Read:
Steve Collins, (2008). Recovering fair use, M/C Media Culture 11 (6).
Article about fair use and copyright. Gives a good summary of the legal history of the term, and its applicability to digital media through specific cases.
Comment
I personally believe that the media industry (radio, TV, music and news publishers) is only concerned because they are no longer needed for the distribution of media. And it's the same with newspapers. Social media has taken their place online and people are happy to share, but less and less to buy. Fair use is a good way to protect these people from being over regulated and also suffocated in their creativity.
Today I received a Tweet telling me that the designer who created the Nike Swoosh was only paid $ 35.- for his creation. Thinking about it and about the current copyright infringement frenzy going on, I was wondering why not every man and his dog claimed copyright, because they were the first to draw a swoosh.
(Further to clarify my point, posted on 20 March 2012)
Hi Deb,
Sorry I went a bit off topic. But yes, I think it is always important to look at the change in which law is interpreted by those who apply it. Where I work everybody is terribly concerned about copyright breach to a point that seems a bit hysterical to me. Although I totally agree that copyright is a very important issue in the age of Web 2.0 and the opportunity for everybody to be a producer and a consumer at the same time, I also think that it is crucial to understand how fair use can work for those who wish to create and use existing media for this purpose.
Also, it doesn't hurt to ask those who created media if they were happy for you to use it. Eg. when you select images from Flickr, people are quite happy to grant copyright if you mention that it is their creative work. That's all. No money involved.
In response to the file sharing question:
Author: Deb Pearson
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2012 07:49:25 o'clock WST
Subject: File Sharing: Discussion of the week
We have spent some time looking at participatory culture, vidding and remediation over the past couple of weeks.
This week we are considering the implications of copyright and fair use and our group discussion will be on file sharing.
What are the material and ethical implications of filesharing? What about when artists distribute themselves? Does this signal the end of traditional economic models?
What are your thoughts?
Deb
My response:
I wouldn't say that it will change the traditional economic models as the implications are limited to things that can be converted into digital files (media). But what will certainly change is the way in which media is distributed. In the traditional sense distribution was one-to-many. You had to rely on the distribution channels of distribution specialists to get your work "out there". In general that was the work of publishers. But "out there" is no longer restricted to RL (real life). Anything that can be transferred into an electronic file (music, the written word, images) can be replicated in massive numbers and distributed in a mouse click. As there is no sense of time or space online, data provided is also available at anytime from anywhere in RL.
Taking musicians as an example, many have realised that file sharing opportunities have taken away the benefit of limited availability. Today it wouldn't make sense anymore to release a limited edition of a song. In the end it is just another digital file. Even making it available only on vinyl, it wouldn't keep consumers from making digital copies. Here is an example of anextremely rare record from the 50s, copied onto YouTube. It is simply not necessary anymore to go to a shop and buy music.
As a result, musician like the Raveonettes decide to go online and engage with their fans. Telling them about the latest releases and putting them out on YouTube straight away. Rather than use traditional distribution channels they take ownership from creation through marketing to distribution. The music has become the advertising vehicle and the concert the main source of income.
From an ethical perspective I think that producers who use third party content should at least recognise those who created the original work they use for their own creation. Interestingly this never seemed to have been a problem in Jamaica, where every composition seems to have remained in the public domain for multiple reuse. One example is Stop That Train by Keith & Tex. This song like many others has been reused by Scotty. This one he renamed Draw Your Brakes. Rather than using samples or using the inspiration from the song for his own ideas, he simply put his own lyrics on top of the original recording. In other places it would have not only been a breach of copyright, but also a blatant attempt of plagiarism.
In response on File Sharing: Discussion of the week
Steve Collins, (2008). Recovering fair use, M/C Media Culture 11 (6).
Article about fair use and copyright. Gives a good summary of the legal history of the term, and its applicability to digital media through specific cases.
Comment
posted on Blackboard, 19 March 2012, 19:50
Hi Deb, I just started with reading the first article by Steve Collins. A brilliant piece of work that definitely helps to understand that fair use is not at all about good will, but a strong companion against overzealous law departments claiming copyright on basically anything and everything.
Hi Deb, I just started with reading the first article by Steve Collins. A brilliant piece of work that definitely helps to understand that fair use is not at all about good will, but a strong companion against overzealous law departments claiming copyright on basically anything and everything.
Looking at all the trouble people go through that upload videos on YouTube, I am constantly stunned about the media industry. I have been through the history of sound storage media since vinyl and the emergence of cassette tape. Apart from buying excessive numbers of vinyl albums in the 70s and early eighties and being a good consumer from the music industry perspective, I also used my tape recorder to record songs from radio, like chart shows and music specials. Also, I tape-recorded my records and shared the mix tapes with friends. It was common practice and nobody had any concerns. When CDs hit the market I slowly changed from buying vinyl to buying CDs, still creating mix tapes from the CDs and vinyl I possessed.
The whole trouble with an avalanche of copyright infringement claims started, when the music industry realised that their distribution monopoly was about to fade away. While CDs were easier and cheaper to manufacture than vinyl copies and also less delicate, the emergence of CD-burning facilities opened a pandora's box. All of a sudden anybody with a computer could mass-reproduce music at an amazing rate. And things have gone worse with portable storage devices enabling their owners to store a music library larger than the entire back catalogue of some of the biggest music businesses. But as it seems, artists have less problems with copyright than the music industry itself. Rock music legends like Dick Dale openly criticise the music industry and recommend to young and coming artists to take a DIY-approach.
The whole trouble with an avalanche of copyright infringement claims started, when the music industry realised that their distribution monopoly was about to fade away. While CDs were easier and cheaper to manufacture than vinyl copies and also less delicate, the emergence of CD-burning facilities opened a pandora's box. All of a sudden anybody with a computer could mass-reproduce music at an amazing rate. And things have gone worse with portable storage devices enabling their owners to store a music library larger than the entire back catalogue of some of the biggest music businesses. But as it seems, artists have less problems with copyright than the music industry itself. Rock music legends like Dick Dale openly criticise the music industry and recommend to young and coming artists to take a DIY-approach.
I personally believe that the media industry (radio, TV, music and news publishers) is only concerned because they are no longer needed for the distribution of media. And it's the same with newspapers. Social media has taken their place online and people are happy to share, but less and less to buy. Fair use is a good way to protect these people from being over regulated and also suffocated in their creativity.
Today I received a Tweet telling me that the designer who created the Nike Swoosh was only paid $ 35.- for his creation. Thinking about it and about the current copyright infringement frenzy going on, I was wondering why not every man and his dog claimed copyright, because they were the first to draw a swoosh.
(Further to clarify my point, posted on 20 March 2012)
Hi Deb,
Sorry I went a bit off topic. But yes, I think it is always important to look at the change in which law is interpreted by those who apply it. Where I work everybody is terribly concerned about copyright breach to a point that seems a bit hysterical to me. Although I totally agree that copyright is a very important issue in the age of Web 2.0 and the opportunity for everybody to be a producer and a consumer at the same time, I also think that it is crucial to understand how fair use can work for those who wish to create and use existing media for this purpose.
Also, it doesn't hurt to ask those who created media if they were happy for you to use it. Eg. when you select images from Flickr, people are quite happy to grant copyright if you mention that it is their creative work. That's all. No money involved.
In response to the file sharing question:
Author: Deb Pearson
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2012 07:49:25 o'clock WST
Subject: File Sharing: Discussion of the week
We have spent some time looking at participatory culture, vidding and remediation over the past couple of weeks.
This week we are considering the implications of copyright and fair use and our group discussion will be on file sharing.
What are the material and ethical implications of filesharing? What about when artists distribute themselves? Does this signal the end of traditional economic models?
What are your thoughts?
Deb
My response:
I wouldn't say that it will change the traditional economic models as the implications are limited to things that can be converted into digital files (media). But what will certainly change is the way in which media is distributed. In the traditional sense distribution was one-to-many. You had to rely on the distribution channels of distribution specialists to get your work "out there". In general that was the work of publishers. But "out there" is no longer restricted to RL (real life). Anything that can be transferred into an electronic file (music, the written word, images) can be replicated in massive numbers and distributed in a mouse click. As there is no sense of time or space online, data provided is also available at anytime from anywhere in RL.
Taking musicians as an example, many have realised that file sharing opportunities have taken away the benefit of limited availability. Today it wouldn't make sense anymore to release a limited edition of a song. In the end it is just another digital file. Even making it available only on vinyl, it wouldn't keep consumers from making digital copies. Here is an example of anextremely rare record from the 50s, copied onto YouTube. It is simply not necessary anymore to go to a shop and buy music.
As a result, musician like the Raveonettes decide to go online and engage with their fans. Telling them about the latest releases and putting them out on YouTube straight away. Rather than use traditional distribution channels they take ownership from creation through marketing to distribution. The music has become the advertising vehicle and the concert the main source of income.
From an ethical perspective I think that producers who use third party content should at least recognise those who created the original work they use for their own creation. Interestingly this never seemed to have been a problem in Jamaica, where every composition seems to have remained in the public domain for multiple reuse. One example is Stop That Train by Keith & Tex. This song like many others has been reused by Scotty. This one he renamed Draw Your Brakes. Rather than using samples or using the inspiration from the song for his own ideas, he simply put his own lyrics on top of the original recording. In other places it would have not only been a breach of copyright, but also a blatant attempt of plagiarism.
In response on File Sharing: Discussion of the week
Responding to:
Amanda Helmes
Posted Date:Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:35:34 o'clock WST
Edited Date:
Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:35:34 o'clock WST
My response:
Hi Amanda, this actually reflects what Lessing says at the end of his TED presentation. It shouldn't be a copyright issue if you do it for the love of doing it (Vidding). If there is no commercial interest behind it it should be fine. In the end we all have to dwell on our experiences and most of them come from established sources.
Responding to:
Author: Stephen Oakes
Posted Date: Saturday, 24 March 2012 10:39:06 o'clock WST
Edited Date: Saturday, 24 March 2012 10:39:06 o'clock WST
My response:
Hi Stephen, I totally agree (again). But as I said before, what really bothers me is when YouTube users "share" music with the online community, stating that the copyright owner is someone else ("no harm intended") and at the same time placing advertisements at the bottom of the video they just uploaded. This is where copyright should be put in place. Still, I believe that many "file sharers" just don't get the idea behind copyright and that copyright has nothing to do with the copy itself, but the issue of making money based on the copy displayed. Also, from an ethical perspective, I believe that it should be in the interest of YouTube and other file sharing platforms like Flickr and Pinterest, to make it clear to their customers how copyright works.
One application would be a test that users would have to stand before uploading or copying stuff. I think it would be far more efficient then simply asking users to tick a box, limiting the providers liability but not really putting the user in charge.
View:
A Fair(y) use tale
A clever and enjoyable comment on institutional attempts to curtail the doctrine of “fair use”.
Lawrence Lessig on "laws that strangle creativity”
An excellent talk about the impact of technologies and regulation on creative experimentation and expression.
Comments:
User generated content - three stories
1st story:
Souza like so many older people is hesitant to change, worrying rather than trying to look at the advantages and the disadvantages. Souza predicted we would loose the read/write capacity due to "talking machines". He predicted a move from the read/write culture to a read only culture and Lawrence Lessig thinks he is right. Is he?
2nd story:
Protecting property all the way up to the sky has no place in the modern world. I agree in so far that in the days, when property rights were first established there was no man made machine capable of trespassing over people's properties so there was no reason to negotiate issues like this. I regularly fly to Europe and it would be rediculous to ask for trespassing permission by every single land owner on this trip half way around the world.
However, in the realm of the Coal Seem Gas exploration attempts in the richest farm land areas of Queensland, farmers' property rights are limited to the top soil. They have no right to restrict the gas and oil industry from exploiting the land underneath the top soil. (!)
Amanda Helmes
Posted Date:Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:35:34 o'clock WST
Edited Date:
Tuesday, 20 March 2012 18:35:34 o'clock WST
My response:
Hi Amanda, this actually reflects what Lessing says at the end of his TED presentation. It shouldn't be a copyright issue if you do it for the love of doing it (Vidding). If there is no commercial interest behind it it should be fine. In the end we all have to dwell on our experiences and most of them come from established sources.
Responding to:
Author: Stephen Oakes
Posted Date: Saturday, 24 March 2012 10:39:06 o'clock WST
Edited Date: Saturday, 24 March 2012 10:39:06 o'clock WST
My response:
Hi Stephen, I totally agree (again). But as I said before, what really bothers me is when YouTube users "share" music with the online community, stating that the copyright owner is someone else ("no harm intended") and at the same time placing advertisements at the bottom of the video they just uploaded. This is where copyright should be put in place. Still, I believe that many "file sharers" just don't get the idea behind copyright and that copyright has nothing to do with the copy itself, but the issue of making money based on the copy displayed. Also, from an ethical perspective, I believe that it should be in the interest of YouTube and other file sharing platforms like Flickr and Pinterest, to make it clear to their customers how copyright works.
One application would be a test that users would have to stand before uploading or copying stuff. I think it would be far more efficient then simply asking users to tick a box, limiting the providers liability but not really putting the user in charge.
View:
A Fair(y) use tale
A clever and enjoyable comment on institutional attempts to curtail the doctrine of “fair use”.
Lawrence Lessig on "laws that strangle creativity”
An excellent talk about the impact of technologies and regulation on creative experimentation and expression.
Comments:
User generated content - three stories
1st story:
Souza like so many older people is hesitant to change, worrying rather than trying to look at the advantages and the disadvantages. Souza predicted we would loose the read/write capacity due to "talking machines". He predicted a move from the read/write culture to a read only culture and Lawrence Lessig thinks he is right. Is he?
2nd story:
Protecting property all the way up to the sky has no place in the modern world. I agree in so far that in the days, when property rights were first established there was no man made machine capable of trespassing over people's properties so there was no reason to negotiate issues like this. I regularly fly to Europe and it would be rediculous to ask for trespassing permission by every single land owner on this trip half way around the world.
However, in the realm of the Coal Seem Gas exploration attempts in the richest farm land areas of Queensland, farmers' property rights are limited to the top soil. They have no right to restrict the gas and oil industry from exploiting the land underneath the top soil. (!)
3rd story:
BMI - a counter organisation formed in competition with ASCAP - were the first to collect public domain works and give them away for free to their subscribers.
Lessig talks about spreading amateur culture and reviving the read write culture. Where people produce for the love of what their doing and not for the money (!!!) This is the perfect foundation and specification to wall off copyright arguments from industry. While there certainly are people who wish to profit on other's creative property, I agree that the majority of those people on YouTube, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and all the other platforms that create the social environment online, are primarily concerned with sharing what they love.
RE_CREATIVITY IS NOT PIRACY! Very good point.
BMI confirmed that competition can create balance.
BMI - a counter organisation formed in competition with ASCAP - were the first to collect public domain works and give them away for free to their subscribers.
Lessig talks about spreading amateur culture and reviving the read write culture. Where people produce for the love of what their doing and not for the money (!!!) This is the perfect foundation and specification to wall off copyright arguments from industry. While there certainly are people who wish to profit on other's creative property, I agree that the majority of those people on YouTube, Myspace, Facebook, Twitter and all the other platforms that create the social environment online, are primarily concerned with sharing what they love.
RE_CREATIVITY IS NOT PIRACY! Very good point.
BMI confirmed that competition can create balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment