<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;comedy&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:33:56 PST</pubDate>
<title>Doug Stanhope: Piracy Is A Problem Only If You Think Of It As A Problem</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121109/13433320998/doug-stanhope-piracy-is-problem-only-if-you-think-it-as-problem.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121109/13433320998/doug-stanhope-piracy-is-problem-only-if-you-think-it-as-problem.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As the legacy of Louis CK grows, as does his fanbase and his ability to get the closed to be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121113/09205021033/raw-power-louis-ck-even-hbo-is-opening-garden-gates.shtml">more open</a>, it&#39;s worth noting that comedians have long existed on the edge of the IP world. While some comedians will occasionally pull out the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/010207.shtml">copyright card</a>, accusations of joke-stealing and copyright infringement of their acts haven&#39;t found the same hold as in music and movies. There is a great deal of borrowing and tweaking going on in the joke world and yet the comedy business is still around.<br />
<br />
Now we can add another comedian to the list of folks who <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/11/humor-code-doug-stanhope/">just don&#39;t see infringement as a problem, and think of the internet as a boon</a> rather than a threat: Doug Stanhope. In an interview with Wired -- which is hilarious enough to be worth reading the entire thing -- the former Man Show frontman took on the notion that piracy is harmful.
<blockquote>
<i>The internet has done nothing but good for comedy all around. Comedians no longer have to rely on TV execs and club owners deciding if they are funny or not. There&rsquo;s the problem of piracy if you think it&rsquo;s a problem. I credit piracy with getting my name known enough to have a decent career. People bootlegging shows on cellphones and putting material out before it&rsquo;s finished is a problem for every comic, but compared to all the upsides of what the internet has done, it&rsquo;s a fact of life that we&rsquo;ll learn to adapt to even if it means finding these people and killing their families in front of them.</i></blockquote>
Now, I&#39;m at least 75% certain that the last bit about killing families for infringement is a joke, but his larger point is a gem. When we, all of us, think about what we want the internet to be, it is important for us to weigh the sum total of its impact. If I may extrapolate on Stanhope&#39;s statement, I would argue that this&nbsp;<i>completely&nbsp;</i>undermines the view the piracy and/or sharing must be stamped out on simple moral grounds. We&#39;ve all heard the "but piracy is just wrong!" arguments (or, heard that in substitute of an actual argument) but that&#39;s nonsense. Piracy, infringment, and sharing would be wrong if there were a net-negative impact on the works being infringed upon or shared. If there is a net-benefit to those people, as Stanhope suggests there indeed is, how in the hell could that be morally wrong?<br />
<br />
Further on that point, while some may argue that it is still wrong because the infringers are not respecting the wishes of the artist, look at how Stanhope frames it: Piracy is a problem if the&nbsp;<i>artist</i> thinks it&#39;s a problem. Bootlegged shows and uploads may present challenges and problems, but they are going to adapt. It seems to me that it is every bit incumbent upon artists, be they comedians or musicians, to change their frame of reference as it is on the internets denizens to respect the artist&#39;s wishes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121109/13433320998/doug-stanhope-piracy-is-problem-only-if-you-think-it-as-problem.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121109/13433320998/doug-stanhope-piracy-is-problem-only-if-you-think-it-as-problem.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121109/13433320998/doug-stanhope-piracy-is-problem-only-if-you-think-it-as-problem.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>frame-of-mind</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121109/13433320998</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:08:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Patton Oswalt Explains That There Are No More Gatekeepers In Entertainment</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, we've argued that the role of middlemen in the entertainment industry has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01281116105/no-internet-doesnt-do-away-with-middlemen-it-just-changes-their-role.shtml">changing</a> drastically.  Most were built up on the basis of being gatekeepers: choosing who would get to go out and perform to the world, and using that gatekeeper status to (1) put themselves (the middlemen) in the center of everything and (2) demand nearly all ownership and profits from the results.  But the new world is one in which gatekeepers are obsolete.  The natural limits of things like broadcast television or movies are fluttering away thanks to the internet and all the technology that allows anyone to be a creator.  That doesn't mean that middlemen aren't necessary any more.  They absolutely are.  But their roles are as <i>enablers, not gatekeepers</i>.  They have to put the content creators back in the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110210/15534113046/nice-to-see-how-content-creators-have-more-power-over-middlemen.shtml">center</a> and accept that they don't have full control, and they don't get to keep 85 cents of every dollar earned.
<br /><br />
Famed comedian Patton Oswalt took to the stage at the "Just for Laughs Comedy Conference" in Montreal recently and <a href="http://thecomicscomic.com/2012/07/27/patton-oswalts-letters-to-both-sides-his-keynote-address-at-montreals-just-for-laughs-2012/#.UBQY0Apz6og.twitter" target="_blank">made this point brilliantly</a> in the form of two "letters."  (Thanks to <a href="https://twitter.com/picklemonger/statuses/229259631141191680" target="_blank">Pickle Monger</a> for calling this to our attention.)  The first letter was to fellow comedians -- more or less telling them to take control over their own career.  They had to stop looking for the gatekeeper to come along and pick them, and take charge.  Here's just a snippet, but the whole thing is worth reading:
<blockquote><i>
[Following a brief description of his very successful career] But if you listened very carefully, you would have heard two words over and over again: &#8220;lucky&#8221; and &#8220;given.&#8221; Those are two very very dangerous words for a comedian. Those two words can put you to sleep, especially once you get a taste of both being &#8220;lucky&#8221; and being &#8220;given.&#8221; The days about luck and being given are about to end. They&#8217;re about to go away.
<br /><br />
Not totally. There are always comedians who will work hard and get noticed by agents and managers and record labels. There will always be an element of that. And they deserve their success. And there&#8217;s always going to be people who benefit from that.
<br /><br />
What I mean is: Not being lucky and not being given are no longer going to define your career as a comedian and as an artist.
</i></blockquote>
The second letter addresses the gatekeepers quite directly.  Again, a snippet, though you should read the whole thing:
<blockquote><i>
You guys need to stop thinking like gatekeepers. You need to do it for the sake of your own survival.
<br /><br />
Because all of us comedians after watching Louis CK revolutionize sitcoms and comedy recordings and live tours. And listening to "WTF With Marc Maron" and "Comedy Bang! Bang!" and watching the growth of the UCB Theatre on two coasts and seeing careers being made on Twitter and Youtube.
<br /><br />
Our careers don&#8217;t hinge on somebody in a plush office deciding to aim a little luck in our direction. There are no gates. They&#8217;re gone. The model for success as a comedian in the '70s and '80s? That was middle school.
</i></blockquote>
He goes on to talk about how they can stop being gatekeepers and start actually helping (first by being "fans") but then goes on to point out why the gatekeeper role is gone in a very simple fashion:
<blockquote><i>
We can just walk away.
<br /><br />
You know why we can do that now? Because of these. (Oswalt holds up an iPhone)
<br /><br />
In my hand right now I&#8217;m holding more filmmaking technology than Orson Welles had when he filmed Citizen Kane.
<br /><br />
I&#8217;m holding almost the same amount of cinematography, post-editing, sound editing, and broadcast capabilities as you have at your tv network.
<br /><br />
In a couple of years it&#8217;s going to be fucking equal. I see what&#8217;s fucking coming. This isn&#8217;t a threat, this is an offer. 
</i></blockquote>
It's an offer so few gatekeepers have been willing to take up.
<br /><br />
I think it's great that Oswalt is saying this stuff.  For the last few years, as Louis CK has revolutionized various parts of the comedy industry (as we've detailed here), it's been interesting to see how other comics have reacted.  I keep hearing about how comedians want a "Louis CK deal," -- which is a deal like the one that Louis got for his show on FX (where he basically has full control over every aspect of the product).  The problem, of course, is that no one else wants to give out such a deal -- and even if other comedians got it, many wouldn't know what to do with it.  Because of that, I've heard some suggest that there isn't much to learn from Louis, since his situation is one of a kind.
<br /><br />
I think Oswalt is much more on the right track, though.  Of course, the answer isn't just in "getting the Louis CK deal" or even just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120320/17374818176/more-comedians-following-louis-cks-path-they-dont-need-to-copy-it-exactly.shtml">copying exactly</a> how he released his last comedy special.  It's in recognizing the larger point of Oswalt's keynote: that the old rules and old gatekeepers are meaningless.  You can forge your own path, and whereas you used to <i>have</i> to work within the confines of the system, nowadays you have lots of options.  Every opportunity is there.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120730/04581519877/patton-oswalt-explains-that-there-are-no-more-gatekeepers-entertainment.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well-said</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120730/04581519877</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 17:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Release Early And Often: Louis CK Realizes He Can Keep Selling Other Digital Downloads</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120511/15242018887/release-early-often-louis-ck-realizes-he-can-keep-selling-other-digital-downloads.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120511/15242018887/release-early-often-louis-ck-realizes-he-can-keep-selling-other-digital-downloads.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked a lot about Louis CK's massively <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111222/12435717172/louis-ck-over-1-million-sales-just-12-days-drm-free-download.shtml">successful</a> experiment in selling a comedy special direct to fans at a low price with no DRM and (most importantly) being totally <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-human-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml">open and human</a> about the experience.  In response, a few <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120320/17374818176/more-comedians-following-louis-cks-path-they-dont-need-to-copy-it-exactly.shtml">other comedians</a>, like Jim Gaffigan and Aziz Ansari, have basically done the same thing.
<br /><br />
However, it looks like Louis CK (like lots of smart, creative artists we write about) is hardly resting on his laurels.  He's realized that there's nothing that says he has to only sell this one video and then wait a year or more until another one is ready.  He's got the platform, so he might as well sell stuff.  A few publications have noticed that he <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/louis-cks-new-album-word-live-carnegie-hall-available-now_n_1509979.html" target="_blank">put up another live album</a> (audio only) for the same price using the same system.  But in looking at Louis' site, it looks like he's actually <a href="https://buy.louisck.net/" target="_blank">put up two additional albums</a> -- the audio version of his HBO special <em>Shameless</em> (previously only available as video) and a Carnegie Hall tour show that's never been released.

<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/8As6b"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/8As6b.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
<br />
Both of these were released with basically no fanfare or no announcement other than a <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/louisck/status/201033959176544256" target="_blank">brief tweet</a>.
<br /><br />
It will be interesting to see what happens here.  First of all, some may feel that audio only offerings don't have quite as much value as video -- though it still seems like a decent price.  Others may not be as interested in "old" material, even if it hasn't been released in this format.  Also, I wonder what impact there will be for the low-key release.  Part of the reason that the original got so much attention was the way he put himself out there: announcing this "big" new thing, doing an AMA on Reddit, etc.  Whereas this is just him putting it up.  Of course, similarly, there may be some concern of "oversaturation," where people feel they just gave Louis money for that other thing, so is it worth paying up again?
<br /><br />
However, I also <i>like</i> the idea that he's combing the archives and finding other stuff that people might be interested in and giving them choices for more things they may want to buy to support him.  I think that it's helpful to break out of the somewhat traditional mindset of "I release this album/show and then I'm done for a while."  Louis seems to still be thinking about what <i>else</i> he can do, and I'm sure that will lead to some interesting ideas.
<br /><br />
I'm not sure how all these factors and variables play together -- and I have no idea if Louis will ever share the results so that the rest of the world can learn with him (though I hope he is willing to do so).  I do still love the fact that he's continuing to try things though.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120511/15242018887/release-early-often-louis-ck-realizes-he-can-keep-selling-other-digital-downloads.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120511/15242018887/release-early-often-louis-ck-realizes-he-can-keep-selling-other-digital-downloads.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120511/15242018887/release-early-often-louis-ck-realizes-he-can-keep-selling-other-digital-downloads.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>rethinking-the-mindset</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120511/15242018887</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Sad State Of Copyright: Guy Using Short Clips Of Music In Viral Videos Accused Of Infringement</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120427/18013118692/sad-state-copyright-guy-using-3-to-10-second-clips-music-viral-videos-accused-infringement.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120427/18013118692/sad-state-copyright-guy-using-3-to-10-second-clips-music-viral-videos-accused-infringement.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/BrianLaSorsa/statuses/196031613233135616" target="_blank">Brian LaSorsa</a> points us to the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Smb6p9tLAo&#038;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">unfortunate case of Steve Kardynal</a>, a pretty popular maker of funny online videos.  There are all sorts of creative people who have been enabled to create and put their works out to the world thanks to things like YouTube.  Kardynal makes funny sketches, with some of the most popular being his "Songs in Real Life" videos, in which he creates scenes where every so often the dialogue actually is a short clip -- between 3 and 10 seconds -- from a popular song.  Unfortunately, as he notes in the video explaining what happened, the second one of these videos received a takedown from Sony (a year after it was posted):
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9Smb6p9tLAo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<br />
Realizing that getting three strikes on YouTube means he would lose his account -- which already has about 100 million views -- he's pretty freaked out.  In response, he's set his other "Songs in Real Life" videos to private to hopefully avoid getting any other strikes while he tries to figure out what to do.
<br /><br />
While his videos are no longer available, with a little searching you can find them elsewhere.  I don't know how long this will remain available, but here's someone who put all three of the "Songs in Real Life" videos <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&#038;v=6EsDwOQELJk#!" target="_blank">into a single video</a>.  It's difficult to see how this isn't fair use, and I'd argue that this is a clear case of Sony engaging in copyfraud.
<br /><br />
As Steve notes, all of the video clips are between 3 and 10 seconds.  No one is going to reasonably claim that this takes away from the market for that song.  Furthermore, as he also points out, he listed all the songs that were used in the description of his video and made it easy for people to go buy the songs.  In other words, it's difficult to see how these videos didn't actually <i>help</i> the market for these songs, rather than hurt it.  The <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2209471029398314909&#038;hl=en&#038;as_sdt=2&#038;as_vis=1&#038;oi=scholarr" target="_blank">Lenz v. Universal</a> case showed that copyright holders need to take fair use into account when they issue DMCA takedowns, and it certainly doesn't look like Sony did so in this case.
<br /><br />
But, really, what's even more interesting about this story is just how much it has impacted Steve.  He talks about how he's afraid to lose all that he's worked on and how it's like losing a family member.  This is the exact opposite of what copyright law is supposed to do.  Here it's being used to stifle and shut down creativity.  And while some may claim that what Steve feels is no different than what an artist whose work is infringed on experiences, it seems quite different, actually.  With an infringement, an artist hasn't lost anything.  It's just that their own wishes for how the music is used or paid for gets denied.  In this case, the content is actively being shut down.  There's a real loss.  That's unfortunate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120427/18013118692/sad-state-copyright-guy-using-3-to-10-second-clips-music-viral-videos-accused-infringement.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120427/18013118692/sad-state-copyright-guy-using-3-to-10-second-clips-music-viral-videos-accused-infringement.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120427/18013118692/sad-state-copyright-guy-using-3-to-10-second-clips-music-viral-videos-accused-infringement.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ridiculous</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120427/18013118692</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>When Citizens Elect Comedians Who Run For Office As A Joke...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/14091214692/when-citizens-elect-comedians-who-run-office-as-joke.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/14091214692/when-citizens-elect-comedians-who-run-office-as-joke.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The idea of comedians who run for office as a joke has a pretty long history.  Comedian <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen" target="_blank">Pat Paulsen</a> starting running for US President in the 1960s and ended up taking part in six presidential campaigns.  More recently, Stephen Colbert attempted to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert_presidential_campaign,_2008" target="_blank">sort of enter the 2008 election</a>, but was eventually denied.  There was also an <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483726/" target="_blank">awful movie</a> based on this premise, wherein a TV comedian played by Robin Williams enters the race as a joke... and wins.
<br><br>
However, what I didn't know was that on a much smaller scale this sort of scenario actually played out... in Reykjavik, Iceland, where "absurdist" comedian Jon Gnarr entered the 2010 mayoral race as a joke... <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/06/10/137090332/the-comedian-who-ran-for-mayor" target="_blank">and then won</a>, after an absurdist campaign.
<blockquote><i>
<p>Whenever anyone else made a political promise, Gnarr made a bigger one.  Gnarr proposed attracting tourists by leveraging the fame of Iceland's most famous citizen: The pop singer Bjork.</p>                           <p>His vision:</p>                           <blockquote class="edTag">                           <p>We should have this huge statue of Bjork at the harbor like the statue of liberty and instead of a torch she would be having a microphone and she would shout out some information about Reykjavik in three different languages and she would be revolving, you know? And also there would be lights. Her eyes would shoot lights on interesting tourist spots in Reykjavik.</p>                           </blockquote>                           <p>When a candidate proposed building an entire amusement park, Gnarr went small.</p>                           <p>"I promised to have a life size Mickey Mouse," he says. "We would be the only Disney World that had a life size Mickey Mouse."</p>                           <p>When political events turned boring, Gnarr would walk out.</p>
</i></blockquote>
He's now been mayor for a year, and while he still does absurdist things (wearing a gorilla mask at the office, giving a speech while wearing lipstick) he's actually balanced the budget... and seen his ratings drop significantly.  He also says that he has a lot more respect for politicians:
<blockquote><i>
"I have realized that the politicians, or most of them, are not evil, stupid people like I thought they were."
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/14091214692/when-citizens-elect-comedians-who-run-office-as-joke.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/14091214692/when-citizens-elect-comedians-who-run-office-as-joke.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/14091214692/when-citizens-elect-comedians-who-run-office-as-joke.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-system-at-work</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110614/14091214692</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:46:48 PST</pubDate>
<title>Musician/Comedian Faces 20 Years In Jail For Silly Video No Different Than Done On TV &#038; In Movies</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/03174513185/musiciancomedian-faces-20-years-jail-silly-video-no-different-than-done-tv-movies.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/03174513185/musiciancomedian-faces-20-years-jail-silly-video-no-different-than-done-tv-movies.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/19/2134202/Musician-Jailed-Over-Prank-YouTube-Video?from=twitter" target="_blank">Slashdot</a> points us to yet another example of overzealous prosecutors going after someone with felony charges for a joke (perhaps done in poor taste).  In this case, it involves 21-year-old musician/comedian Evan Emory, who performed childrens' songs in front of some elementary school kids.  Later that day, after everyone else had left, he also performed and recorded another song with sexually explicit lyrics.  He then cut the footage of the two songs together, to make it <i>look</i> like he was singing the explicit song to the kids.  This is, admittedly, in extremely poor taste -- but as the Slashdot post notes, it's no different than what has been regularly done <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAHIhRsWCqc" target="_blank">on various</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuVsLR_2GX0" target="_blank">TV shows</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCODTbfLKSE">in movies</a>.  The Slashdot post has even more examples, but those three all seem to be pretty "mainstream" and well-known examples of this tactic.
<br /><br />
Yet, when Emory did it, he <a href="http://hypervocal.com/news/2011/youtube-musician-evan-emory-faces-20-years-in-prison-for-clever-editing/" target="_blank">was arrested, charged with a felony for "manufacturing child sexual abusive material"</a> and now faces 20 years in prison.  Emory appears to be <a href="http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/02/evan_emory_speaks_i_feel_like.html" target="_blank">deeply remorseful</a>, and notes that he obviously never intended to harm any kids, and searches of his house and computer showed no evidence of any actual child porn.  But it doesn't seem to have stopped prosecutors from their plans to charge him with this felony.  The prosecutor seems to be willfully ignoring the intent of the video:
<blockquote><i>
"If you insinuate that you want to have sex with young children in Muskegon County and put that in the Internet, you've got a problem with the law," Tague said.
<br /><br />
"As prosecutor of Muskegon County, I feel I have a strong obligation to vigorously defend all the children in our county. To insinuate on a tape that you want to perform perverted acts on children is clearly within the scope of the law with which Mr. Emory is charged."
</i></blockquote>
Except, of course, Emory did not insinuate he wanted to have sex with those kids.  It was a (crass and tasteless) joke video.  I'm all for law enforcement prosecuting <i>real</i> child abusers to the fullest extent possible under the law.  But going after folks like Emory here seems to make a mockery of the law, and take away efforts from stopping those who actually do want to do harm to children.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/03174513185/musiciancomedian-faces-20-years-jail-silly-video-no-different-than-done-tv-movies.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/03174513185/musiciancomedian-faces-20-years-jail-silly-video-no-different-than-done-tv-movies.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/03174513185/musiciancomedian-faces-20-years-jail-silly-video-no-different-than-done-tv-movies.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110221/03174513185</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:58:43 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Once Again, Social Mores Come To Play In Spat Between SNL &amp; Adult Swim Over Tiny Hats Sketches</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/00573711210/once-again-social-mores-come-to-play-in-spat-between-snl-adult-swim-over-tiny-hats-sketches.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/00573711210/once-again-social-mores-come-to-play-in-spat-between-snl-adult-swim-over-tiny-hats-sketches.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been talking a lot about how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/03261210889.shtml">social mores</a> can often deal with "copying" situations better than any legal claim could, and in particular have talked about it in the context of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080130/020249125.shtml">comedians</a>, where jokes are not considered copyrightable.  However, copying does have costs, especially when people call you out.  Witness the <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/television/news/e3iafd7f303bda986c2cd12ca7d1b30266f?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A thr%2Ftelevision %28The Hollywood Reporter - Television%29" target="_blank">"dispute" over whether or not Saturday Night Live "copied" a sketch from Adult Swim</a>, both of which are called "Tiny Hats."
<br><br>
Honestly, the claims of copying seem a bit overblown.  While both are called "Tiny Hats" and both do involve characters wearing a tiny hat, that's about as far as the similarities go.  The overall concepts beyond that are pretty different.  However, apparently, it's created a big stink online, with the comedians behind the Adult Swim version "calling out" SNL.  However, they don't seem to have any interest in going legal (not that they could) and later admitted that inspiration comes from all over:
<blockquote><i>
He says he's not particularly angry, and thinks it could have just been coincidence, as Fred Armisen, Bill Hader, and Andy Samberg, among other "SNL" cast members, have appeared on "Adult Swim."
<br><br>
"We understand that we've created something that a lot of people in comedy watch and like, and influences are totally fine," he says. "We draw influences from people all the time."
<br><br>
He goes on, "I don't want to start a big thing here. But it'll be interesting to see what the web does with this."
</i></blockquote>
And, indeed, that last line is the key: there are social costs if what you're doing is seen as being too close.  However, I'll let you be the judge of whether or not <a href="http://video.adultswim.com/tim-and-eric-awesome-show-great-job/tiny-hats.html">these</a> <a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/180976/saturday-night-live-ladies-who-lunch">skits</a> are too close (and, um, whether or not either one is actually funny):
<center>
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="movie" value="http://dreamsocket.com/projects/adultswim/fix/viralplayer/ASVPlayer.swf"/><param name="FlashVars" value="id=8a25c3921691a4b30116924d7fdf008f" /><embed src="http://dreamsocket.com/projects/adultswim/fix/viralplayer/ASVPlayer.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" FlashVars="id=8a25c3921691a4b30116924d7fdf008f" allowFullScreen="true" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<br><br>
<object width="480" height="270"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/T-BgFU_5P7V8zI6BRSiIXw"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/T-BgFU_5P7V8zI6BRSiIXw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"  width="480" height="270" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/00573711210/once-again-social-mores-come-to-play-in-spat-between-snl-adult-swim-over-tiny-hats-sketches.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/00573711210/once-again-social-mores-come-to-play-in-spat-between-snl-adult-swim-over-tiny-hats-sketches.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100929/00573711210/once-again-social-mores-come-to-play-in-spat-between-snl-adult-swim-over-tiny-hats-sketches.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>copying-is-easy,-being-funny-is-hard</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100929/00573711210</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Apr 2010 13:23:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Social Mores Often Work Better Than Copyright Law In 'Protecting' Works</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0414578802.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0414578802.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Two years ago, we wrote about the big hubbub caused by comedian Joe Rogan getting on stage at a comedy club and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/230046.shtml">accusing another comedian</a>, Carlos Mencia, of "stealing jokes."  This resulted in quite an involved discussion, and then a followup discussion on the whole concept of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/010207.shtml">"stealing jokes,"</a> where we discussed a few key points.  First, jokes have <i>always</i> been passed around, shared, retold and built on for years.  Also, it's not the joke, but the delivery that's important.  If you want to see a movie-length example of this, just go watch <i>The Aristocrats</i>.  But, finally, and most importantly, it highlighted how social mores can come into play in these discussions.  If you really are doing something that the community finds unfair, they'll call you on it, and it can harm your reputation.  Two years ago, I wrote:
<blockquote><i>
There's a price to pay for it in terms of reputation. The backlash against Mencia is exactly that price. His reputation is taking a big hit, and he seems to keep digging himself a deeper hole by refusing to admit that he repurposed others' jokes (and, in fact, is apparently still doing so). So, perhaps the real issue here is that this is an issue that can be solved by social norms, rather than laws like copyright. If you're going to make use of someone else's work, it's going to come back and bite you if you're not willing to admit it. There is still value in being a good joke teller, even if you're using other people's work -- but if you keep pretending that you were also the creator of that work, it's going to come back and hurt you in terms of your reputation.
</i></blockquote>
This is a similar point that I've made when people ask how I would feel if websites copied Techdirt without giving us any credit.  As I say, they're <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0348223430.shtml">free to do so</a>, but they should realize that if someone notices that they're copying without credit, it could seriously harm their reputation -- and reputation is a scarce good that is hard to build up if you've lost it.  In other words, one of the reasons why I proudly put all this content into the public domain is that I recognize that most people who use it will know that it's in their own best interest to credit us, and help give us more attention, because it's not worth the credibility risk.
<br /><br />
Over at the Freakonomics blog, economists Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman have "stolen" this idea (relax, relax, that was just a little joke -- remember, this post is about jokes) and have a great post about how <a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/the-vigilantes-of-comedy-a-guest-post/" target="_blank">social rules within a community often work better than any gov't granted monopoly</a>.  They even use the same Rogan/Mencia example:
<blockquote><i>
At first glance, this may seem like a nasty but ultimately meaningless showbiz feud.  But it's more than that. In fact, Rogan's decision to confront Mencia is an example of what stand-up comedians do all the time.  Comedians have rules of their own about joke-stealing.  And they impose their own punishments on thieves....
<br /><br />
Why do comedians do this?  In part, because they live in a world where intellectual property law -- in particular, copyright -- does not help them much when a rival comedian steals a joke.  In theory, copyright law applies to jokes. But in the real world, lawsuits are simply too expensive and uncertain to work as an effective response to joke stealing. 
</i></blockquote>
The social rules can be quite involved and effective, with those disobeying the rules risking their own careers:
<blockquote><i>
Importantly, comedians' norms are not just "suggestions." They also include informal but powerful punishments. These start with simple badmouthing and ostracism. If that doesn't work, punishments may escalate to a refusal to work with the offending comedian -- which can keep the accused joke-thief off of comedy club rosters.  Occasionally, punishments turn violent.  None of these sanctions depend on the law -- indeed, when comedians resort to threatening or beating up joke thieves, that's against the law.   That said, although both the rules and the punishments are informal, they are effective.  Within the community of comedians, it hurts to be accused of stealing a joke.  In some cases, repeat accusations may destroy a showbiz career.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, none of this is new.  Last year's Nobel Prize winner in economics, Elinor Ostrom, won for her work showing how specific communities can often <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/1453016535.shtml">better self-regulate</a> so-called "public goods," rather than needing to involve gov't mandated privileges or property rights.
<br /><br />
While we're talking about jokes here, this is a serious issue when it comes to economics, policy and the law.  It suggests, yet again, that the rush to keep putting up artificial monopoly rights may not be needed in many cases.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0414578802.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0414578802.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0414578802.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-don't-need-a-law</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100331/0414578802</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:45:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>So A Lawyer, A Comedian And An Economist Walk Into A Bar... Copyright, Reputation And Comedy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0131277046.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0131277046.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A couple of times in the past we've looked at the question of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080130/020249125.shtml">copyright on jokes</a>, noting that there generally isn't "copyright" on jokes, but that copying jokes <i>can</i> potentially <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070219/010207.shtml">hurt someone's reputation</a> if <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/230046.shtml">called on it</a>.  In other words, even without making use of protectionist laws, creative types figure out social norms for punishing those who just "copy."  Yes, some of the copying still occurs, but it can seriously hurt someone's reputation.  At the same time, for those who do copy, it pushes them to actually do much more with a joke to actually stand out.
<br /><br />
The more you think about this, however, the more interesting it gets.  <a href="http://twitter.com/CopyrightLaw/statuses/5970285635" target="_blank">Michael Scott</a> points us to <a href="http://madisonian.net/2009/11/15/the-2000-year-old-man-does-copyright-law/" target="_blank">discussion by Mike Madison concerning copyright and jokes</a>, where he points to a short snippet from a NY Times article on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/arts/television/15karp.html" target="_blank">the very famous "2,000 year old man" sketch</a> done by Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner.  The snippet that interested Madison was this one:
<blockquote><i>
    REINER We did [the 2000 Year Old Man routine] out here in Los Angeles at what you would call a Class A party. One by one people came over to us. George Burns came by with a cigar and said, "Is there an album?" I said no. He said, "Well, you better put it on an album, or I'm going to steal it."
<br /><br />
    BROOKS That's true, he said he was going to steal it.
<br /><br />
    REINER Edward G. Robinson, who was there, said: "Write a play. I want to do it on Broadway." And the one who came up to us and really made sense was Steve Allen. He said you have to make an album.
</i></blockquote>
As Madison notes:
<blockquote><i>
The standard rap says that you make an object and people might copy it ("steal" it), so you have to have rights to go after the thief.  Here, the rap is turned inside out:  You make an object in order to keep people from copying it.  Social norms are still important, because they have something to do with why and how making an album would keep George Burns from becoming the 2000 Year Old Man.  But they aren't everything.
</i></blockquote>
Madison's argument is that social norms alone aren't enough to keep people from copying in the absence of copyright -- but that setting the work in some sort of fixed form helped do the trick.  Still, I'd argue this is a part of the "social norm," because it was a way of planting the flag by Brooks and Reiner that this was something they had created -- such that if anyone else copied it, people could easily point to the album and say "George Burns copied that," such that Burns would have less credibility.  Burns, then wishing to avoid the loss of credibility, has less reason to copy.
<br /><br />
Now what I find most interesting about all of this is that it runs entirely counter to the arguments made by many copyright maximalists, who say that without the incentive of copyright, creators would have little incentive to create such a recording, for risk that it would then be "pirated."  But, what this shows (in an admittedly anecdotal fashion) is that there are additional incentives for putting the work into a fixed form: such as planting a flag for the sake of reputation and to ward off copying.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0131277046.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0131277046.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091123/0131277046.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it-all-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091123/0131277046</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:52:54 PST</pubDate>
<title>What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0851156986.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0851156986.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Poynter has an interesting article, looking at <i>The Daily Show</i> <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=101&#038;aid=173534" target="_blank">as being a leader in media criticism</a>, an area where it does an excellent job, even if that's not its intention.  But, what struck me most of all in the description of the team behind the show, was that it has a full-time researcher and fact-checker, who looks for multiple sources to verify the content that they're using in the show.  Now, in a typical news room, this shouldn't be surprising.  But, instead, we've actually seen the opposite.  Fewer and fewer news operations have full-time fact checkers (or fact-checkers at all).  Yet, here we're talking about a <i>comedy program</i>, whose main job is to make people laugh, and it employs a fact-checker who verifies points with multiple sources.  Doesn't that seem backwards?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0851156986.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0851156986.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091118/0851156986.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-doesn't-seem-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091118/0851156986</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:22:26 PDT</pubDate>
<title>When Even Comedy Shows Are Mocking Attempts At Stronger Copyright Law...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1451266626.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1451266626.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Via <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4477/125/" target="_blank">Michael Geist</a> comes a link to this segment on the Canadian sketch comedy/political satire show <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Hour_Has_22_Minutes" target="_blank"><i>This Hour has 22 Minutes</i>, where it </a><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_7p4cvBURk&#038;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">totally mocks the claims that file sharing is killing the music business</a> by highlighting the previous "copying technologies" (home taping, VCR, photocopier) that the industry insisted was killing content providers:
<center>
<object width="480" height="295"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_7p4cvBURk&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v_7p4cvBURk&#038;hl=en&#038;fs=1&#038;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"></embed></object>
</center>
While I actually think the bit could be funnier, it's pretty striking to see that sort of thing on a mainstream television program.  More and more people are realizing that copyright industry claims have little support in reality, and that concept is starting to go mainstream.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1451266626.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1451266626.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1451266626.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>...you-know-you've-got-an-uphill-battle</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091021/1451266626</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>