Digital copies 'save' a show from cancelation.
Is iTunes a better indication than Neilson ratings? Could "My So called Life" have been saved?
Good Morning Silicon Valley: iTunes saves "The Office" from NBC-series-in-jello gag
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Gathering to Celebrate Food Made the Old, Slow Way - New York Times
Seed saving at slow food festival, as reported in the New York Times
Gathering to Celebrate Food Made the Old, Slow Way - New York Times: "Seed diversity was another a rallying cry. “Every seed saved is a seed of freedom for the farmer,” said Vandana Shiva, a physicist and author from New Delhi and a leader of the anti-globalization movement. Her seed manifesto was in the hands of many people at Terra Madre.
Workshops explored the disappearing stock of seed varieties and the growth of seeds engineered to produce only one crop, which sends the farmer back to the large corporations to buy more each year."
Gathering to Celebrate Food Made the Old, Slow Way - New York Times: "Seed diversity was another a rallying cry. “Every seed saved is a seed of freedom for the farmer,” said Vandana Shiva, a physicist and author from New Delhi and a leader of the anti-globalization movement. Her seed manifesto was in the hands of many people at Terra Madre.
Workshops explored the disappearing stock of seed varieties and the growth of seeds engineered to produce only one crop, which sends the farmer back to the large corporations to buy more each year."
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Lost in Light � 8mm film to video project
Lost in Light � About: "This is a project about the 8mm film format. But 8mm is dead, you say? On the contrary! Not only is the format alive with innovation by filmmakers around the world, but hours and hours of Super 8 and regular 8mm film exist in attics and basements the world over—as home movies, educational films, works of art—that is slowly fading from the historical record.
We’re here to preserve that record before these films are lost, and to make those films available for viewing by the public and for use by artists seeking new, compelling footage. Lost in Light is a project devoted to preserving, showcasing, and celebrating films created on the small-gauge 8mm film format.
To that end, we provide free Super 8 and 8mm to video transfers to anyone who asks, in exchange for posting their video to the Lost in Light site and on the Internet Archive with their choice of Creative Commons licenses. In addition, Lost in Light includes articles and features by members of the filmmaking and film preservation communities, video tutorials for making 8mm films, as well as creative work, all with the goal of preserving and championing this important film format.
Lost in Light is a labor of love by Aaron Valdez and Jennifer Proctor. We are filmmakers who love small-gauge filmmaking, and we maintain this project at no profit to ourselves. "
We’re here to preserve that record before these films are lost, and to make those films available for viewing by the public and for use by artists seeking new, compelling footage. Lost in Light is a project devoted to preserving, showcasing, and celebrating films created on the small-gauge 8mm film format.
To that end, we provide free Super 8 and 8mm to video transfers to anyone who asks, in exchange for posting their video to the Lost in Light site and on the Internet Archive with their choice of Creative Commons licenses. In addition, Lost in Light includes articles and features by members of the filmmaking and film preservation communities, video tutorials for making 8mm films, as well as creative work, all with the goal of preserving and championing this important film format.
Lost in Light is a labor of love by Aaron Valdez and Jennifer Proctor. We are filmmakers who love small-gauge filmmaking, and we maintain this project at no profit to ourselves. "
Apple's iPod code 'cracked' - Digital Music - Gadgets - Technology - smh.com.au
Apple's iPod code 'cracked' - Digital Music - Gadgets - Technology - smh.com.au
From Asher Moses in the Sydney Morning Herald
From Asher Moses in the Sydney Morning Herald
Apple's iPod code 'cracked
Asher Moses
October 24, 2006
Cracked the code ... Jon Lech Johansen.
Cracked the code ... Jon Lech Johansen.
Photo: AP
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The iPod has just had its fifth birthday, but Apple's celebrations may be cut short thanks to a 22-year-old Norwegian who claims he's cracked Apple's proprietary iPod-iTunes ecosystem.
Jon Lech Johansen, affectionately known as DVD Jon, garnered worldwide fame and notoriety when, at the age of 15, he cracked the encryption scheme used by DVD. This allowed for DVDs to be copied and played back on any device.
Now Johansen claims he's mastered the inner workings of the iPod and its FairPlay encryption technology, allowing him to remove many of the restrictions Apple places on its users.
Today, songs purchased from Apple's iTunes store can't be played on non-iPod devices, and, if you've bought songs from other music stores, the chances are you won't be able to play them on the iPod either since they use a form of copy protection that Apple doesn't support.
Johansen's latest company, DoubleTwist, has developed programs to get around these restrictions, and plans to license them to digital music stores that are looking to sell copy-protected songs capable of being played on the iPod.
Johansen's driving force is his belief that users have the right to listen to songs they have bought legally on any device they own.
"Today's reality is that there's this iTunes-iPod ecosystem that excludes everyone else from the market," he told Fortune magazine.
"I don't like closed systems," he added.
Specific details on how his programs work are as yet unknown, but it's understood that they trick an iPod into thinking it's playing an iTunes-purchased song by emulating Apple's own FairPlay encryption technology.
Unlocking the iPod-iTunes ecosystem is seen by many as a good thing for consumers, as it will most likely result in increased competition to the iTunes Store, possibly resulting in lower prices and a higher quality service.
DoubleTwist has already signed its first client, which it refuses to name. It remains to be seen whether or not other companies will license the technology, as it's possible they could be sued by Apple.
Johansen says that his new business is operating well within the law, because, rather than removing protection, his programs are technically adding copy protection.
"The law protects copyrights, but it doesn't keep you locked into the iPod," Johansen told Fortune.
Whether or not US law agrees with him remains to be seen, and may only be determinable in court since there are few previous cases that can be used as precedents.
A spokesman for Apple Australia refused to comment on this story, and would not confirm or deny whether or not Apple would be taking legal action against DoubleTwist.
Either way, Johansen doesn't appear to be concerned, as indicated by the title of his personal blog: So Sue Me.
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders - Digital Music - Gadgets
My understanding is that the individuals who have been targeted by the music industry in the US were those who made files available for download rather than those who downloaded. Article is ambiguous about this.
It would seem an invasion of privacy and undue burdon if ISPs were asked to moniter and police the online activity of their customers.
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders - Digital Music - Gadgets
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders
Asher Moses
October 31, 2006
Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy.
Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The peak body representing the interests of the world's music companies has issued a stern warning to Australians: obtain your music illegally and we'll get your internet provider to terminate your service.
John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), will be meeting members of the local music industry today to formulate a strategy around clamping down on people who download pirated music.
Mr Kennedy, who is based in London, arrived in Sydney on Sunday for the ARIA Awards.
He plans to first approach internet service providers (ISPs), urging them to terminate the contracts of those who obtain their music through illegal means.
"What we hope is our next step is to engage ISPs in performing a role in dealing with piracy online," he said.
Mr Kennedy added that the terms and conditions of most ISPs state that "if you infringe copyright they will disconnect you", but he said these provisions were "hidden further down".
If ISPs refuse to co-operate, Mr Kennedy said he would take his requests up to Australian politicians.
"We're saying to governments: 'If the ISPs aren't willing to do this on a voluntary basis, isn't this something you're prepared to regulate?' " he said.
To date, targeting individuals for music piracy has occurred mainly in the US and Europe.
Earlier this month, the IFPI launched 8000 lawsuits against alleged file-sharers in 17 countries.
The industry has up until now filed approximately 18,000 lawsuits in the United States and 13,000 in the rest of the world.
Mr Kennedy admits that the measures he has taking are "draconian", but said it was the only way to convince users to obtain their music legally.
"It's very hard to shift those who have got into the habit of taking their music illegally," he said.
"Free is very difficult to compete with.
"It would be wonderful to think that human nature is such that if you point out online piracy isn't a victimless crime ... this would be an awakening ... [for] consumers and they would suddenly go to consume their music legally. Life isn't like that, unfortunately."
In a recent report, the IFPI said global digital music sales climbed 106 per cent during the first six months of 2006, to $US945 million ($1.2 billion). This represents 11 per cent of worldwide recorded music sales.
But in total, music sales are down 4 per cent during the same six-month period, a result of lagging compact disc sales.
While his campaign in Australia "hasn't really started" yet, Mr Kennedy said that global support had been "close to zero".
But political support was beginning to ramp up, he said.
"When we first started the fight against online piracy, we were in a very hostile market. Media and politicians seem to be concerned about taking a draconian approach," he said.
"And then when we sat down and discussed it ... there was a sea change and they realised that if we didn't take action, then this industry, which provided employment and nurtured talent and helped local culture and delivered wonderful entertainment to consumers was going to fall to its knees."
Taking action at the ISP level is seen as the next step up from flagging the illegal use of copyrighted music on services such as MySpace and YouTube.
Today MySpace announced that it would use "audio fingerprinting" technology to block its users from uploading copyright music.
The company said users who repeatedly attempted to upload copyright music files would be barred permanently from the site.
It would seem an invasion of privacy and undue burdon if ISPs were asked to moniter and police the online activity of their customers.
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders - Digital Music - Gadgets
Recording industry targets Aussie downloaders
Asher Moses
October 31, 2006
Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy.
Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, John Kennedy.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The peak body representing the interests of the world's music companies has issued a stern warning to Australians: obtain your music illegally and we'll get your internet provider to terminate your service.
John Kennedy, chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), will be meeting members of the local music industry today to formulate a strategy around clamping down on people who download pirated music.
Mr Kennedy, who is based in London, arrived in Sydney on Sunday for the ARIA Awards.
He plans to first approach internet service providers (ISPs), urging them to terminate the contracts of those who obtain their music through illegal means.
"What we hope is our next step is to engage ISPs in performing a role in dealing with piracy online," he said.
Mr Kennedy added that the terms and conditions of most ISPs state that "if you infringe copyright they will disconnect you", but he said these provisions were "hidden further down".
If ISPs refuse to co-operate, Mr Kennedy said he would take his requests up to Australian politicians.
"We're saying to governments: 'If the ISPs aren't willing to do this on a voluntary basis, isn't this something you're prepared to regulate?' " he said.
To date, targeting individuals for music piracy has occurred mainly in the US and Europe.
Earlier this month, the IFPI launched 8000 lawsuits against alleged file-sharers in 17 countries.
The industry has up until now filed approximately 18,000 lawsuits in the United States and 13,000 in the rest of the world.
Mr Kennedy admits that the measures he has taking are "draconian", but said it was the only way to convince users to obtain their music legally.
"It's very hard to shift those who have got into the habit of taking their music illegally," he said.
"Free is very difficult to compete with.
"It would be wonderful to think that human nature is such that if you point out online piracy isn't a victimless crime ... this would be an awakening ... [for] consumers and they would suddenly go to consume their music legally. Life isn't like that, unfortunately."
In a recent report, the IFPI said global digital music sales climbed 106 per cent during the first six months of 2006, to $US945 million ($1.2 billion). This represents 11 per cent of worldwide recorded music sales.
But in total, music sales are down 4 per cent during the same six-month period, a result of lagging compact disc sales.
While his campaign in Australia "hasn't really started" yet, Mr Kennedy said that global support had been "close to zero".
But political support was beginning to ramp up, he said.
"When we first started the fight against online piracy, we were in a very hostile market. Media and politicians seem to be concerned about taking a draconian approach," he said.
"And then when we sat down and discussed it ... there was a sea change and they realised that if we didn't take action, then this industry, which provided employment and nurtured talent and helped local culture and delivered wonderful entertainment to consumers was going to fall to its knees."
Taking action at the ISP level is seen as the next step up from flagging the illegal use of copyrighted music on services such as MySpace and YouTube.
Today MySpace announced that it would use "audio fingerprinting" technology to block its users from uploading copyright music.
The company said users who repeatedly attempted to upload copyright music files would be barred permanently from the site.
remixes and current copyright law
Report on Legal Scholars Damien O'Brien and Brian Fitzgerald ponder the question of remixes and mash-ups under current Australian copyright law. Story refers to this paper: O'Brien, Damien and Fitzgerald, Brian (2006) Mashups, remixes and copyright law. Internet Law Bulletin 9(2):pp. 17-19.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00004239/
YouTubers cut and paste at their peril - Technology - smh.com.au
From the Sydney Morning Herald
YouTubers cut and paste at their peril
Asher Moses
October 30, 2006 - 11:32AM
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The days of anything goes on YouTube are over. If you're planning on using copyrighted content as part of your own creative masterpiece, you're more or less inviting legal action, says a new research paper.
The paper, authored by Damien O'Brien and Brian Fitzgerald of Queensland University of Technology, identifies "remixes" and "mash-ups" of copyrighted content as a critical factor that's been overlooked by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, in his new copyright reforms, announced on May 14.
"We now inhabit a 'remix culture', a culture which is dominated by amateur creators - creators who are no longer willing to be merely passive receptors of content," the paper reads.
"The challenge for creativity and the economy of digital content production is the extent to which mash-up and remix artists should be allowed to borrow."
YouTube serves more than 100 million short video clips per day, which includes many from amateur film producers who use copyrighted material in conjunction with their own creativity to develop something new. Permission from the original copyright owners is rarely sought.
One example cited in the paper is a video remix from December last year, where a Perth group called Dean Gray uploaded a remixed version of Green Day's album American Idiot - dubbed American Edit - to the internet.
"Within days they received a cease and desist letter on behalf of Warner Bros and Green Day," the paper reads.
"Dean Gray is like many of a new generation of amateur creators. They can sit at home in the bedroom and produce the most wonderful things. Most often they do not want money. Merely, they wish to share the finished product with the world."
The paper poses the question: should Dean Gray (and authors of other remixes) pay for a licence, even if their clip is non-commercial and doesn't necessarily rob Green Day of album sales?
Under current copyright laws, unless permission has been given in advance through an open content licence, such as Creative Commons, according to the law the answer is "yes".
"The exclusive rights of the copyright owner over acts such as reproduction/copying, communication, adaptation and performance - unless licensed openly - by their very nature reduce the ability to negotiate copyright material without permission," says the paper.
The copyright reforms announced by Mr Ruddock do little to remedy the issue, which means legal action could be taken against Australian mash-up and remix artists, says the paper.
"There appears to be no provision for any fair dealing exception for mash-ups or remixes which are highly transformative, non-commercial derivatives that do not compete with the primary market of the copyright owner."
The legal implications of this could be felt sooner rather than later, having already surfaced in the US. It appears copyright owners are far more confident in taking legal action against YouTube now it has the weight of Google's substantive cash reserves behind it.
On October 20, YouTube removed no less than 29,549 videos that used material from Japanese copyright holders without permission. Six days later the site removed 1000 sports videos (including Australian Open Tennis footage), while on Friday YouTube removed all clips taken from The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and South Park, at the request of Comedy Central.
About the Author
Brian Fitzgerald
Law School, Queensland University of Technology
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/about/staff/lsstaff/fitzgerald.jsp
Professor Brian Fitzgerald
BA (Griff) LLB (Hons) (QUT) BCL (Oxon.) LLM (Harv.) PhD (Griff)
Head of Law School, QUT Brisbane Australia
Brian is a well-known intellectual property and information technology lawyer. He has published articles on Law and the Internet in Australia, the United States, Europe, Nepal, India, Canada and Japan and his latest (co-authored) books are Cyberlaw: Cases and Materials on the Internet, Digital Intellectual Property and E Commerce (2002); Jurisdiction and the Internet (2004); Intellectual Property in Principle (2004). Brian is also Project Leader for the DEST funded Open Access to Knowledge Law Project OAK Law Project, looking at legal protocols for open access to the Australian research sector. His current projects include work on intellectual property issues across the areas of Copyright and the Creative Industries in China, Open Content Licensing and the Creative Commons, Free and Open Source Software, Research Use of Patents, Science Commons, e-Research, Licensing of Digital Entertainment and Anti-Circumvention Law. Brian is a Project Leader for Creative Commons in Australia. From 1998-2002 Brian was Head of the School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University in New South Wales, Australia and in January 2002 was appointed as Head of the School of Law at QUT in Brisbane, Australia.
Damien O'Brien
Law School, Queensland University of Technology
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/
Damien is a research assistant with the law school’s Intellectual Property: Knowledge, Culture and Economy research program at Queensland University of Technology. Damien holds a bachelor of laws and a graduate certificate in international studies (international relations). His research interests include copyright law, internet law and other associated technology law issues.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00004239/
YouTubers cut and paste at their peril - Technology - smh.com.au
From the Sydney Morning Herald
YouTubers cut and paste at their peril
Asher Moses
October 30, 2006 - 11:32AM
AdvertisementAdvertisement
The days of anything goes on YouTube are over. If you're planning on using copyrighted content as part of your own creative masterpiece, you're more or less inviting legal action, says a new research paper.
The paper, authored by Damien O'Brien and Brian Fitzgerald of Queensland University of Technology, identifies "remixes" and "mash-ups" of copyrighted content as a critical factor that's been overlooked by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, in his new copyright reforms, announced on May 14.
"We now inhabit a 'remix culture', a culture which is dominated by amateur creators - creators who are no longer willing to be merely passive receptors of content," the paper reads.
"The challenge for creativity and the economy of digital content production is the extent to which mash-up and remix artists should be allowed to borrow."
YouTube serves more than 100 million short video clips per day, which includes many from amateur film producers who use copyrighted material in conjunction with their own creativity to develop something new. Permission from the original copyright owners is rarely sought.
One example cited in the paper is a video remix from December last year, where a Perth group called Dean Gray uploaded a remixed version of Green Day's album American Idiot - dubbed American Edit - to the internet.
"Within days they received a cease and desist letter on behalf of Warner Bros and Green Day," the paper reads.
"Dean Gray is like many of a new generation of amateur creators. They can sit at home in the bedroom and produce the most wonderful things. Most often they do not want money. Merely, they wish to share the finished product with the world."
The paper poses the question: should Dean Gray (and authors of other remixes) pay for a licence, even if their clip is non-commercial and doesn't necessarily rob Green Day of album sales?
Under current copyright laws, unless permission has been given in advance through an open content licence, such as Creative Commons, according to the law the answer is "yes".
"The exclusive rights of the copyright owner over acts such as reproduction/copying, communication, adaptation and performance - unless licensed openly - by their very nature reduce the ability to negotiate copyright material without permission," says the paper.
The copyright reforms announced by Mr Ruddock do little to remedy the issue, which means legal action could be taken against Australian mash-up and remix artists, says the paper.
"There appears to be no provision for any fair dealing exception for mash-ups or remixes which are highly transformative, non-commercial derivatives that do not compete with the primary market of the copyright owner."
The legal implications of this could be felt sooner rather than later, having already surfaced in the US. It appears copyright owners are far more confident in taking legal action against YouTube now it has the weight of Google's substantive cash reserves behind it.
On October 20, YouTube removed no less than 29,549 videos that used material from Japanese copyright holders without permission. Six days later the site removed 1000 sports videos (including Australian Open Tennis footage), while on Friday YouTube removed all clips taken from The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and South Park, at the request of Comedy Central.
About the Author
Brian Fitzgerald
Law School, Queensland University of Technology
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/about/staff/lsstaff/fitzgerald.jsp
Professor Brian Fitzgerald
BA (Griff) LLB (Hons) (QUT) BCL (Oxon.) LLM (Harv.) PhD (Griff)
Head of Law School, QUT Brisbane Australia
Brian is a well-known intellectual property and information technology lawyer. He has published articles on Law and the Internet in Australia, the United States, Europe, Nepal, India, Canada and Japan and his latest (co-authored) books are Cyberlaw: Cases and Materials on the Internet, Digital Intellectual Property and E Commerce (2002); Jurisdiction and the Internet (2004); Intellectual Property in Principle (2004). Brian is also Project Leader for the DEST funded Open Access to Knowledge Law Project OAK Law Project, looking at legal protocols for open access to the Australian research sector. His current projects include work on intellectual property issues across the areas of Copyright and the Creative Industries in China, Open Content Licensing and the Creative Commons, Free and Open Source Software, Research Use of Patents, Science Commons, e-Research, Licensing of Digital Entertainment and Anti-Circumvention Law. Brian is a Project Leader for Creative Commons in Australia. From 1998-2002 Brian was Head of the School of Law and Justice at Southern Cross University in New South Wales, Australia and in January 2002 was appointed as Head of the School of Law at QUT in Brisbane, Australia.
Damien O'Brien
Law School, Queensland University of Technology
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/
Damien is a research assistant with the law school’s Intellectual Property: Knowledge, Culture and Economy research program at Queensland University of Technology. Damien holds a bachelor of laws and a graduate certificate in international studies (international relations). His research interests include copyright law, internet law and other associated technology law issues.
The You Tube Comedy Central Purge
you tube purge reporting in mediabistro.com: FishBowlNY
mediabistro.com: FishBowlNY
mediabistro.com: FishBowlNY
This morning's New York Times reported that YouTube is "purging" copyrighted clips — from some of YouTube stalwarts like the Daily Show, Colbert Report and South Park — in preparation for the finalizing of its $1.65 billion sale to Google.
The Times, however, was relying on "'third-party notification by Comedy Central' according to one such e-mail message sent to a YouTube user, Jeff Reifman, who broke the news on the Web site NewsCloud." YouTube did not respond to the Times.
FishbowlNY spent about 25 minutes on YouTube this afternoon, and the news of an all-out purge seems to have been a bit premature. For instance, a user named "SouthParkSeason10" reports he "just recently got suspended," yet his "Director's Channel" page continues to play clips of the show.
A simple search for "south park" turned up 6,714 results — and not one of the handful of clips we checked [including the one above] had been pulled.
According to some users, it appears that clips under 5 minutes in were not removed. Those over 5 minutes were.
YouTube has yet to respond to FishbowlNY's e-mails seeking comment.
Posted by Dylan | 03:15 PM | TV
MySpace takes steps against copyright infringement - Los Angeles Times
Word of Mouth is every marketers dream. Yet My Space is taking steps against it in their attempt to prevent users from uploading copyrighted songs to their My Space pages.
Not only does this make their product less powerful for both users and marketers, but it also gives an advantage to their independent competitors who allow people to pass on the message their trying to convey and (hopefully) sell.
Reuters story as published in the LA Times
MySpace takes steps against copyright infringement
From Reuters
October 31, 2006
News Corp.'s MySpace.com said Monday that it had licensed a technology to stop users from posting unauthorized copyrighted music on the social networking website and oust frequent violators of its policy.
The move comes amid pressure from major studios and record labels against popular online sites such as MySpace and YouTube, which they accuse of infringing the copyrights of their artists' music and videos.
Santa Monica-based MySpace, one of the most popular sites on the Internet, licensed technology from privately held Gracenote Inc. enabling it to review music recordings uploaded by community members to their profiles.
The technology compares those filed with Gracenote's database of copyrighted material and can block uploads without proper rights. Terms of the licensing agreement were not disclosed.
Popular sites such as MySpace and YouTube are littered with copyrighted music and video posted by legions of users, who hope to share them with friends and strangers alike.
Both sites say they remove unauthorized copyrighted material when notified.
But MySpace, increasingly seen as a destination to see and hear music and video, will soon begin selling songs from nearly 3 million unsigned bands. It aims to eventually offer copyright-protected songs from major record companies.
Once Emeryville, Calif.-based Gracenote's technology is integrated into its service, users who repeatedly try to upload unauthorized music will have their accounts deleted, MySpace said.
YouTube, which recently agreed to be acquired by Google Inc., has similar aspirations to cash in on Web video use and protect itself from legal challenges.
EMI Group, Vivendi's Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment own about 75% of mainstream popular music. Most of this music is available on MySpace only for live streaming as a promotional tool.
MySpace was acquired by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. for $580 million less than a year ago. It boasts more than 90 million active users.
Not only does this make their product less powerful for both users and marketers, but it also gives an advantage to their independent competitors who allow people to pass on the message their trying to convey and (hopefully) sell.
Reuters story as published in the LA Times
MySpace takes steps against copyright infringement
From Reuters
October 31, 2006
News Corp.'s MySpace.com said Monday that it had licensed a technology to stop users from posting unauthorized copyrighted music on the social networking website and oust frequent violators of its policy.
The move comes amid pressure from major studios and record labels against popular online sites such as MySpace and YouTube, which they accuse of infringing the copyrights of their artists' music and videos.
Santa Monica-based MySpace, one of the most popular sites on the Internet, licensed technology from privately held Gracenote Inc. enabling it to review music recordings uploaded by community members to their profiles.
The technology compares those filed with Gracenote's database of copyrighted material and can block uploads without proper rights. Terms of the licensing agreement were not disclosed.
Popular sites such as MySpace and YouTube are littered with copyrighted music and video posted by legions of users, who hope to share them with friends and strangers alike.
Both sites say they remove unauthorized copyrighted material when notified.
But MySpace, increasingly seen as a destination to see and hear music and video, will soon begin selling songs from nearly 3 million unsigned bands. It aims to eventually offer copyright-protected songs from major record companies.
Once Emeryville, Calif.-based Gracenote's technology is integrated into its service, users who repeatedly try to upload unauthorized music will have their accounts deleted, MySpace said.
YouTube, which recently agreed to be acquired by Google Inc., has similar aspirations to cash in on Web video use and protect itself from legal challenges.
EMI Group, Vivendi's Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony BMG Music Entertainment own about 75% of mainstream popular music. Most of this music is available on MySpace only for live streaming as a promotional tool.
MySpace was acquired by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. for $580 million less than a year ago. It boasts more than 90 million active users.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Books banned in Australia
Book ban anger: it will hinder freedoms - National - smh.com.au
"The books, Join the Caravan and Defence of the Muslim Lands, were banned in July by the Classification Review Board after an application by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who was acting on advice from the federal police.
A ruling on a third book, The Lofty Mountain, is pending.
All were written by Abdullah Azzam, the so-called Godfather of Jihad, who was murdered in 1989."
"The books, Join the Caravan and Defence of the Muslim Lands, were banned in July by the Classification Review Board after an application by the Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, who was acting on advice from the federal police.
A ruling on a third book, The Lofty Mountain, is pending.
All were written by Abdullah Azzam, the so-called Godfather of Jihad, who was murdered in 1989."
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Jefferson Debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jefferson Debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Thomas Jefferson's August 13, 1813 letter to Isaac McPherson read in part:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light "
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light "
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Fader on ITunes
What's a music magazine without the music? Media Bistro examines The Fader's decision to launch an iTunes "issue" and wonders why so many other magazines are so far behind in this regard.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Steely Dan: America's first men of the borrowed couch?
To what extent does an artist/writer/musician 'own' the characters they create once they've released their artwork/book/song into the public sphere?
70s studio band Steely Dan have written an open letter to actor Owen Wilson, via his brother Luke, essentially accusing the film he's starring in "You, Me and Dupree," of appropriating the character they created in their Grammy winning song "Cousin Dupree". They complain that they have not crediting them (or as seems more important in their letter, compensating them financially) in any way.
As Salon's Audiofile blog explains: "Both the song and film feature a moocher named Dupree living on a borrowed couch and getting up to no good, or as Becker and Fagen put it in their letter: "They, like, took our character, this real dog sleeping on the couch and all and put him in the middle of some hokey 'Down and Out in Beverly Hills' ripoff story and then, when it came time to change the character's name or whatever so people wouldn't know what a rip the whole thing was, THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO THINK UP A NEW FUCKING NAME FOR THE GUY!"
It's a pretty funny letter but besides their, like, obviously ripping off the speech patterns of the youth of the nation and, like, not apologising for putting out crappy songs like "Rickey Don't Lose That Number" or other indulgent over-produced 70s numbers (watch the jaws drop when you play them Turn That Heartbeat Over Again) do they really believe that there was something terribly original about a a mooch on a borrowed couch? If their song had any resonance in the first place, it was because they captured something familiar, not really that they invented something new. The film in question certainly seems like a genre flick and that it pays open hommage to the name of the character in their song inserts that filmmaker's script into the artistic continuum of 70s couch moochers (and thankfully leaves out the whole kissing cousin part of the Steely Dan song story.) It's called clever writing.
But what Steely Dan actually seem worried about is money. They're making an intellectual property grab, an incresingly common occurence, and acting hard done by at the same time. However even under US copyright law, characters are only protected if they are significantly original and not stock characters-not sure that Dupree really qualifies.
Why they're targeting the actor and trying to shame him is another interesting development and can be seen as part of the ongoing attempt to change the public's mind about what constitutes ownership and fair use. (A PR campaign so they look like good guys instead of whining rich guys a la Metallica and Napster?) Indeed, do copyright holders even think of their work as going public anymore or has it become all about private market transactions?
Here's Ivan Hoffman, an American lawyer's take on copyright and trademark of characters.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Woody Guthrie on copyright
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2004/07/27/woody_guthrie_on_copyright.php#comments
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
American Copyright law in verse
An amusing (if nerdy, in the best way possible) rendering of US copyright law into verse at Yehuda
iThenticate, Ann Coulter and intellectual property grabs
A while ago, I noted the existence of iParadigm, a company in the US who had gone into the business of finding instances of Plagarism in students work. I was also fascinated by their iThenticate, a similar service that looked for what could be deemed was the unliscensed use of material protected under copyright in other media. I was intrigued by this company because their entire business model was contingent on the ability to make and use copies of freely available material as well as licensed material. But more than an amusing irony, I also wondered if such a system could be used by companies with the money to use the service to make sweeping claims for intellectual property. It could prove to be a tangled web, afterall.
Here is an Editor & Publisher story that chronicles the accusations of plagarism against Columnist Ann Coulter via this aforementioned service.
Apart from the interesting issues of the potential for money being the only deciding factor in who gets to use and own copies, this whole saga brings up a lot of interesting ideas about originality and it's limits.
Whether or not the accusations against Coulter are true or false, I was thinking about how many popular columnists, musicians etc. are often not the most "original" creators, but instead they are folks who are good at distilling ideas that are bubbling up on the fringes to the mainstream or capturing the mood and ideas of something a large group of people are already thinking or talking about. Conservative columnists and politicians, talk radio etc are all particularly good at this. The mainstream music industry has also proved adept at creating a version of underground music that will sell to a broad audience. The oft cited example in this regard is Madonna, a genius at distilation and making something her own.
But I don't think that the limits of originality are only about commercial culture, a simple case of co-opting the little guy and telling people what they want to hear. I suspect that most of cultural creation is derivative in some sense.
In terms of non-fiction writing, there are only so many ways you can state a fact. When I write reported article, I assemble the facts according to the strictures of a genre and while I may be pleased with some turn of phrase or particularly proud of a quote I managed to get or fact I managed to unearth, I know that there probably won't be a lot of difference between my piece and someone else's who is similarly trained. The originality comes simply from how I link the information together. But what sort of "property" claim can I make on that is a big question and one we're all grappling with now.
While I recorgise that there are people who knowingly attempt to co-opt and commercialise the creative work that other people do, I don't think this also means that non-commercial or idependent cultural creation works outside a sphere of shared knowledge and common ideas. Perhaps the difference will be recognising what we owe to each other rather than trying to stake out our own territory. This may be the spot from which true originality may flow.
Here is an Editor & Publisher story that chronicles the accusations of plagarism against Columnist Ann Coulter via this aforementioned service.
Apart from the interesting issues of the potential for money being the only deciding factor in who gets to use and own copies, this whole saga brings up a lot of interesting ideas about originality and it's limits.
Whether or not the accusations against Coulter are true or false, I was thinking about how many popular columnists, musicians etc. are often not the most "original" creators, but instead they are folks who are good at distilling ideas that are bubbling up on the fringes to the mainstream or capturing the mood and ideas of something a large group of people are already thinking or talking about. Conservative columnists and politicians, talk radio etc are all particularly good at this. The mainstream music industry has also proved adept at creating a version of underground music that will sell to a broad audience. The oft cited example in this regard is Madonna, a genius at distilation and making something her own.
But I don't think that the limits of originality are only about commercial culture, a simple case of co-opting the little guy and telling people what they want to hear. I suspect that most of cultural creation is derivative in some sense.
In terms of non-fiction writing, there are only so many ways you can state a fact. When I write reported article, I assemble the facts according to the strictures of a genre and while I may be pleased with some turn of phrase or particularly proud of a quote I managed to get or fact I managed to unearth, I know that there probably won't be a lot of difference between my piece and someone else's who is similarly trained. The originality comes simply from how I link the information together. But what sort of "property" claim can I make on that is a big question and one we're all grappling with now.
While I recorgise that there are people who knowingly attempt to co-opt and commercialise the creative work that other people do, I don't think this also means that non-commercial or idependent cultural creation works outside a sphere of shared knowledge and common ideas. Perhaps the difference will be recognising what we owe to each other rather than trying to stake out our own territory. This may be the spot from which true originality may flow.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Village Voice, Code Warriors Jan 10, 2006
Education Supplement 2006
Code Warriors
Free culture takes flight at NYU
Code Warriors
Free culture takes flight at NYU
by Carla Blumenkranz
January 10th, 2006 11:32 AM
January 10th, 2006 11:32 AM
 Steal this look: Inga Chernyak and Fred Benenson photo: Brian Kennedy |
In fact, just explaining this maneuver may constitute aiding and abetting. "And for you to publish it!" Chernyak gasps. In response to cyberspace logistics, which create a copy each time a user takes a listen online, music industry corporate interests are bearing down hard on individual users, with a vast array of copyright protections on their side. It's a familiar story, and one that usually places the blame on "piracy," which supposedly robs artists of their due profits. But new ideas about the bounds of "fair use" are slowly shifting the blame to antiquated notions of intellectual property, for making copies a crime. Contrary to popular logic, there's an argument to be made that access to our common culture has never been as restricted as today, when the simple act of circulating a song comes with the threat of a lawsuit.
Chernyak and her friend Fred Benenson, a recent NYU graduate, make this argument at length, eyes widening. For them, the freedom to download music, as well as art in any medium, doesn't just mean sticking it to Sony: It's about maintaining a national tradition of grassroots cultural development. And if artists don't have access to our natural resources—if all digital copies are crimes—then that tradition, Chernyak says, is at risk. She and Benenson are the founders of Free Culture NYU, one chapter of what they predict will be the next great student movement. The man this time is RIAA, and Chernyak and Benenson are gearing up, cautiously, for a revolution.
Fittingly, they cribbed their arguments from the work of copyright lawyers— specifically, a popular 2004 nonfiction book called Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig. In the book, Lessig, a Stanford law professor, argues that piracy as we know it is just the latest development in technology distribution, and that this development makes it worth rethinking how we protect intellectual property. The American public shouldn't let corporations stifle our creative culture, he argues, simply because copyright legislation is working on outdated terms. Lessig says, in retrospect, that he never expected his book to inspire a student movement, but of course he's "thrilled." He had a hint, though, when he first came onto the campus scene in 2003 to help Free Culture's eventual founders, Swarthmore students Nelson Pavlosky and Luke Smith, take on Diebold, a voting-machine manufacturer. (Pavlosky and Smith had posted online some of the company's internal e-mails, and Diebold had responded by invoking copyright protections.) College campuses, Lessig notes, are natural incubators for Free Culture ideology. Today, a national network of chapters hosts websites, wikis, and blogs, as well as conventional meetings and protests. (The first regional Free Culture conference is scheduled for January 13 and 14 at Columbia.)
Despite some similarities, the movement hasn't lent itself easily to free-property ideology on the left, or free trade on the right. (This lack of partisan staging may be why Free Culture takes so much flack, from both sides, for not tackling more "important" problems.) Lessig remembers arriving at Swarthmore and finding "one self-acknowledged socialist," and "one self-acknowledged libertarian"; Chernyak proclaims herself a free-market radical, while Benenson broaches vague objections to American internationalism. What holds the group together is its consumer rights orientation: a broad and well-considered objection to the way copyright restrictions make most listeners and viewers into "passive consumers." Free Culture's mission is to convince students that the law, and not just their downloading habits, ought to work otherwise. "In a sense, we're a copyright reform organization," Chernyak explains. "What we aim to do is give direction to the way copyright reform is going to evolve."
At a recent meeting, Free Culture NYU, a dozen members strong, was exploding with responses to the latest in blogs. (Benenson says, "That in itself is tremendous, to have a weekly forum where you're talking about the cutting edge of copyright.") Then it was on to the group's best prospects for civil disobedience. Benenson, an aspiring digital artist, was advocating for a Free Culture–sponsored film-remixing contest: Tisch students would be presented with a feature film or two and, within a short time frame, encouraged to figure out what they can make of it.
As usual, the problem is copyright. Offer access to studio films too freely, and risk a lawsuit; then again, isn't risk, for these supposed rabble-rousers, just the point? An adult agitator who's been showing up lately—Trina Semorile, a former Ph.D. candidate at NYU's Steinhardt School of Education— keeps trying, clearly, to pull the group back to reality. Instead, what she's exposing is a generational gap. There are things worth being jailed for, she says—"a draft card," for example. It's the rhetoric of 20th-century activism. Benenson and Chernyak, however, are operating on different planes: not as part of a bottom-up, top-down struggle, but as a multi-dimensional network of players. Challenging copyright law isn't "about absolutes," Benenson tells Semorile. It's "about harm reduction": minimizing penalties and maximizing opportunities, for artists and audiences alike. More often than not, they have the same interests; they may even be the same people. And as the youth soccer league saying goes, when everyone plays, everyone wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)