I know that YouTube/Google are in a big legal fight with Viacom over infringing works on YouTube, and that YouTube has been bending over backwards to help copyright holders either takedown or monetize infringing works, but I’m both surprised and disappointed by YouTube’s new “copyright school.” You can see the video below:
For a company that employs both William Patry and Fred von Lohmann, you would think that the video would be a lot better. First of all, it simply reinforces the idea that infringement is “piracy,” by using a cartoon character dressed up as a “pirate.” That’s misleading in the extreme. Second, it is incredibly misleading, condescending and insulting to creative remixes, which it claims are “not original.” Instead, it urges people to “sing an original song” and “create your own content.” Really? Is YouTube really claiming that remixes like Kutiman are “not original” because they’re remixes?
Finally, while the video does at least make a nod to fair use (at 2:42), the message there is pretty clear that fair use is complicated, legalistic, and not for normal people, so you’re best off just ignoring it. Basically, up until that point in the video, the video has a standard pace and some backing bed music, but when the fair use segment comes in, a big white slab comes across the screen, the music stops, and the slab fills with small, difficult to read text, that the voiceover voice reads very quickly, like the legal disclaimers at the end of drug commercials. Meanwhile, the cartoon “pirate” is shown struggling with fair use.
As Copycense points out, if you actually want a copyright/fair use lesson on YouTube, you’re better off watching this video from Rocketboom:
Of course, as per usual, it appears that YouTube users are not confused by this sort of propaganda. As I write this, the votes on YouTube’s own video are 2 to 1 “dislike” to “like.”
Update: And, really, if we’re going to be showing “educational” videos about copyright, how can we forget this one, care of Nina Paley:
I’ve often thought YouTube caches number in weird ways. I’m still only seeing 412 v. 1638. It’s also interesting that of the possibly 412, 150 favourited the video.
That’s the 150 people that support the **AA and Performance Rights Organizations.
Phillipsays:
I…I almost think this is a parody making fun of how ridiculously oppressive copyright law is. No one could possibly take this video seriously it’s absurd and it seems to take everything to the extreme. Almost “A Modest Proposal”-like…
I watched this yesterday, and I had much the same reaction. It seems like a heavy-handed joke, but if you think about in a deliberately naive way, it makes the US Judicial Branch into a literal mechanism for hammering people doing commonplace things (sharing a video with other fans) into conforming.
It even has the Techdirt Troll’s Obsession with getting an experienced copyright lawyer to judge infringement or not. If they were telling the truth they wouldn’t have put this weird advice in.
I’m guessing that some group at youtube tricked a really obsessive “experienced copyright lawyer” to go completely overboard, and then had an animator with a sense of humor illustrate the overboard nature of experienced copyright lawyering.
“Finally, while the video does at least make a nod to fair use (at 2:42), the message there is pretty clear that fair use is complicated, legalistic, and not for normal people, so you’re best off just ignoring it.”
You know? This statement above is a powerful and damning statement against Copyright’s continued existence. And the reality behind it infuriates me.
Copyright is a -MONOPOLY- power granted by -WE THE PEOPLE- and now we’re being told that -WE THE ‘LITTLE’ PEOPLE- aren’t even allowed near the borders of Copyright?
Screw Copyright. REPEAL IT.
Seriously, No Copyright can’t be worse that this Boat-Anchor around our necks.
I found the use of the pirate dressed guy (and, in particular a beaver… Thanks alot youtube)
and most of the video to be ironic (and funny). It seemed to be pretty tongue in cheek the whole time and seemed to say “This is what we have to deal with”
But maybe I’m reading too much into it 🙂
I’m waiting for the owners of Rocky and Bullwinkle to file a take down notice. The beaver alone wasn’t enough for me, but as soon as I saw the moose, I couldn’t watch the rest of the video without thinking of Rocky and Bullwinkle.
I hadn’t thought of that..
I immediately thought the old canada is full of pirates rant..
Although I think Rocky was a flying squirrel maybe it isn’t a beaver afterall. Bullwinkle was always the bumbling idiot that Rocky had to put up with so I guess that fits with the whole tongue in cheek feeling of the video 🙂
Odd, the ‘3 strikes’ looks so much like the ones on ‘The Price is Right’ that I expected the fail-music to play afterwards. Did they get the proper copyrights for that? I’m willing to guess the answer is ‘No’.
As for misusing the DMCA process, they still need something that works both ways for this. If I say something about someone and they say it’s a lie, they try to sue me. If it’s found out that they sued erroneously, then I am allowed to sue them for the initial suit. Thus, if my content is removed wrongfully, and is proven so, why then would I not be entitled to restitution?
I also love they way that the Fair Use information (of which they explain little and provide no examples of positive Fair Use for comparison) and the information at the end about how to find more about Copyright via YouTube was drowned out by noise and moving images.
They also failed to mention that because you are making that video more available to the public, that interest in the creator of the video and his content will grow, thus making him more money.
Now, the question is if we make a parody of this video, and explain each point they make and how they are in error, is that Fair Use or do they get to sue us?
Anonymous Cowardsays:
Seems ripe for parody.
Aren’t the characters from Happy Tree Friends?
The Kutiman pieces that have been mentioned on this site are not remixes. Can someone who possesses at least a cursory knowledge of sample-based music please take over writing about music?
Music made from samples does not = remix.
A remix is literally re-mixing (“Mixing” is a very specific term in audio production), by default, remixes sound similar to the original source.
Kutiman makes sample-based music. That’s what it’s called. Not a remix. DJ Shadow makes instrumental hip hop out of samples, not remixes. The Verve’s “Bittersweet Symphony” was not a remix of a Rolling Stones song, but the relatively recent version of Elvis’ “A Little Less Conversation” was a remix. Moby/RJD2/FlyingLotus/etc make sample-based music. Tiesto does remixes. Fourtet does remixes.
These are very different things, and have different legal standings. A remix overwhelmingly uses the original source material, but rearranges it into something different. Sometimes “new” but not necessarily, many times remixing is just adding a dance beat so a softer song can be made “hard” enough for the dance floor. Sample-based music is generally made from numerous sources and rarely reflects the original recordings.
For god’s sake, just check Wiki for more clarity.
Anonymous Cowardsays:
Re: Please Learn What "Remix" Means
Does that change the fact that in this “sample based” form, the video would more than qualify for protection under fair use?
Ok, let’s start about this the easy way:
Why would they use characters from one hell of a brutal show for this?
Why would the whole video be in a slightly mocking tone?
Because youtube is mocking copyright regulations.
Now I applaud those that actually noticed that throughout the whole video it was doing a parody of what the copyright-holders love to say. This video is truly tongue in cheeck
I think most of you are reading into this wrong. I think on the one hand, Youtube is trying to satisfy Big Content, but they know most of these rules are ridiculous. I think they made an obviously ridiculous video in a tongue in cheek sort of way. It’s just ‘serious’ enough that it’s hard to accuse them of supporting infringers, but just ridiculous enough to mock the copyright maximalists.
Clicked “dislike” on YouTube. Although the video is pretty one sided. I think the author should give his readers more credit. We’re not about to be guilt tripped or confused by a cartoon pirate.
Seems to me this whole subject is the weak link in Youtube’s armour. A little subterfuge by infering responsibility on to its users doesn’t excuse their involvement. Youtube’s whole operation is based on other peoples intellectual input.
Nathansays:
The real fair use banned
I find it very frustrating that the real fair-use video that you linked is not missing, perhaps banned by youTube. I’ve always disliked youtube for many reasons, but now that they are joining in with Google’s Time to Be Evil stuff, I am almost thinking of deleting my account and going to vimeo or some other site.
Comments on “YouTube Launches Myth Perpetuating 'Copyright School'; Dismisses Remixes As 'Not Original'”
Ugh - horrible...
It was so bad I couldn’t even make it half way through the video. I did flag it as Spam (misleading text) though… 🙂
Re: Ugh - horrible...
I Flagged, Spam (Misleading Text) 🙂
Re: Ugh - horrible...
I have repeated your actions. Maybe YouTube will get the message.
Its not “fair” that “fair use” is hard to “use.”
When did you write this?
It’s 4:1 disliking it now.
Re: When did you write this?
5:1 disliking now…
Re: Re: When did you write this?
I’ve often thought YouTube caches number in weird ways. I’m still only seeing 412 v. 1638. It’s also interesting that of the possibly 412, 150 favourited the video.
Re: Re: Re: When did you write this?
That’s the 150 people that support the **AA and Performance Rights Organizations.
I…I almost think this is a parody making fun of how ridiculously oppressive copyright law is. No one could possibly take this video seriously it’s absurd and it seems to take everything to the extreme. Almost “A Modest Proposal”-like…
Re: Re:
I know, I kept thinking “This has got to be a joke… some kind of parody… it’s too absurd to be real…”
But there wasn’t any punchline 🙁
Re: I had much the same reaction.
I watched this yesterday, and I had much the same reaction. It seems like a heavy-handed joke, but if you think about in a deliberately naive way, it makes the US Judicial Branch into a literal mechanism for hammering people doing commonplace things (sharing a video with other fans) into conforming.
It even has the Techdirt Troll’s Obsession with getting an experienced copyright lawyer to judge infringement or not. If they were telling the truth they wouldn’t have put this weird advice in.
I’m guessing that some group at youtube tricked a really obsessive “experienced copyright lawyer” to go completely overboard, and then had an animator with a sense of humor illustrate the overboard nature of experienced copyright lawyering.
I bet if we worked really hard, we could get this video more disliked than that fucking Friday song.
Comments Disable? 4:1 now
The video, conveniently enough, has commenting disabled. The Dislike to like ratio is now 4:1. Awesome.
I look forward to the fair use video responses to this. Might even put something together myself for upload.
Re: Comments Disable? 4:1 now
Eh, if you need an angry script writer, let me know….
Damning....
“Finally, while the video does at least make a nod to fair use (at 2:42), the message there is pretty clear that fair use is complicated, legalistic, and not for normal people, so you’re best off just ignoring it.”
You know? This statement above is a powerful and damning statement against Copyright’s continued existence. And the reality behind it infuriates me.
Copyright is a -MONOPOLY- power granted by -WE THE PEOPLE- and now we’re being told that -WE THE ‘LITTLE’ PEOPLE- aren’t even allowed near the borders of Copyright?
Screw Copyright. REPEAL IT.
Seriously, No Copyright can’t be worse that this Boat-Anchor around our necks.
I found the use of the pirate dressed guy (and, in particular a beaver… Thanks alot youtube)
and most of the video to be ironic (and funny). It seemed to be pretty tongue in cheek the whole time and seemed to say “This is what we have to deal with”
But maybe I’m reading too much into it 🙂
Re: Re:
I’m waiting for the owners of Rocky and Bullwinkle to file a take down notice. The beaver alone wasn’t enough for me, but as soon as I saw the moose, I couldn’t watch the rest of the video without thinking of Rocky and Bullwinkle.
Re: Re: Re:
I hadn’t thought of that..
I immediately thought the old canada is full of pirates rant..
Although I think Rocky was a flying squirrel maybe it isn’t a beaver afterall. Bullwinkle was always the bumbling idiot that Rocky had to put up with so I guess that fits with the whole tongue in cheek feeling of the video 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rocky was certainly a flying squirrel. A proud Canadian squirrel!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Sadly no… Rocky was a proud son of Frostbite Falls, Minnesota.
Home of the Frostbite Falls Picayune Intelligencer publishing empire.
Re: Re: Re:
Bullwinkle was from Frostbite Falls, Minnesota, a proud American Moose, not some craven, piratical Canadian Moose, like Ren and/or Stimpy.
3 strikes
Oh no! Youtube will delete my account if I repeatedly upload copyrighted content! So just make a new account 😀
Re: 3 strikes
Big problem when you have over 7000 videos on one account…
Re: Re: 3 strikes
It’s an even worse problem when you have 7000 videos on 200 accounts!
Odd, the ‘3 strikes’ looks so much like the ones on ‘The Price is Right’ that I expected the fail-music to play afterwards. Did they get the proper copyrights for that? I’m willing to guess the answer is ‘No’.
As for misusing the DMCA process, they still need something that works both ways for this. If I say something about someone and they say it’s a lie, they try to sue me. If it’s found out that they sued erroneously, then I am allowed to sue them for the initial suit. Thus, if my content is removed wrongfully, and is proven so, why then would I not be entitled to restitution?
I also love they way that the Fair Use information (of which they explain little and provide no examples of positive Fair Use for comparison) and the information at the end about how to find more about Copyright via YouTube was drowned out by noise and moving images.
They also failed to mention that because you are making that video more available to the public, that interest in the creator of the video and his content will grow, thus making him more money.
Now, the question is if we make a parody of this video, and explain each point they make and how they are in error, is that Fair Use or do they get to sue us?
Seems ripe for parody.
Aren’t the characters from Happy Tree Friends?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/HTF_characters.png
Yes, they are Happy Tree Friends.
Weird, they’ve used characters from a cartoon famous for bloody, violent deaths.
Please Learn What "Remix" Means
The Kutiman pieces that have been mentioned on this site are not remixes. Can someone who possesses at least a cursory knowledge of sample-based music please take over writing about music?
Music made from samples does not = remix.
A remix is literally re-mixing (“Mixing” is a very specific term in audio production), by default, remixes sound similar to the original source.
Kutiman makes sample-based music. That’s what it’s called. Not a remix. DJ Shadow makes instrumental hip hop out of samples, not remixes. The Verve’s “Bittersweet Symphony” was not a remix of a Rolling Stones song, but the relatively recent version of Elvis’ “A Little Less Conversation” was a remix. Moby/RJD2/FlyingLotus/etc make sample-based music. Tiesto does remixes. Fourtet does remixes.
These are very different things, and have different legal standings. A remix overwhelmingly uses the original source material, but rearranges it into something different. Sometimes “new” but not necessarily, many times remixing is just adding a dance beat so a softer song can be made “hard” enough for the dance floor. Sample-based music is generally made from numerous sources and rarely reflects the original recordings.
For god’s sake, just check Wiki for more clarity.
Re: Please Learn What "Remix" Means
Does that change the fact that in this “sample based” form, the video would more than qualify for protection under fair use?
Disliked
current tally: 462 likes, 1,983 dislikes
I also took the opportunity to like the other 3.
Here’s a much better video describing copyrights and their lawful use:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2MZi0tmzo0
… it may be a bit old, but enjoy the find
Parody
Ok, let’s start about this the easy way:
Why would they use characters from one hell of a brutal show for this?
Why would the whole video be in a slightly mocking tone?
Because youtube is mocking copyright regulations.
Now I applaud those that actually noticed that throughout the whole video it was doing a parody of what the copyright-holders love to say. This video is truly tongue in cheeck
I think most of you are reading into this wrong. I think on the one hand, Youtube is trying to satisfy Big Content, but they know most of these rules are ridiculous. I think they made an obviously ridiculous video in a tongue in cheek sort of way. It’s just ‘serious’ enough that it’s hard to accuse them of supporting infringers, but just ridiculous enough to mock the copyright maximalists.
Disliked it on YouTube
Clicked “dislike” on YouTube. Although the video is pretty one sided. I think the author should give his readers more credit. We’re not about to be guilt tripped or confused by a cartoon pirate.
Re: Disliked it on YouTube
Well, we were confused when Disney used Jack Sparrow in their anti-piracy stuff. Depp almost got turned down for being too gay in the audition.
this video is so poor it’s embarrassing. Patronising drivel.
The Pot Calling The Kettle Black
Seems to me this whole subject is the weak link in Youtube’s armour. A little subterfuge by infering responsibility on to its users doesn’t excuse their involvement. Youtube’s whole operation is based on other peoples intellectual input.
The real fair use banned
I find it very frustrating that the real fair-use video that you linked is not missing, perhaps banned by youTube. I’ve always disliked youtube for many reasons, but now that they are joining in with Google’s Time to Be Evil stuff, I am almost thinking of deleting my account and going to vimeo or some other site.