EU Politicians Realize US View Of De Facto... >>
<< News Of The World Staffers Take Parting Shot...
 tdicon 

Copyright

by Mike Masnick

Tue, Jul 12th 2011 1:12am


Filed Under:
copyright, education, fair use, videos, youtube

Companies:
google



The Rest Of The Story: Fair Use School Created To Respond To YouTube's Questionable Copyright School

from the fair-use-tube dept

Back in April, we were pretty surprised to see YouTube launch a "copyright school", with a video and quiz that seemed woefully limited, and at times, misleading -- especially on fair use. Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues, so it was unexpected that it would put out one of those kinds of propaganda videos, especially one that implied fair use was something you shouldn't bother with at all, and that all videos should be entirely new and original. Public Knowledge responded by offering up $1,000 for whoever could create a better video.

The winner has been announced, and it's Patrick McKay for his "Fair Use School," that takes the same basic style and makes a video about fair use, and which explains YouTube's DMCA counternotice setup:
Of course, it's fair to say that McKay (admittedly) simplifies things a bit in saying what is "probably" fair use, which is a big part of the problem. Since fair use isn't a hard set of rules, but rather basically whatever judges decide fair use is, it's sometimes difficult to assume what is and what is not fair use.
47 Comments | Leave a Comment

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:23am

    it was unexpected that it would put out one of those kinds of propaganda videos

    But definitely not unexpected that Public Knowledge would put out an exponentially more propagandistic video.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:32am

    I can't stand to listen to his voice. I understand you want a strawman video that's a counter to another strawman video, but please have someone else besides a nasally little teen with a frog in his throat record it.

    Please?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    mike allen (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 3:33am

    If I put a video up on you tube I will pick music (if any) that fits the subject of the video as to copyright stuff it.I wont be dictated what i can use time you tube realised that many people think this way.RIAA two fingers.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 12 Jul 2011 @ 5:36am

    "Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues"

    Even if HAS, that's no predictor for the future.

    Specifically to Youtube: of course they turn a blind eye to copyright when that's in their direct interest. -- I'm not saying Youtube is huge violator of copyright, merely that Google makes money off any copyright violations, IF there are any: they've a motive. -- And so you're only promoting your limited Pollyanna views of Google and copyright.

    But Google with its book-scanning project still has the potential to lock up all those books: how many times have you complained that works are taken out of the public domain? You simply ASSUME, at best, that Google isn't just playing nice for now, and won't be revealed as a monster when it's consolidated and there are effectively no other choices.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:06am

      Re: "Google has traditionally been pretty good on copyright issues"

      That's precisely why MAFIAA shouldn't push too hard. Google is keeping the middle gorund, the status quo as long as the other involved parties don't push too hard. I can see how they'll show their claws and fangs if things go too far. Or at least I hope so.

      Unfortunately, Larry and the others aren't eternal and may be replaced at some point. While they are at key positions on Google I'd say the company will be alright.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:01am

    Wow, I get jumped on for saying that commercial use really have no relation to fair use, a real beatdown (turns out the correct answer is "commercial use is rarely fair use, except in reviews". This person makes a video that says some stuff is "probably fair use", and pretty much gets a pass. Nutty!

    Probably fair use is a reason to have a lawyer on speed dial. Probably don't cut it. It's horrible legal advice from someone who isn't a lawyer. When you get to probably, the answer is "don't do it... you will probably get sued or get your video taken down". If you aren't 100% certain, you know you are at risk.

    It's a shame that a video like this would be held up as a good tool, it's mostly a way to lead the sheep to slaughter.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:13am

      Re:

      Shows how copyright needs reform huh? With so many damn grey areas and the definition of commercial use being used so broadly by MAFIAA thugs makes sense he uses PROBABLY with so much emphasis?

      If MAFIAA says that something is probably commercial use would it be nutty too if it passed?

      BUT BUT... YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR!

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:38am

        Re: Re:

        The terms of fair use are pretty clear. Giving someone legal advice by saying "probably" is really not a very good idea.

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Ninja (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:46am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh they are? You know that any idiot can have ad sense in their blogs nowadays and that this is being used by MAFIAA to classify what would be fair use as commercial use? If fair use was so clear we wouldn't be discussing here and all judges would have the exact same interpretation of the law, which takes some minutes of reading into the issue to see i's not the case. Add jurisdictional problems to the mess and we have a huge problem. If it's clear for you then I'd love to know in which planet you are living now.

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Huph, 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Um... having commercials on your site would be the definition of commercial use.

            [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Having adsense on your blog indicates that you have a commercial business. Ask the IRS, if you don't declare that revenue they can get up your ass in a serious way. It's real income from a real commercial venture.

            Fair use is remarkably clear about 99% of the time. What gets discussed here is the last 1% that sits right on the border. Typical of what goes on, the 99% is never discussed, and the 1% is held up as reasons to toss the other 99% of the cases out.

            99% of the time, it's clear as it comes. The last 1% is always what will end up in court or on a blog. Just try to remember that on planet earth, 1% isn't a majority.

            [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          dwg, 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:53am

          Re: Re: Re:

          AHHHH!!!! Stop it!!! Dude, "the terms of fair use are pretty clear" is almost as good as "commercial use is rarely fair use." And I mean good meaning bad, not good meaning good. [insert citation for paraphrasing of Run DMC.] Dammit, man--you're misinforming people left and right. Better to shut it.

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Kawika, 13 Jul 2011 @ 7:17am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Only lawyers can give legal advice, and no lawyer is going to give formal legal advice online; Patrick McKay's "probably" line is actually necessary to follow legal ethics while still helping normal Americans understand what the law is aimed at.

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      dwg, 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:51am

      Re:

      Someone PROBABLY beat you down for that "commercial use is rarely fair use" because it's fucking stupid. There are four factors in the fair use inquiry, and the commercial use one is, obviously, only one fourth. So basing your analysis on it is worthy of a beatdown. Any lawyer worth anything can work with the other three factors to show fair use, where it exists.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 1:19pm

      Re:

      Wow, I get jumped on for saying that commercial use really have no relation to fair use, a real beatdown (turns out the correct answer is "commercial use is rarely fair use, except in reviews".

      Your "correct answer" is also false. Please, stop pretending you know fair use. You do not.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 4:55pm

      Re:

      It's funny, TAM, how you (still) refuse to admit you were blatantly, 100% wrong.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    A.R.M. (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:52am

    That was the winner? No offense, but I'd hate to see the runners-up in this contest.

    It's really stupid when such topics are dumbed-down to the point neither side is taken seriously.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Nina Paley (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:05am

      Re:

      PK only had $1,000 to offer. They didn't have enough to hire professionals. For an entirely free contribution, on a depressing subject with no guarantee of even winning the $1,000, I think it's pretty good.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2011 @ 8:51am

        Re: Re:

        It's only depressing if you insist on hitting your head up against that wall all your life. For the rest of us, it's actually pretty amusing to watch people like you go.

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        A.R.M. (profile), 12 Jul 2011 @ 9:48am

        Re: Re:

        Not to be rude, but I find it odd the $1000 is the limiting factor here as though the only reason people got into it was to get as much of the $1000 as they could.

        In other words: this was never about the issue from this contest's point of view.

        That's how I'm seeing it. It's a bad attitude, I know, but it's also the reality and it's why I believe it trivializes the issue.

        Again, I mean no offense to anyone. This is merely my personal opinion. Feel free to disagree.

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Matt, 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:10pm

    video not accurate

    That video is not accurate and very misleading. Just the fact that he used the word "probably" about 8 times, shows that even he knows what he's saying is not true.

    Best example, doing a Remix or a Mash-Up does not in ANY WAY constitute Fair Use. If you use ANY portion of the original copyrighted music without written permission of all of the copy right holders, then what you are doing is illegal. That's the law. If you don't like it, work to change it.

    But as someone who has made his living as a Remixer, Producer and DJ for over 20 years, Just because I can get my hands on a Madonna, Rihanna, Beyonce A capella (and I can and do all the time) and do a "remix" of it, doesn't me I have the legal right to make it or release it on YouTube. The law is written in the following manner: As a producer/DJ I could do a remix and use it out at my gigs. They won't come after me for that even though technically you are not legally allowed to even do that. But as soon as I release it to the public, it automatically is competing with the original. If just one person doesn't my a 99 cent download because they downloaded my unauthorized mix or mash-up, then my version is competing. So his video is false and misleading.

    It's really unfortunate that the Internet has created an entire generation of child-like thinking and mentality that just because I want it, I should be able to have it. You can't walk into a car dealership and take the vehicle without paying for it, nor can you walk into a grocery store and take food, or books, or dvd's or CD's without paying for them. It's stealing. So why do people think it's OK to steal music and movies off the intenet, or use pieces of other peoples work without asking?

    Most artists would gladly give their permission for people to use bits of their material into something new. In fact, I just sent a email off to a major 80's UK New Wave icon the other day asking to sample a 10 second verse of one of his hits and he said "sure, just put it in writing and I'll sign off on it." People get pissed off when you just do it without asking. Now sure Madonna is probably not gonna say yes. But it's her right to say no. She labored long and hard to create her work. And by releasing it doesn't release her of control of it. I see very little difference between music and children. They are both labors of your love, work, sweat and tears and just people don't have the right to steal them, hurt them or destroy them just because they can get away with it.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Derpentine, 13 Jul 2011 @ 4:51pm

    Fair Use

    Just like the chuckleheads that submit fraudulent take down notices, I would suggest everyone just submit a counter-notice automatically, even if you don't think it's fair use.

    Why should you be held to a different standard then the one set by the original notice. Just abuse the weasel phrase "Knowlingly" like they do. Or blame an underpaid functionary; eg My dog improperly submited that notice.

    I've yet to see any real punishment on the the fraudulent dcma notices submitted daily.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
EU Politicians Realize US View Of De Facto... >>
<< News Of The World Staffers Take Parting Shot...
 tdicon 
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories

Thursday

06:22 Supposed Stickler For Transparency, FCC Boss Won't Release Net Neutrality Complaints (7)
03:16 DOJ Boss Promises The Return Of Everything That Didn't Work During The Last 40 Years Of Drug Warring (35)

Wednesday

18:39 Connecticut Latest State To Add A Conviction Requirement To Its Forfeiture Laws (14)
15:31 Oversight Board Finds NYPD Officers Still Violating Citizens' Right To Film Police (22)
13:28 Moonton Responds To Copyright Infringement Suit From Riot Games By Threatening The Press With Lawsuits (29)
11:55 EFF Highlights How ISPs Are Lying To Californians To Try And Kill New Broadband Privacy Protections (4)
10:41 Comcast: We Must Kill Net Neutrality To Help The Sick And Disabled (33)
10:35 Daily Deal: The Robotics And Machine Learning of Self-Driving Cars (0)
09:24 DHS Confirms There Will Be More And Greater Intrusiveness During Border Searches (34)
06:23 AT&T Tricked Its Customers Into Opposing Net Neutrality (37)
More arrow
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.