copy this blog

Family Guy, Seth MacFarlane’s animated series shown on Fox, often uses references from pop culture through the years. Really, that’s an understatement. (Some Favorites: He-man riding off, Apache Chief from Superfriends setting Peter’s dish antenna, Stewie’s “Rocket Man”, “That’s one to grow on,” and Cobra Commander as the FCC Chairman. Truly, a child of the 80s.) Naturally, I was expecting the show to be sued at some point. The question was- who would it be?

The Answer? Carol Burnett.

From the Smoking Gun,  Carol Burnett v. “Family Guy.”

From Boing Boing, MPAA Rips Off Freeware Author. Cory Doctorow writes about someone at the MPAA making them hypocrites by not following software licensing terms. They used the coder’s free blogging tools, but didn’t link back to the author’s site or leave the lines giving him credit, as the terms and conditions required. Doctorow makes some very good observations.

Copyright law is hard. It used to only govern relations between giant industrial players. Copyright didn’t regulate reading an interesting tidbit from the newspaper for a friend. It didn’t regulate watching movies. But now, sharing a newspaper article with a friend (by blogging it) involves copying, and so triggers copyright. Now watching a movie (by downloading it) involves copying, so it triggers copyright. The rules that are supposed to be interpreted by lawyers at Fortune 100 companies now apply to every single kid working on a project for her class’s website.

This is like having to file with the SEC every time you loan a buddy $5 for lunch.

One would hope that the MPAA as an organization would learn from this experience.

Here’s the brief Google line: I think that UT’s contract with Google will be available from the University in the near future, I believe online.

In Kahle v. Gonzalez, the head of the Internet Archive Brewster Kahle challenged the change of the copyright system from opt-in to opt-out, stating that this change was unconstitutional. Kahle also believed that this change prevented librarians from having digital materials on their shelves, particularly with respect to orphan works. The Ninth Circuit court of appeals disagreed, decided that this case was not very different from Eldred v. Ashcroft, and affirmed the lower court’s decision for Gonzalez. I’ll respectfully disagree slightly with a Scrivener’s Error post from January 22nd, in which the author argues that the opt-in/opt-out terminology is inept.

I agree that once a work is created and fixed that it is in copyright, period. I also agree that the GNU License, Creative Commons License, etc., are basically covenants not to sue rather than opt-out mechanisms, with one caveat- the most popular versions of those licenses meet that description, but there is a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication. However, the fact that these licenses aren’t mechanisms to opt-out does not mean that the system itself hasn’t changed to an opt-out system, particularly from the perspective of users of copyrighted materials. Even though a copyright holder must opt in for legal remedies, the work itself is now in copyright as soon as it is created. That automatic existence of copyright requires creators to opt out of the copyright system if they want their work in the public domain, rather than opting in to the copyright system by registration.

Of couse, I guess overall I agree that the terminology could be clearer, so maybe I’m not disagreeing that much.

As reported by the Austin Statesman, UT is apparently joining the Google digitization project (may require registration). I’d heard rumors that this was going to happen for quite awhile, but now it’s confirmed, and it looks like President Powers thinks it’s a good idea. I hope to find out more from people who work there soon. The University Libraries has committed to many digital projects recently. On one hand, it’s good that the University is doing some interesting things with digital preservation and similar projects; on the other, I really don’t think that all print materials can be considered “legacy collections,” as I’ve heard some refer to them. As for the Google participation, we’ll need to see what that means for us…

Update: UT’s Announcement

ZDNet is reporting that a virtual land owner in Second Life is sending DMCA takedown notices to persons using screen shots of the now infamous, to put it bluntly, flying penis attack at a CNET interview with that person. There are several problems with this tactic, as ZDNet notes. Although the person has copyright in their Second Life avatar, that does not mean that they can control all uses of their copyrighted work. They certainly can’t stop fair uses, of which the reports including screenshots almost certainly qualify as.

Another problem is that one of the people they sent the notice to was the Sydney Morning Herald, which does not currently have to follow the U.S. DMCA, although they have their own copyright issues over there. 😛

The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi (Spoilerific Wikipedia Entry) was one of my wife’s and my favorite shows of this past year. It’s unique in a lot of ways- from it’s play on traditional anime themes to it’s interesting use of chronology. Plus, it’s hilarious.

The anime community has had a long tradition of making works available in countries outside of Japan before they’re released in the form of fansubs, copies that are subtitled and distributed by fans. The practice of fansubbing has evolved a great deal since the creation and increase in use of the Internet. At any rate, it’s one of the reasons anime is so popular in the U.S. now. Now, Japan has always had interesting practices regarding fan based works. I’ve mentioned some of them before in the Otakon thread. Basically, a lot of things go on that are technically copyright infringement- such as the creation and sale of derivative doujinshi (fan comics)- but for whatever reason, some companies don’t enforce their copyrights. Even in the US, different companies have been known to appreciate fansubs. The fansubbing community has it’s own ethical standards as well- once a work is licensed in the U.S., distribution generally stops.

Well, Bandai has done something interesting now that they’ve licensed Suzumiya Haruhi.

http://www.asosbrigade.com/

First, they make a fan-like video with actors and actresses in the manner mirroring the show itself. They also thank fans who get the fansubs and buy DVDs, and specifically don’t thank people who get the fansubs and don’t buy the licensed DVDs. ^_^ They also make “mistakes-” like forgetting to subtitle the first video. (The “fixed” video is now up.) Fun. They’ve also got a MySpace page for the show.

Assuming the IGN article is based on correct information, the RIAA wants to lower artist royalties…

How do we measure whether or not copyright is working? That’s one of the main reasons I came to doctoral school. We’re stuck in a legal and strict economic framework rut in a lot of ways, in my opinion. This makes sense in many ways; copyright is both a legal issue and is based on economic incentives. Talking with Georgia has helped me think about these things. Legal research generally uses legal analysis to advocate for or against a particular position, using statutes and case law as primary sources and other information as secondary sources. When we talk about copyright research, that’s the type of research that immediately comes to mind for many people. Economics often plays a big role in copyright-related research, and in my survey of copyright-related research this semester economics and business were the sources for a lot of the empirical data that has been gathered related to copyright. But I don’t think they’re measuring the right things much of the time, and I think they’re coming to the table with a lot of assumptions that are neither elucidated nor entirely correct. The kinds of things that tend to be measured are profit-related, sales related, or otherwise market-related. That’s useful information, but there’s more to looking at the effectiveness of copyright than those things. However, we don’t have good ways of structuring arguments that judges and policy-makers seem to find compelling about effects other than those that are strictly market-oriented. That’s a problem.

The paper I was referring to in an earlier post was based on a number of questions, including the above. I was attempting to look at research about how copyright affects education. I’m interested for a variety of reasons: my association with ALA, my knowing people in education both primary and secondary, and so on. But how are its affects on the missions and practices of educational institutions measured? There really hasn’t been a great deal of research in the area. There isn’t a lot of empirical research about copyright in education. There are some exceptions to the usual market-based information produced- and Siva’s Critical Information Studies bibliography is a perfect starting point for that kind of research. CIS in general is useful as both a lens to use when examining existing copyright research and as a framework for using other types of research. So, what are the appropriate metrics and methodologies that should be used?

How effectively is copyright doing it’s job? How effectively is it promoting the progress of science and useful arts? Is the economic incentive actually helping the dissemination of knowledge and promoting the creation and use of new works? As is often pointed out on Scrivener’s Error, publishers and authors are not the same- and a lot of copyright talk treats them the same. I found this recent post related to the Gowers Report out of the UK particularly interesting.

Fascinating. Someone asked me some questions about webcasting, and I found this gem of misleading information on an RIAA page:

The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.

However, with the birth of digital transmission technology, Congress understood the importance of establishing a sound recording performance right for digital transmissions, and did so in 1995 with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (“DPRA”). In doing so, Congress “grandfathered” the old world of terrestrial broadcasting, but required everyone (including broadcasters) operating in the new world of digital transmissions to pay their fair share for using copyrighted sound recordings in their business.

—–

I love the terminology here. “An historical accident.” “Congress understood.” “Fair share.” Translated, this means that in the past, Congress understood the point of copyright much better than they have in the more recent past.

The RIAA is an advocacy group. We know that. But they could do a better job of considering and acknowledging other perspectives.