The Plight Of Iranians Trying To Make A Video Game About The 1979 Revolution

from the video-games-are-art-and-speech dept

Talk with someone who is from an older generation or someone who does not spend much time playing video games and you'll often hear a common refrain: games aren't art. Or, perhaps you'll get a qualifier, claiming that games aren't a serious form of art, or speech. For some of us, the silliness of those statements has been evident for a long time, particularly given that the courts have stated the opposite. That said, perhaps the problem has been the lack of a definitive example at which to point. Other forms of art have these examples that clearly denote the realm of artwork. The literary world is littered with examples, such as Salman Rushdie and the controversy around The Satanic Verses. Music is also rife with examples, from Bob Dylan to the Pussy Riot fiasco in Russia. Film too has its heroes in speech and art.

I submit that the plight of Iranian nationals attempting to make a game about the 1979 revolution ought to be gaming's example. The story is a fascinating one involving several folks who have taken to hide their identities in order to remain safe while making a game that is likely to result in tension with their home governments. The story focuses on one Iranian who is working under the name Phoenix.

"I started working professionally when I was 17," Phoenix said, in an e-mail exchange mediated by Khonsari. "I wanted to become an animator and thought that was the closest I was going to get to working on games, as there was no gaming industry in Iran to support that kind of work. I yearned to work on video games; I love them and dreamed of working on them…I just didn't think it was possible."

But it eventually dawned on him that a game like 1979 Revolution would change his life in more sinister ways. The ephemeral nature of the Iranian government's thought policing means that Phoenix doesn't exactly know if he's being targeted. Nevertheless, he didn't want to risk being wrong. After all, in these kinds of scenarios, you never know that you're a person of interest until it's too late. "I'm not sure if anyone is coming after me," Phoenix said. "But I need to be cautious not only for my own safety, but also for that of my family. Also, Navid was written about and if they associated me with him it could be trouble for my family."

The Navid mentioned is Navid Khonsari, who is headlining the 1979 Revolution project. Iran, now actively trying to foster an image of a kinder, softer version of the same theocracy that put a contract on Salman Rushdie's head, has already dubbed Khonsari a spy and refused him any admittance to his home country. There hasn't been any word yet about death sentences, but several team members on the project, including Phoenix, aren't taking any chances.

Meanwhile, the game, which is still being developed, is already getting tongues wagging. Many commentators are skeptical about the historicity the game will attempt to portray, or the political motivations of the developers, or the fairness of the portrayal of all sides within. If this sounds familiar, it should, because this is the kind of discussion reserved for fictional artwork and speech surrounding the serious topics of our day. In other words, this game, and the plight of its artistic developers, ends the discussion about games as serious speech and artwork. If we believe that the makers of this game deserve protection from the Iranian government's attempts to silence their speech, or discourage their activism, then we're already thinking about this whole story in the framework of art and expression.

That said, it would be a mistake to denigrate the sacrifice these artists are making for their craft.

As for Mr. Phoenix, he doesn't know when it'll be safe to go home again. "There was no space for growth or to further my life experience," Phoenix said. "Don't get me wrong: there are many artists in Iran who are thriving and I have much respect for them. For me, it was about experiencing the world beyond Iran. My hope for this game is that people will learn what happened and have greater understanding for all people. From learning about their experience in the game, they might be more compassionate rather than dismissive."

Sounds like an artistic hero to me, one who deserves commendations and support for his art and speech.

Filed Under: free speech, iran, phoenix, revolution, video game

Larry Lessig Threatened With Copyright Infringement Over Clear Fair Use; Decides To Fight Back

from the bad-ideas:-threatening-larry-lessig-with-a-copyright-infringement-lawsuit dept

If you read Techdirt, you're almost certainly familiar with Larry Lessig, the law professor at Harvard who (among many other things) has been an avid advocate for copyright reform and campaign finance reform, an author of many books about copyright and creativity, a well-known public speaker whose presentations are stunningly compelling, entertaining and informative, and the founder of some important organizations including Creative Commons. Of course, as an expert on copyright and creativity, and someone who's actually been involved in some of the key copyright legal fights over the past decade (tragically, on the losing side), you might think that a record label would think twice before issuing a clearly bogus threat to sue him over copyright infringement. Well, apparently Liberation Music was either unaware of Lessig's reputation and knowledge, or just didn't care.

Apparently, back in 2010, Lessig gave one of his many wonderful public talks, this one called "Open," at a Creative Commons event in South Korea. While that happened a few years ago, Lessig just put video of that talk online a few months ago. In that video, which is now down (for reasons explained below), there are a few brief clips of the Phoenix song Lisztomania, which was quite popular a few years ago. When the clip was posted, it appears that YouTube's ContentID noted two possible claims: one from Viacom and one from Liberation Music, though, oddly, Lessig was only informed about the Viacom one. Lessig disputed the Viacom block, but as YouTube was about to restore the video, Liberation Music took it one step further, and filed a full DMCA claim, demanding the video be taken down and kept offline (while many people confuse them, the ContentID match is not the same thing as a DMCA claim -- without getting into the details, the DMCA claim is a bit more serious).

In response, Lessig did exactly what the law allows, and filed a DMCA counter-notice, claiming that the work did not infringe. In response, Liberation emailed Lessig directly telling him that it would be filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against him in 72 hours if he did not "retract" his counter-notice. To avoid having an immediate lawsuit on his hands, Lessig retracted the notice, but since then has teamed up with the EFF to file for declaratory judgment that the video does not infringe and (more importantly) to seek DMCA 512(f) damages against Liberation for filing a totally bogus DMCA takedown notice.

There are a few things worth digging into here. For example, this is not the first time that Lessig has had videos removed from YouTube on highly questionable copyright claims. In fact, we've written about it happening twice before. However, I'm pretty sure that, in both cases, after Lessig countered the claims, the videos were restored. In both cases, it really looked like part of an automatic takedown, where the companies later realized there was nothing worth pursuing. What's different (and stunning) here is that Liberation decided to press forward with the obviously bogus claim, file the DMCA notice and threaten to sue if Lessig didn't drop his counternotice.

Next, in terms of the content of the video itself, while the YouTube video is gone because of the DMCA takedown, I'm pretty sure there's another copy here. The Lisztomania clips come in around the 37:50 mark. I wasn't able to fast forward to it, but Lessig has used it in other presentations as well. For example, you can see it in a TEDx presentation that Lessig did a few months earlier, with the key section of that video happening at 4:40 in that video. And what he's showing, actually, is not something that Lessig himself put together, but rather clips from a video that Julian Sanchez had put together -- a video we've written about a few times.

That's because it's a truly fantastic video that Sanchez put together in February of 2010, highlighting how copying was a key part of culture, using a really compelling example: First, there was a mashup video uploaded to YouTube by a user called "avoidant consumer," which mashed up the song Lisztomania by the band Phoenix, with a bunch of (mostly dance) scenes from a variety of John Hughes movies, leading with the classic Breakfast Club. The video is pretty good in a variety of ways. The music is catchy, the film scenes are classic (especially for people who grew up in the 80s), and (most importantly), the video and the music just fit together. I remember that video getting passed around like crazy. The whole thing became a meme.

Part of that meme, as highlighted by Sanchez, was that people of certain "tribes," who really liked that video then created their own versions, starting with a crew of hipsters in Brooklyn, followed quickly by some hipsters in San Francisco, and later by people all over the world. Those later videos no longer used the original John Hughes clips, but rather recreated the same clips within their own environments in a very fun way. Sanchez spoke about this form of culture and community and how the nature of this remix helped to build that community, and how our copyright policy rarely reflects that aspect.

Of course, late last year, Sanchez discovered that his own video had been removed by a copyright claim by Kobalt Music and Sony Music. He appealed, and it was rejected... but after the story got some attention, the clip was put back. If I remember correctly, the video was taken down yet again just a few months ago, but was put back soon after.

Meanwhile, soon after Sanchez put out the video, Lessig used Sanchez's video, again to highlight the power of remix and remix culture. In the South Korea presentation, Lessig is no longer using the same Sanchez video, and has actually expanded upon what Sanchez started, by including a variety of other cities the meme spread to. However, in almost every way, these are all clearly fair use. I'm assuming the Viacom ContentID match that Lessig first received was because of the use of some of the video clips in Lessig's presentation, including (perhaps) one of the John Hughes clips that very briefly show up (the video also includes a Daily Show clip, which Viacom owns -- so it could be about that). The audio claim by Liberation, however, is about the Phoenix audio. Given that, it would be almost impossible to see this as infringing.

While I may be predisposed towards seeing fair use more readily than some others, I'd be curious if any copyright maximalist can come up with a credible argument for how this isn't fair use. It involved some very brief clips used to illustrate a concept, including commentary from Lessig (talking over the clips). It wasn't for any commercial purpose, but for education. There is no way that it harmed the market for the Lisztomania song. If anything, it potentially increased interest in the song. I can't see how Liberation Music has any case at all. At all.

Of course, the really interesting part of this might not be the declaratory judgment claim for non-infringement (where the fair use stuff will play out), but rather the second claim -- for attorneys fees, costs and damages under 512(f). As we've discussed, unfortunately, it's been almost impossible to win a 512(f) claim over a bogus DMCA takedown. The entertainment industry has fought hard to make sure that sending totally bogus DMCA notices that censor content are basically unpunishable, unless they can show a willful and intentional decision to ignore fair use and censor the content. While it's not a slam dunk, it certainly appears that Lessig has a much stronger 512(f) argument here than other cases, because this isn't a one-time situation, but Liberation doubled down even after being told that Lessig believed the video was fair use. On top of that, by filing the lawsuit himself, and seeking the declaratory judgment, instead of being sued first, it means that Liberation can't just dismiss the lawsuit (they're now the defendant, not the plaintiff).

Given that it's Lessig, and with the involvement of the EFF, this is obviously going to be a case worth watching, but given the full details of the case, it may be a key one in establishing when 512(f) can be used to push back against bogus DMCA takedowns.

Filed Under: 512(f), 512f, copyright, dmca, fair use, julian sanchez, larry lessig, lisztomania, phoenix, takedowns
Companies: liberation music

Video About Fair Use, Remix & Culture Taken Down Over Copyright Claim (Of Course)

from the how-nice-of-them dept

A few years back, we had a post highlighting an absolutely fantastic video by Julian Sanchez about the value of remix culture. The video made a key point that often gets lost in these debates: that remix culture is often more about the culture than the remix, but that copyright law makes that difficult. It focused mainly on a viral remix video that took a song from the band Phoenix, called "Lisztomania," but which was put to video clips of people dancing in various John Hughes films (mainly from the classic scene in "The Breakfast Club.") That was interesting enough, but what was even more interesting was how it then followed that lots of others recreated the video in their own image. So groups got together in various hipster locations (Brooklyn, San Francisco) and created their own videos recreating the dance moves on their own to go with the new song. It was really quite interesting, and showed how important remixing and fair use was to culture, and how it could take something and make more with it.

Fast forward to the present, and even though this video has been up for years, Julian discovered that his original video was taken down on a copyright claim. If you go to it now, you see this: For what it's worth, this does not seem to be targeted at just Sanchez. In looking around, it looks like a bunch of the "original" videos of the Hughes brat pack dancing to Lisztomania videos are all down with the same message. From this, it appears that it's the publishing company, rather than the band or its label. Kobalt has claimed to be a new sort of publishing company, though this seems like a horrifically old school approach, killing off a popular viral video -- and doubly so with the Sanchez video which almost certainly qualifies as fair use. It was completely not commercial, only used a part of the song, included significant commentary, did not limit the market for the song and clearly was not a replacement.

And, yet, it's gone. Even worse, when Sanchez appealed the takedown, which was rejected, and there appears to be nothing else Sanchez can do: Note that in this screen, it's not Kobalt, but Glassnote and SME (which I believe is Sony Music). Glassnote is an indie label who released the song, but in partnership with Sony, who handles the distribution.

It's also odd that there doesn't appear to be any further appeals process. After all, just last month YouTube said it had changed its appeals process to avoid exactly this situation. The "old" model allowed whoever made the claim to "reject" the appeal and there was no further action possible. The "new" situation is supposed to require the claimant to file a DMCA notice, at which point the DMCA process takes over.

Users have always had the ability to dispute Content ID claims on their videos if they believe those claims are invalid. Prior to today, if a content owner rejected that dispute, the user was left with no recourse for certain types of Content ID claims (e.g., monetize claims). Based upon feedback from our community, today we're introducing an appeals process that gives eligible users a new choice when dealing with a rejected dispute. When the user files an appeal, a content owner has two options: release the claim or file a formal DMCA notification.

But, as Sanchez notes, there doesn't appear to be any such appeals process available to him (at least not in an obvious manner).

Either way, Glassnote/Kobalt/SME is playing with fire here. First off, taking down such a popular viral video -- one that clearly only served to help promote the song massively -- just seems stupid and shortsighted. But, going further and taking down Sanchez's video commentary on remix culture, which used part of that song seems doubly questionable, seeing as it's almost certainly fair use. It might not be the same issue as the Lenz case, in which Universal Music may get into trouble for issuing a bogus DMCA without properly considering fair use, since it's unclear that any actual DMCA notice was filed (instead, this looks like it was all a problem via ContentID). However, going around and censoring videos that are clearly fair use isn't going to end well. Though, really, YouTube's broken ContentID system isn't helping either.

Filed Under: contentid, fair use, julian sanchez, lisztomania, phoenix, remix culture, takedowns
Companies: glassnote records, kobalt, sony music, youtube

DailyDirt: Who's Going To Clean Up All The Space Junk?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Putting satellites and spacecraft into low earth orbit is getting easier and less expensive all the time, but that also means we're possibly creating even more orbiting space junk around our planet -- without any way to remove this garbage. Man-made space debris is already a problem, and as we shoot more stuff up into space, it could become an even bigger problem. There are at least a few folks who are concerned about space pollution, but there aren't that many workable solutions (yet).

• DARPA is working on a project called Phoenix which aims to create new satellites that can cannibalize older satellites in orbit for parts. DARPA wants to demonstrate robotic satellites that can salvage reusable parts such as antennas from obsolete satellites in geosynchronous orbit, but there are quite a few technological and logistical hurdles to overcome. [url]
• China's space program has achieved several significant milestones, but its anti-satellite capabilities could turn low earth orbit into an unusable space junkyard. In 2007, China shot down one of its own weather satellites and created a cloud of space debris. [url]
• One proposal to reduce space debris in low earth orbit involves deploying tons of micron-scale tungsten dust in space -- which would collide with other debris and slow down the space junk so that it burns up in the upper atmosphere. About 100 tons of cosmic dust from micrometeorites gets captured by Earth's gravity on a daily basis, but it's too spread out to have a significant effect on man-made space junk. Unfortunately, deploying 40 tons of man-made tungsten dust, at about $1000 per pound, is a fairly expensive mission... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: china, low earth orbit, micrometeorites, phoenix, satellites, space, space junk, tungsten
Companies: darpa

Even The Phoenix Police, Responding To Emergencies, Can Get Dinged By Speed Cameras

from the money-in-the-bank dept

Arizona has been one of the bigger supporters of traffic cameras over the years, though there's been quite a bit of backlash there in recent months. It reached quite a level last month with the news that a speed camera operator was shot and killed. Reader Milodon points us to the news that even the police in Phoenix are getting quite upset at speed cameras because they're getting caught by them while on the way to respond to emergencies. Yes, even when the police are responding to an emergency in a police car, lights flashing and everything, they can still get a citation if they're caught speeding by a speed camera. The police department policy is that officers can get cited for being "out of policy" which is 15 mph over the speed limit.

Now, there is a reasonable argument to be made that police speeding can be a danger to others as well -- which is what those who support the policy say. But, you could make an argument that circumstances should determine what's safe in responding to an emergency, rather than a hard and fast policy. Still, even if you agree that police shouldn't speed, it's hard not to see some irony in police getting citations from speed cameras.

Filed Under: phoenix, police, speed cameras, traffic cameras