Of course it does. The legal system is geared so that the richest party in a dispute wins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dano (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 11:03am

Re: Youtube copyright violation
I received a violation on a video I uploaded. It was of a neighborhood bicycle parade held on the 4th of July. Unfortunately for me, included in the parade was a boombox playing Stars and Stripes Forever in the background, so guess what? Youtube copyright violation. There's no way to remove just the music, so essentially I can't post the video. I don't think this is what our country's founders had in mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 11:18am

Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
Unfortunately for me, included in the parade was a boombox playing Stars and Stripes Forever in the background

Stars and Stripes Forever was written by John Phillip Sousa in 1896. It was officially recorded in 1897, and was made the national march for the US in that same year. It is in the public domain. Unless they were getting you for mechanical rights violation for the particular orchestra which recorded it after 1923, they don't have a leg to stand on.

Further more, the community band I was in that recorded stars and stripes forever with released the song as public domain, and I am sure many, if not most other bands have done the same. I'd suggest fighting that one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 11:21am

Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
Further more, the community band I was in that recorded stars and stripes forever with released the song as public domain, and I am sure many, if not most other bands have done the same. I'd suggest fighting that one.

And even further, the official one is performed by the U.S. Marine Corps band, and is public domain, whether anyone likes that status or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 12:01pm

He needs to learn the difference between "building on the past" versus "just replaying the past". Honestly, sampling someone else's work and calling it "new" is like polishing a 20 year old car and calling it "new". It isn't new. It's old.

Building on culture doesn't mean photocopying it. It means making your own version of it, improving it, learning from it and INTERPRETING IT yourself. Just putting someone else's performance on and pushing a button isn't a new performance, it's just a lazy ass way for someone with less musical talent to claim to be a musician.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron, 14 Jun 2012 @ 12:46pm

Re:
You obviously don't even know what a remix is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 2:28pm

The video is back on Youtube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 3:58pm

Speaking of eOne...
http://www.matthewgood.org/front-page/2012/6/14/matthew-signs-new-deal.html

Given the 2006 release of an album came with a contest for fans to generate a video for the single, I wonder whether such things will be possible under eOne (given how they went after the remix manifesto video).

It makes me sad when artists you respect join forces with companies that issue copyright claims when that isn't the focus of the video. Makes me wonder whether the fan contest video thing, which helped the album in terms of sales, will ever be possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
terry (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:33pm

Re:
Yes, Part 1 does seem to be back on Youtube.

Once light was put on this matter the cockroaches must have scattered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googleypants, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:38pm

theives is gonna steal, haters gonna hate, law is gonna fight
yup. if hollywood worked like the internet no one would get paid for anything... ev-er...

thank god people in hollywood respect artists enough to negotiate contracts, pay people for their labor, and allow them to decline deals they find inequitable.

it's called, "consent". there can be no liberty, without consent.

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/how-copyright-encourages-creativity-in-hollywood/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googleypants, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:40pm

Re: Re: Re: Youtube can go?
"Of course it does. The legal system is geared so that the richest party in a dispute wins."

not really. the law sides with copyright holders. if the work is being used or exploited illegally it's pretty cut and dry. remixes are not protected under fair use. that's why there's an entire cottage industry dedicated to sample clearances. it's really not that hard if people make the effort to do so.

nearly three decades of hip-hop shows that it works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googleypants, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:43pm

Re:
"The more I see things like this the less respect I have for criminals who steal from others and try to profit."

I couldn't agree more. Copyright is what protects artists from illegal exploitation.

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/copylike-org-evil-corporations-we-dont-like-them/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googleypants, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:46pm

Re: WOW
"Think about that, because it means that what Jamie Thomas did is basically legal now. "

- really? - How So? Spotify is a legally licensed services paying royalties to performers and songwriters. How were the songs licensed that Jamie Thomas was distributing and how much was she and those illegally operating providers paying performers and songwriters? Uhm, that would be ZERO.

https://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/artist-exploitation-calculator-internet-edition/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googlepants, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:47pm

Re: Re:
"Damn right! Down with the record labels! Glad you see the light!"

down with everyone who illegally exploits artists, performers and songwriters for profit, wouldn't you say?

http://ethicalfan.com/2012/04/wall-of-shame-april-2012/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googlypants, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:52pm

Re: Calling all trolls
Funny how you think anyone who is an advocate of the rights of artists, performers and songwriters are trolls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:54pm

Re: Speaking of eOne...
"It makes me sad when artists you respect join forces with companies that issue copyright claims when that isn't the focus of the video. "

you got a lot of artists to disappoint you then...

http://www.eonemusic.com/

http://www.kochdistribution.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googlypants, 14 Jun 2012 @ 5:59pm

funny hoops a hulu
"A few years ago, we wrote about the ridiculous hoops filmmaker Brett Gaylor had to jump through in making his film,"

- ah mike... really? "ridiculous hoops" like licenses clearances and permission? silly boy... you do understand that's how the adult do it in Hollywood, right? They ask permission, negotiate fees, issue contracts, pay the artists and allow the artist to decline if they want too...

Mike - do you think Hollywood film producers should be able to use whatever music they want in their films without licenses or negotiating with artists? What if film and television worked like internet exploitation? You just keep making more and more arguments against artists being compensated for their work... why is that? Why are the only musicians you don't hate the ones that agree to give up their rights and lay down for you?

hmmmmmm....

here's how the adults do it, with respect:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/how-copyright-encourages-creativity-in-hollywood/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googleypants, 14 Jun 2012 @ 6:18pm

Re: it's refreshing
it's refreshing to see youtube/google and hulu taking responsibility for infringing materials and doing the right thing by taking them offline. the filmmaker should get the appropriate licenses.

as a music documentary filmmaker myself, I know what a PITA this can be, but as a creator myself, I respect the work of others.

a little respect goes a long way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 6:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
I'm so glad that Google is learning their lesson to respect artists, performers, songwriters and creators by enforcing copyright on YouTube, this is fantastic progress.

Perhaps one day, the internet may actually work FAIRLY for artists and creators as Hollywood does with respect, permission, contracts and payments.

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/how-copyright-encourages-creativity-in-hollywood/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 7:59pm

Re: funny hoops a hulu
"googlypants"? Hurricane head not silly enough for you, and you had to spam the same websites multiple times in this thread alone?

Tell you what, hurricane head. You'll only have the privilege to spam everyone with your nonsense when your sleeping giant artist friends come and vote every single one of your comments insightful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
qwer, 14 Jun 2012 @ 9:24pm

does anyone know what radiohed song is being played in the trailer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 15 Jun 2012 @ 7:22am

Re: Re: WOW
Because when she downloaded songs, there was no Spotify, which is probably what she would be using today instead of downloading. Do you not remember how impossible it once was to legally purchase mp3s?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 15 Jun 2012 @ 7:28am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
You didn't even read the thread you're replying to, did you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
googlypants, 15 Jun 2012 @ 9:08am

Re: Re: funny hoops a hulu
"Tell you what, hurricane head. You'll only have the privilege to spam everyone with your nonsense when your sleeping giant artist friends come and vote every single one of your comments insightful."

LOL... afraid are we?

http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/artists-know-thy-enemy/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2012 @ 7:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube can go?
Let's reiterate: The law IS geared so that the richest party in a dispute wins.

You're using a clip that is clearly fair use, but can't afford to defend yourself in court? You lose! Even though what you did is perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2012 @ 2:27am

Re: Re: Re: funny hoops a hulu
"Afraid"? The last time you were asked about this your response was "just wait". If the opposition against Mike is of any magnitude at all, this site should be swarming with criticism.

The fact that you merely continue to paste the same hyperlinks over and over again is bringing your support (or lack thereof) into question. Come back when you've made some new blogposts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jun 2012 @ 2:28am

Re: theives is gonna steal, haters gonna hate, law is gonna fight
If Hollywood worked like the Internet you'd have Internet archives. No more Hollywood accounting.

So, sorry to disappoint you, but if Hollywood worked like the Internet people would get paid. The right people would get paid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digger, 18 Jun 2012 @ 10:31am

Re: Thieves and Criminals - aka RIAA/MPAA
You're right, I cannot believe that we allow the MPAA and RIAA to live on..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ltlw0lf (profile), 18 Jun 2012 @ 10:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Youtube copyright violation
Perhaps one day, the internet may actually work FAIRLY for artists and creators as Hollywood does with respect, permission, contracts and payments.

You mean like fairly paying artists that have been dead for 80 years with no offspring? Yup. This is the copyright maximalist's wet dream.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trog, 10 Dec 2012 @ 7:34pm

YOU don't get it.
Go to eOne distribution. http://www.kochdistribution.com Search for catalog # TDC-DV-055
Hmm. eOne owns the distribution rights to Rip: A Mashup manifesto.
So the producers of RIP sold out to the man for some cash.
Homework first: Then blog post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]