Slashdot Mirror
Disney Video Used to Explain Copyright
Recently a pretty amazing video surfaced that used clips from Disney films to explain copyright law. It was created by Eric Faden of Bucknell University and must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble. Now you have to wonder how long before someone gets sued over it. Also here is a corel cache version as well as a link to the original page.
Comments are being promoted to stories now? Maybe this one will be!
Mickey: Hi kids do you know what copyright is? Kids: Is that when you sued my dead grandmother Mickey? Mickey: That's right kids...
Infiltrated dot Net
Somewhat related and nice:
o x.html
http://dustrunners.blogspot.com/2006/07/pig-and-b
He also fails to acknowledge trademarks (i.e., the Disney logo) as a separate issue from "copyright." There is no "fair use" of trademarks like there is with copyright.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Geez guys - even BoingBoing could find this one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
enjoy.
Maybe someone who managed to get the mp4 file before this went live could make a torrent of it ?
Naturally a random slashdotter knows more about copyright than the people at Stanford's law center...
That might be the point, but it doesn't mean it *is* fair use. It's an edge case that I wouldn't want to have to decide about. It might be fair use, but then again it might not. The google decision recently reported will be a trivial case compared to this one, if it ever gets contested.
Even for the 65 seconds I could bear to watch it.
I expected something along the lines of "posting and you". Instead i got a bunch of video cuts that, even when they were brilliant, the words weren't clear enough. If he only had used subtitles...
The video falls under fair use as it makes brief use of copyrighted works in an educational manner, and doesn't devalue any of the material that it uses in its clips.
I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't hoping for a DMCA takedown notice by Disney.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.
There's no fair use of trademarks in the sense of leading people to endorse something, but you sure as hell can use them in a criticism. And indeed, that's a damning and accurtate criticism of copyright, which Disney led the charge in twisting. Ironically that success has lead to their stagnation and need to aquire other companies rather than produce there own content internally.
IANAL, but as stated in the video, fair use isn't a right, it's a legally defensible position, which the video itself is supposed to occupy. The use of short segments of copyrighted material for purposes of commentary and comedy is categorized as fair use. I'm pretty sure the video is a comedic commentary, and it also only uses short segments.
The coral cache link isn't working for me at least, but mirrordot seems to have caught it. Just be sure to chop off the first 3635 bytes of HTML prepended to the file.
butter the donkey
Well if you watch through the whole video you will see that they reference this video as basically being an experiment. If the creators of the video are understanding and interpreting everything they think they should be protected from the law. The only problem is that the law still allows someone to sue you even if they are wrong. Going to court and defending yourself isn't free, even if your attorney is...
Honestly, I would be quite interested in what Disney does on this one. This would be nice to track.
On the contrary, Disney is the perfect target. What other company has benefited so much by taking from the public domain, yet continuously refuses to release anything back.
Maybe you should watch the video.
Maybe I should (dang internet filtering at the office). But my point was more: "I hope this person knows what they're letting themselves in for..."
Even if this does fit within "fair use" - I've no idea, I'm not an American, and UK copyright law is far more restrictive about this sort of thing - the creator had better be prepared for the possibility of a legal fight to establish that. That's all I was saying.
It's a short video (about 5 min) composed almost entirely of super-short clips from Disney films. Each clip typically has one or just a few words spoken by a Disney cartoon character, but the words when strung together describe copyright law, and makes a reasonable argument that it should have shorter, rather than longer duration. It also describes fair use. The film starts out with a potential violation, with Disney's film opening (the castle, and tune that goes with it). This was shown as something that can be copyrighted, and clearly does not diminish it's value, so they may be able to argue that it was fair use. I suspect this was done on purpose to pose a challenge to Disney. It ends with full disclosure of the authors, and lists each segment that was borrowed under "fair use". The film says that the original copyright law allowed for only 17 years of protection, but that today the duration is your lifetime plus 70 years for an individual, and over 100 years for a corporation. Personally, I think your works should become public domain after you die, and that corporations should have similar time-periods, let's say about 50 years.
Personally, I hope the authors achieve some success in swaying public opinion in favor of reasonable restrictions on copyright length.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Actually, if you want to get picky... if it were a copyright violation (which it isn't), then it would be a civil breach, not a criminal one.
And your post, which some might think* should be criminal, is really just indicative of a low watt bulb.
* This author does not disclose what he believes on this subject on the grounds that he would absolutely incriminate himself.
The public domain is a disgrace to the forces of evil
As I've said in another reply, I'm well aware what the purpose of the video was. My point was more that the creator had better be ready for a legal fight to demonstrate that it is fair use. I can't see Disney shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Meh. It's fair use. What's the point setting our lawyers onto them?"
Well, considering this was released in conjunction with Stanford Law School, I'm betting they're very prepared to stand up to Disney should it come down to it.
This guy's the limit!
...something that was pretty much laurel-and-hardy-slap-in-the-face implied by the video.
Episode V: "The Disney Empire Strikes Back".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Of course. At slashdot, we know more about just about anything than those klutzes outside our IT departments. That's also why we don't even have to read the articles. We already know this stuff. And being at slashdot, you should know it too, instead of making sarcastic remarks.
Actually there is a fair use doctrine in trademark law, and it's called fair use, but it's quite different from the fair use doctrine of copyright law, which can lead to some confusion if you end up talking about both. Usually you end up having to qualify which one you mean.
I found the quick cuts too jarring to allow me to watch more than a minute of it, but as for the use of the logo in the beginning, he has a decent position. Nominative use is allowed -- how can he say he's not affiliated with Disney if he can't say the name 'Disney' in the disclaimer? But the use of the entire animated logo and music would need to fall under the overall parody, which had better be non-commercial in nature, as this one appears to be. His position isn't airtight; he'd've done better to just simply say that he wasn't affiliated with Disney, rather than to use the logo animation, but he has a decent argument in his favor.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
All I can say about this is... wow. What a piece of editing that was. Just the shear workforce-hours involved documenting the needed phrases within Disney works. The dripping irony of using Disney clips is too precious for words.
I'm not one to waste space with a "me too" post that is essentially just the noise of me clapping, but this video deserves a standing ovation.
It's annoying to watch. Rather than redub the animation, or frame it in a dialogue, he uses extremely short clips of various Disney cartoons to recite his script by using one clip per word (generally), and since the tones of voice, speed at which they're talking, etc. all vary, it sounds jarring as hell. There's a lot of repetition, too. I didn't even get to the middle of it.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
50 years? BLEH!
With the acceleration of culture and technology, shouldn't the modern duration of copyright (and other intellectual property rights) be shorter than the original 17 years, rather than longer? The video makes the excellent point that all new works borrow from existing materials (culture), and so should revert to the culture (public domain) after the owners and/or creators have had reasonable opportunity to profit from their works.
What is it with all the name-calling on /. lately? We're sliding towards the Digg-level here... Please moderate your language people!
-- Cheers!
I have to disagree.
The use of the Disney logo doesn't violate trademark law because it was accompanied by a "this movie is not endorsed by:" line. The purpose of trademark law is not to prevent people from reproducing imagery, but rather to avoid consumer confusion. I don't think many consumers would be confused by a large disclaimer stating "this is not affiliated with Disney!" (anymore than they would think that my post is endorsed by Disney, simply because I use their name in my post).
Furthermore, the entire video is both a massive comedic parody, and a commentary on the current state of copyright. As the video points out, these are two things which are supposedly protected by fair use. You are allowed to use clips in order to criticize something and/or for satire.
Another bit of irony is that the author of the video threw in some clips from Aladdin, where the genie was performing satire. If you've ever watched Aladdin, you'll know how many jokes in that movie revolved around the genie making reference to all kinds of movies and actors. Many of the genie's lines are taken verbatim from other movies, for instance.
So, if Disney is protected by the satire/parody clause in copyright, why isn't this short, informative, humorous video? If a video like this is not protected by fair use (does it reduce the economic potential of Aladdin to show 8 clips, each 0.8 seconds long, from that movie?) then the law is ever more broken than I previously thought.
Seriously, is Buzz Lightyear the only character to ever say the word "copy" in any disney animated film?
A lot of hard work must have gone into this. But, well, the results are less than stellar. But in a ways it's more like a piece of bait for the legal department of Disney. It's not so much the message of the movie itself, but it's ability to force a reaction, that exactly the point of the message itself, that's interesting.
Viral marketing payed by the legal department of Disney, if you want. If it works. If Disney can't find a quiet way to kill it. On the otherhand, if they do not try to kill it, a small piece of fair use got got accepted, and will set a precedence. A win-win situation, as far as I see it.
TC - My Photos..
...that's what I would do anyway. Oh yes, it's funny. It's uhm.. hilarious. Look at that.. snippets from Disney productions used to explain the evils of copyright. Yeah. So what else is on?
/is/ COPY.. rrrright? COPY COPY.. rrright? IT! /is/.. a.. rrright! by the COPY!.. rrright OOOwner... etc. Would you like your newspaper to be written in the style of a 'ransom note'? Sure, it'd be interesting for a day, it might even enter history as a landmark publication.. but you wouldn't want to read it again. And more likely than not, you're not going to remember what the thing read. I don't even remember what this video was trying to tell me, exactly.. just that it annoyed the crap out of me - in a bad way. Quite unlike commercials for tampons and such which are very annoying as well, but I sure remember that they now come in a silky smooth and curved lines-variant for ease insertion from Tampax.
Seriously, watch the thing.. What..
So if Disney is smart.. they'll ignore it, and it'll go away faster than the SONY 'rootkit' outrage.
A much better video would have used snippets of the first Mickey Mouse adventure etc. with clear and concise narration, law references, case references, and so forth - it would hold attention much better.
imho anyway - perception is a personal thing after all
The fact that Disney is working so hard to extend copyrights to an indefinite amount of time is rather ironic considering their biggest hits are from public domain stories. In fact, I hope a good EFF or other lawyer gets to point out in court that basically Disney would not likely exist if it weren't for the public domain.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Strictly ignorant lay opinion here, but I'd think it would be OK according to the informal fair-use guidelines widely referenced by universities and libraries, e.g. the University of Texas system.
"Factor 1: Character of the use:" seems to me that in their first column it's nonprofit, and arguably educational. In the middle, it's criticism, commentary, and most bodaciously "transformative."
"Factor 2: What is the nature of the work to be used?": Imaginative and published, somewhere in the "doesn't tip the balance" part of University of Texas' scale.
"Factor 3: How much of the work will you use?" Only a small amount is being used for each work. I'm not sure what the total amount used from any individual work is, but it's tiny.
"Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?" I find it impossible to believe that a person with a copy of this video would show it to their kids in lieu of any of the Disney films from which the clips were taken. And I don't believe the Disney organization is currently making any money at all licensing clips for use in videos like this one.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Fair use allows for editorial or teaching use of segments of works - which is what this video is.
Furthermore it makes use of content from the company that you could argue has benefited the most of anyone from works in the public domain - Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, etc. etc. Is it any wonder the quality of Disney movies has declined since this source or original creativity to base stories on has dried up thanks to longer copyright terms?
Use of Disney works to give this lesson is genius, and makes a number of great points all at once. It's not like they would be sued anyway, it would just be taken off YouTube.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Shut up, poopyhead.
"It seems that the creator missed the point entirely."
Or you missed the intentional joke of finding the edge of what the creator can/can't do.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
maby YOU should have watched the video... then you'd know its not fair use "right".... they exercised their fair use legaly defendable position.....
sorry... had to point that out....
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
"It was created by Eric Faden of Bucknell University and must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble. "
It's brilliant, and all credit to Mr. Faden for his great work.
But re: "it must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble"... Just to point out how it looks from the other guy's point of view, I'd estimate (as a filmmaker) that it'd take me a couple of days to cut something like this together, plus a couple of days research. i.e. four days or so for one person. Please compare and contrast with the 3-4 years it took hundreds if not thousands of people to make any of one the movies shown in the montage.
Now that's "an insane amount of time to assemble".
I'm not defending unfair copyright -- but please remember, this stuff doesn't grow on trees.
And we all know that no corporation has ever sued anyone over something that's covered by fair use. Getting sued and winning the lawsuit are two different things.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
He could refer to Disney and use the Disney name without any problem, but the wholesale use of the logo, animation, sound is over the line for fair use.
you actually read the green screen FBI warning, it's not your ordinary copyright notice :)
Since when did Corel enter the web mirroring buisness?
Satire is fair use.
Given Disney's stance on extending copyright indefinitely, it seems to me that was the author's intent.
As for use of the logo, there could be trademark issues, but satire is, of course, fair use for trademark as well.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Here's two more chances.
& v=K4b7o4CJDdw
e lated&search=
Ariel is a dirty mermaid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related
and Jasmine is a dirty princess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqpD4zX7Sw0&mode=r
Original animation with the songs redubbed...holy crap, funny! Disney's Nazgul are already riding, the creators will be dragged back to Mouschwitz for sure.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Original page and coral cache seem to be already slashdotted, so the only way to get it is that eeeeviiil torrent thing.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
The film starts out with a potential violation, with Disney's film opening (the castle, and tune that goes with it).
Disney's logo is shown, while additional text above it says, essentially, "this is not endorsed or created by..." No potential confusion there, so the trademark (not copyright) is used appropriately.
Oh, and the original copyright term was fourteen years, not seventeen. Personally, I can't comprehend why the digital age needs longer copyrights than the founders thought appropriate in the age of crude printing presses. It should be more like seven, these days.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
I love the "The public domain is a disgrace to the forces of evil" at 4:58
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
The video, as far as I can tell, is like exploratory surgery.
Tangentially, actually watching it much like surgery, as well.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
I think 17 years is plenty long enough for a patent on technology. However, I think an artist should be able to profit on all their work for longer. Artists don't all keep creating great art as they get old. I think a great artist who devoted his life to his work should continue to profit during retirement... most artists I know barely get by while in their prime, so they have no savings by the time they reach retirement.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
The entire piece, including the Disney logo, is satirical and therefore protected. The key element is that the entire piece is satirical. Don't try to pull one section from the rest and you will clearly see that the authors are using everything to point out how ridiculous the laws on copyright have become.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Curiously, could you provide an example of a "modern great artist," and a great work he/she/they have created? I mean, we certainly aren't in the age of Leonardo da Vinci. What construes a "great" work today? Thinking of movies and music, most of those make the most money they ever will by far in their first year. I mean, how much money is the average movie going to make after 10 years?
Me, I think of Looney Toons. Most of those cartoons were made in the 30's, the 40's, the 50's, etc. It's been over half a century, and the characters and acts have been ingrained into our culture. Look at Star Wars as well. It's been, what, 30 years since episode IV came out? Star Wars jokes and parodies and tributes are all over mass culture. Should George Lucas still have a firm grip on those works, just to alter them and repackage them to sell them over again?
I don't know. Stuff like that just does not sit well with me. I mean, if Lucas WANTS to repackage it and sell it, sure, let him. But shouldn't the original be available to the public? Of course, the means of making it available are rather difficult to think of.
To be fair- the average slashdotter has probably been arguing copyright law here (and lawyers are in the mix) for several years.
So they at least more aware than the average populace.
Of course some are complete loons or in denial of the actual law.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Of course he'd have legally done better to just say that, but then it wouldn't be as effective. The whole point is that companies fight against fair use, and will intimidate you into giving up your right to fair use (by, say, not using the whole logo) to avoid getting a lawsuit that will bankrupt you even if you're right.
You should have watched the whole thing; it was much more than a mere explanation of copyright, as the summary claims.
I tend to think more of local artists who didn't make millions, photographers, writers, musicians and such. Many artists have such passion for their art that they live essentially in poverty to pursue their art. I think if they spend their productive years making the stuff, they should benefit during retirement.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Hmmm. Well, perhaps then, the length of copyright should be inversely proportional to the income it makes? (Like a tax bracket)
They are the defenders of copyright! If it wasn't for their lobbying efforts the copyright of Mickey Mouse would already have expired. Imagine the chaos! Anyone would be able to create Mickey Mouse material, effectively stealing money from Disney's pockets and removing all incentive for them to create anything new - it would give people free reign to steal their work.
...Oh, wait...
If copyrights expire then everyone could just profit from other people's work instead of having to come up with original material the way Disney has over the years. Imagine if Disney could just use works with expired copyright instead of creating originals like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, Treasure Island (Planet), the Little Mermaid and hundreds more
siener's youtube channel
Roger Waters
Great works:
- Dark Side of the Moon - a timeless concept anyone can relate to. One of the biggest money-making albums even today, over 30 years after its debut, and it KEEPS popping up in tbe billboard 200 after all this time. 741 consecutive weeks in the top 200 after its debut, and has reappeared many times, for a total of over 1,500 weeks. Not made in Waters' first year.
- The Wall - a concept album dealing with psychosis, social engineering, fascism, emotional barriers, and the futility of war. Again, not made in Waters' first year.
- the final cut - a concept album confronting the futility of war, relationship issues. Again, not made in Waters' first year, and while sales were considered disappointing for a Pink Floyd album (what, it went "only" double platinum? Yes, what a miserable failure that was.)
- Ca Ira - a FANTASTIC operatic composition about the french revolution. Not Waters' typical style but it certainly ranks up there with great classical works. Waters is a fantastic composer and while I haven't bought the album because I am loathe to fork money over to Sony, I've listened to the stream from the web site. Fantastic work. I'll eventually give in and buy it, but will check for used copies first. No, I have not downloaded it, FYI, aside from the streams from the official site.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It is in some ways, but not others. For instance, parodic use is not explicitly permitted under the fair dealing defence, but the Gowers review recommended that it be explicitly included - which HMG has accepted. The courts have repeatedly held that parody is generally acceptable. News reporting, criticism and education, however, are explicitly allowed as defences. This video would almost certainly fall under the second and third items of that list.
But the real limiter in UK copyright is the actual damages provision. Unlike the USA, the UK courts require you to qualify and quantify the damages you or your company have suffered as a result of the infringement. Additional damages can be claimed for flagrant and generally commercial benefit from the infringement. But there's none of the absurdly inflated statutory damages that you see in US cases. This really does help to limit stupid de minimis cases clogging the courts, which sadly is not the case in the USA.
Don't get me wrong - I'm more than a bit unhappy with UK/EU copyright regimes, but the Gowers report (and the howls of fury it caused from Big Copyright) gave me just a glimmer of hope that a sane discussion of copyright is at least possible in the EU. Then IPRED2 happened to crush even that...
--Ng
It's obviously intentional; they were using Disney's own rules to convey the intent of copyright, going well out of their way to piss Disney off and bait them into a landmark, precedent-setting case. You should watch it, because the fallout of this video will likely affect all of us and our descendants, hopefully positively by bringing Copyright back into sync with sanity and our Founding Fathers' original intent (encourage contribution to the public domain by the granting of a limited monopoly on the implementation of an idea in an artistic form)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Possibly... Maybe company copyrights should be shorter than individual? 17 years seems like enough for a movie, but not for a book. My argument for supporting retired artists doesn't hold for companies.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Oh great! So the current difficulties we have determining the copyright status of a work can be augmented by the inspired clarity of the modern tax code!
Parody is protected because it's a criticism of the work itself. Using works to make a comment on something else (e.g., copyright law) is a key element of satire, but I don't think it's necessarily protected because it is satire.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Interestingly enough, the greater an artist is, the less they need a long term of protection. As others have pointed out as well, people turn a profit on their work much faster than ever before in our history. The vast majority of works earn very little after only a few years of turning a profit. Then you have the long tail of earnings dropoff. A relative handful of works will continue to be profitable, but those works will have made so much money already that the creator will hardly be starving (unless he gets lost for a week in one of his mansions). The astoundingly small fraction of works that make little money up front, and a lot later, are an aberration, and not something to base the law on when compared to the public need to have access to our culture to reshape and use to express new ideas. Setting the copyright term to something that is at least defensible, maybe 20 years like patents, would help to balance the interests involved here. If the public is going to grant a monopoly on something, then the public should be getting something back from that deal. We used to, but we haven't gotten anything back for decades now.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
According to Sec. 1201 (a)(1)(A) of the DMCA: Disney can probably argue that all forms of media released for some of these films contained technological measures to control access to the work. So VHS versions probably contained Macrovision copy protection, and DVDs contained CSS. And therefore the author of this film circumvented the technology measure to create this work. Although another part of the authors intent here might have been to show that the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision unduly burdens fair use.
There's a collary there. A typical slashdotter knows more than whoever the expert is in the story only to the extent that he has not RTFA.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
It's educational, non-profit, and only uses small portions of copyrighted works to make it's point. If that's not fair use, then snalshdot isn't a website.
You can't take the sky from me...
Is it just me, or was the word "value" missing from ALL of the movies sampled so that someone had to put the word into Gantu's mouth to make this video? That was the only clippette that seemed to be dubbed. Does that mean there's no value in Disney's movies to to change though fair use to begin with? :)
Opera users who view the YouTube stream will find the 29 MB .TMP file already sitting in their cache where it's easily converted to a 49MB .MPG with Batch FLV Converter (for those who can't play .FLVs directly).
Anyone else can download the 71 MB .MP4 directly from here: http://www.filmspot.com/users/jrgreenmd/show_blog_ entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25002790
No need to visit the PirateBay - unless you're ready to pounce on POTC III.
- js.
According to the credits at the end of the video, it contains excepts from the following Disney Films:
Aladdin
Alice in Wonderland
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Bambi
Beauty and the Beast
Dumbo
The Emperor's New Grove
Finding Nemo
Hercules
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Incredibles
Jungle Book
Lilo and Stitch
The Lion King
The Little Mermaid
Monsters, Inc
Mulan
101 Dalmatians
Peter Pan
Pinocchio
Sleeping Beauty
Snow white and the Seven Dwarves
Tarzan
Tarzan II
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Treasure Planet
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
As someone pointed out, this video was "released in conjunction with Stanford Law School". Oh, you should have creators. The end credits had a bunch of names there.
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
I'm going to listen to downloaded music while downloading movies and dance a copyrighted dance all at the same time!
Brilliantly written and edited. I was enlightened by the part that says fair use is not a right, it's a legally defensible position. It is legal to copy a copyrighted work for the fair use purposes such as critique and satire. But the author has no responsiblity to make that copying convenient.
Movie studios have every right to make copying video discs difficult. They're not obligated to sell unencrypted data; they sell bits and we voluntarily buy bits. But it must not be made illegal for purchasers to circumvent that copy protection if they are able.
And I truly wish that the creators and Congress would remember that there are two parts to the bargain of copyright: an unnatural protection of creative works from copying and a reasonable, limited duration for that protection. Congress might have the right to extend the copyright duration to forever and a day, but it's a stupid move because it stifles the creativity that copyright is meant to promote.
AlpineR
It wouldn't surprise me if Disney came at this from an entirely different direction.
:)
How did the author obtain those clips? Hopefully he just recorded them off the TV. If he circumvented the Macrovision on a VHS tape or the CSS encryption on a DVD to obtain those clips couldn't Disney come after them for DMCA violations? I know that the DMCA has provisions for educational uses, but based on the parts of the DMCA which I have read they would only apply in the following event:
Every three years, the Librarian of Congress has to make a determination on whether persons who would like to use works in a non-infringing manor [ie. fair use] might be adversely affected by the protection schemes of the work stopping them from making use of the work.
Then the Librarian has to 'publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined' would apply in that situation. [See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html ]
So of the Librarian of Congress hasn't decided that Disney films might need to be used for non-infringing works, and published them for the current three year period, then from what I can tell, Disney would have the right to send a DMCA takedown notice, even though it is used for 'education' or 'critical' purposes, *IF* they believe that the author circumvented the protection schemes on VHS or DVD meda in order to obtain the clips they used.
Then again, I'm just some schmo posting on Slashdot from work. What the heck do I know?
Nothing to see here
I'm also just a non-lawyer schmo posting from work, but I won't let that stop me, either :-)
What you're saying is that if Disney argued circumvention, they could say that the video was infringing even if it was Fair Use. As I read the law, it doesn't work like that. Circumvention doesn't imply infringement, it's just another way to smack down people who make infringing copies, or who make or provide tools that others could use to make copies -- which may or may not be infringing. I think Disney might be able to convince a Federal prosecutor to indict Faden (the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA are criminal law, so Disney can't do it directly. Yet) but the question of whether or not the video would stay on youtube would be unaffected. Disney can issue a takedown notice, and Faden can respond with a formal "it's Fair Use", and youtube would then be able to safely leave it up until a court decided if it really was Fair Use or not. IIRC, Title 17 even explicitly clarifies that the anti-circumvention statute does not limit Fair Use or other exceptions codified in the law.
The big problem with the law is that it does not say that circumvention is allowed for legal usage. I think it's possible that Faden could be fined or sent to jail for circumvention, even though a civil court found that the video constituted Fair Use. So anyone who wanted to could legally distribute the video, but Faden would be in jail for making it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The problem is, it's somewhat socialist to prevent someone from profiting on their work indefinitely. This goes against our free market ideologies. When is enough profit enough?
Personally, I think 7 years is plenty long enough. Try to get a small business startup loan for a business plan that doesn't show a profit after 5 years. Same thing goes for movies and music. They make most of their money in the first year or two, so why the need to continue withholding it from the public in the name of greed?
Entire piece is also educational. So even if you argue that it isn't supposed to be satire (which it might not be), it's still specifically for the purpose of education.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
As an interested re-user, just imagine trying to look that up. Now, even once you tracked down the owner, you have to determine who is the legal money-maker, how much money they're making, and how much of it is a result of that work.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Hey, some of us are amateur groklavians as well, you know..
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Can't render video? As in your computer can't? I find it hard to believe that anybody in the targeted region of the world has a computer that can't render video. Is it a technical limitation or one of choice, I wonder?
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
It can take longer than 2 years for a script to go from paper to cinema. What you are suggesting means that your copyrighted work (the script) could be out of copyright before the edit is even started.
What about Knuth's books. A lifetime's work with no means of sustenance. Great, just what's required.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The video rightly points out that it is important for ideas to become part of the public domain, as new ideas are built upon the older ones, and as a whole, exposure to those ideas are beneficial to a culture. However, I'm not fully convinced modern copyright laws have a negative impact on those beneficial aspects. Not too long ago access to the works (containers of the ideas) was difficult to attain - works were expensive to reproduce and difficult to obtain. With the advent of the modern media, public library systems, the Internet, etc., the works are fairly easy to obtain - even difficult to avoid at times - and the ideas they contain flow pretty freely throughout our culture.
So, even if a company like Disney were to obtain a copyright for 1,000 years how are the benefits to our culture reduced? Are we less off because we can't write "The Lion King 4" using the same characters/storylines from the movie? The ideas and themes in those movies are already reproduced in hundreds and thousands of works (both older and newer than the movies) - so what's the downside?
Asking for a well-reasoned reply...and, yes, I know this is Slashdot... But I'd like to add to my thinking on this - which I realize may be lacking.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
mp4
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
In a similar vein, Burgess' "1985" will be public domain in 2063, but I don't like that book anyway so I don't mind if I don't live that long.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Codec? Stop being obsessive about "OSS or die!" and use another player?!?
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
I read your last line, "It should be more like seven, these days." as "It should be more like seven days." I'd be ok with that. :) But seriously, I agree with the technology argument. The more advanced the tech, the easier it is to distribute material and also allows greater profit potential (larger available audience, both in absolute terms from 200+ years ago as well as more people that can be reached). Copyright is a good thing, but it should be shorter today than what the Frounders envisioned.
Good grief! Why is it slashdotters only think in the digital realm? Just because more is being produced today doesn't mean everything is digital. Copyright doesn't apply just to digital IP. It applies to written word, digital media, photographs and any other number of things. Yes, 50 years is even too long, but 2 to 5 years is a bit ridiculous. There are plenty of books that I have every intention of reading, but haven't gotten around to yet. Should the author be penalized because I happen to have a long list of books to read and his/her work isn't at the top of my 5 year long list? I don't think so.
The problem is copyright shouldn't be the same for every medium. Maybe a couple of years on certain digital creations, and somewhere between 10 and 12 years for written word, or say 20 years for photography. I don't know the right way to fix it, I just know it's broken. There are plenty of people smarter than I who can fix it.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
The problem is, it's somewhat socialist to prevent someone from profiting on their work indefinitely.
Limiting copyright doesn't prevent someone from profiting on their work indefinitely, it just removes a specific mechanism that grants them the exclusive right to do so. In other words, yes, you're taking something away from the artists - but the question is whether that level of exclusivity should have been given to them in the first place. Copyright is a fundamentally artificial thing - you can't "possess" an idea, once you've shared it with others - that doesn't make copyright wrong, but I personally feel it shouldn't be quite so extensive.For instance: suppose Aerosmith were to perform a song they wrote twenty years ago. Fine, they're still making money from their old work, good for them. Copyright isn't what grants them that ability - it's the fact that the audience recognizes them as the original performers of the song that makes their performance of the song notable. And if the song fell into the public domain, the loss of copyright control doesn't deny them the ability to do that, either. Other artists could cover the song if it passed into the public domain, or sample it for use in their songs. So long as they do a good job of it they, too, deserve a measure of financial reward.
With something like a film it's more difficult, of course: when the film goes public domain, anyone can sell copies of it. The profitability of the movie is then rather limited once copyright lapses. Copyright could be re-asserted by creating a new version of the work, but that's about it. (for instance, suppose "Star Wars" had fallen into public domain by 1997: the "Special Editions" would contain the original film, of course, but would constitute a new work based upon it - meaning that if the audience wants the special edition rather than the original, the copyright control is effectively extended... though nothing prevents someone else from making their own "Special Edition" in this scenario...) Alternately, remakes, sequels, etc. could be made - since again, other people could do this as well, the creators would have to distinguish their works somehow - name-dropping (getting the original cast and writers back, or getting their endorsements, and making this known) would be one way, simply making a better film would be another.
The recurring theme in either case, however, is this: During the copyright period you get exclusivity that increases your profits. Afterwards, you have to keep working if you want to keep getting paid.
There's nothing inherently "right" about the current length of copyright - it currently gives the creator enough exclusivity to give them a lifetime of profit from a single work, to maintain exclusivity through three generations worth of audience. That's enough time for a work to be not only a major hit, but a major cultural phenomenon - combining that kind of span with exclusivity gives the creator a lot of power - too much, perhaps.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Of course, you anticipated that response:But this isn't an argument for long copyrights, it's an argument for giving artists more money.
If we as a society value what artists do, we should be willing to pay them well for doing it. Then we should keep copyright short, to give them an incentive to keep on doing it for as long as they can. Finally, since we have paid them well, they have put by ample savings, so they can live well after they retire. Artists get rewarded for their work, the public gets provided with lots of art and entertainment, and the public domain remains free and open for the next generation of artists to plunder for inspiration - isn't this a win/win situation?
Of course, the problem is that most people want new entertainment without having to pay artists what they're worth. In previous generations this was solved through patronage, which led to a small number of the best artists doing very well, but the majority suffered. In the late 20th century it was solved through increasingly draconian copyright laws instead, which had similar effects (the main difference being that instead of causing the rich people who supported art to become slightly poorer, it has caused them to become immensely richer).
We haven't found a 21st-century solution yet. I pray that we find it soon, because if copyright law gets much more repressive it's going to start stifling artistic innovation, and wind up killing the very thing it was invented to protect.
It's not even as though a work entering the public domain, even after a mere seven years, would stop its creators from profiting from it! They could carry on selling it, and people would carry on buying it, because people are as loyal to brands as they are to price. Has Coca-Cola stopped being profitable, even though cheaper brands of carbonated sugar-water are available?
And if they wanted more guaranteed profit, they could, uh, work for it. For example, only Disney would be able to record new commentary tracks from people who worked on the old film (which, being new, would then be covered by that limited copyright once more). Only Disney would be able to pull new footage out of their unpublished archives (assuming limited copyright was timed from first publication, which seems reasonable). Heck, assuming trademark law remained in force, you could even reasonably propose that only Disney would be able to use the original name for the film, and other distributors would have to change the title screen and so forth accordingly - the key thing being, after all, not that people could watch Mickey Mouse for free, but that the work itself could be used in new creative endeavours.
Sadly, it seems Disney et al. are more interested in destructive solutions, lobbying for ever-more-draconian punishments for the very people who love their work the most, than in constructive solutions, exploring creative possibilities for monetising entertainment in a digital age. Let's hope they come to their senses soon.
The vast majority of Disney's fortune is built on scripts and stories that are in the public domain (or that they just ouright stole). In fact, I can only think of five "original" theatrical works by Disney, and in that there might only be one original idea in there.
Now Disney isn't the only one to make movies from public domain stories- The Little Mermaid and the Jungle Book for example, have been made into movies by lots of people. Nevertheless, Disney's own is still the most recognizable, and the most profitable.
The objection is that Disney is ruining the public domain for everyone. Our country's founders certainly believed it was wrong, and any moral person can see that it must be the same for Disney to use the public domain, so must the public be allowed to use Disney.
Disney has lobbyists. And money. And confused individuals like youself. So videos like this are designed to get people talking about this, so that you'll understand exactly how it is that you are wrong.Copyright doesn't make people pay for your work; it doesn't make you a better writer, or grant you greater knowledge. Knuth's TAOCP stand on the sholders of other mathematicians and programmers, and are great not because of copyright but in spite of it: By rewriting the ideas formulated by other authors and collecting them into one place Knuth has done others a great service. If those copyrights had expired and that work was in the public domain, Knuth could've simply spent more time on other things.
I don't know about American law, but British law already has a provision similar to this; an out-of-copyright work that has never been made public can gain 25 years of protection when it is eventually published (source).
As for Knuth, I had always assumed his work was funded more by academic grants than by sales of his books. Since he makes drafts available for free online as they're completed, I'm guessing he doesn't worry too much about people pirating his work...
(I'm neither a lawyer nor American, so I may well be wrong, but I'd really like to see citations of actual statutes or case-law that state with certainty that this video will be ruled infringing if Disney decide to go to court.)
Personally, I think your works should become public domain after you die, and that corporations should have similar time-periods, let's say about 50 years.
I understand why you might think that but let's take as an example a novel written and published today. It shoots into the best sellers list and is making a ton of money and offers to buy the movie rights are pouring in. The author leaves his house to go pick up his four children from school and gets hit by a bus. Should that work go public domain as his body cools?
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
I would say yes... that's a good reason to have life insurance. I understand your point, though. It's the same reason many people are against any inheritance tax. It's also a reasonable argument for having something like 18 years after death, but I don't really see why 70 years makes any sense at all.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
For the record, parent is correct, GP is not. Parody is generally protected, and satire is generally not. Someone should mod accordingly. (Still no -1; Wrong though.)
Here is a treatment which I just found on the web, and so do not vouch for. Other descriptions are easy to find.
-snarkbot
"Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?"
Well after seeing this video, I'm never buying any Disney products again!
(OK, I wasn't already)
(OK, I've been a hypocrite for Studio Ghibli films)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
OK, maybe I do...
But the video is 10 minutes long, and copyright used to be 14 years, not 17...
But I agree with your stance, I don't see why a creator of a work shouldn't have copyright over that work for the length of their life... and a company should have copyright for the length of an average human life or so.
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
VLC played this mp4 and many others flawlessly. :)
http://www.videolan.org/
Open Source, includes all the codecs internally, and (if you're an American) probably breaks dozen of patent laws.
How is this, or "is this", different than "sampling"?
I.e. -- in the audio industry, I had (have) the vague impression that one had to have permission to include samples of someone else's song as a component in a new song.
Perhaps the legality hinges on this being a non-commercial work, whereas if it was commercial, Disney could be all over them?
What a fine line.... and yes...it is a shame that our current congress gives special regard and protection to corporations at the expense of the "people" / society / "the public".
Our society is that much "poorer" in that corporations have managed to "steal" their content from what used to be public domain (i.e. the time after the original 14 (17?) year copyright period).
Funny the video should not include Mickey Mouse (Steamboat Willie has exceeded its period) and Winnie The Pooh (a long legal fight over ownership has raged). Loved it nonetheless.
"Copy..." - Buzz Lightyear
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Generally, this is not true. There are two bodies of law in the US, statutory law and common law. The statutory law is written law created by legislative bodies, such as Congress, state legislatures, administrative agencies, etc. The common law is somewhat more nebulous, and is created by the courts. Where they are in conflict, the statutory law overrides the common law. Courts routinely must interpret the law, whether statutory or common, in order to determine precisely what the language of the law actually means. There are often disagreements as to the meaning of the law, whether it is acceptable to look outside the law for clues as to the meaning (e.g. a contemporaneous statement by the lawmaker that goes 'What I meant, when I drafted this law was...,' if so what sources may be considered, whether a given possible meaning makes sense in the context of other laws, etc. To help settle these disagreements, courts will look to what other courts have interpreted the laws to mean in the past. This is useful for several reasons, not the least of which is consistency, i.e. if case A is like case B, a court will generally behave in deciding case A in the same way that it did in deciding case B. There are two parallel court systems: state courts, and federal courts. They don't outrank one another, save in certain circumstances (i.e. the federal courts are more authoritative at federal issues, and the state courts at state issue). There is also a hierarchy, where you have trial courts at the lowest level, appellate courts at the intermediate level, and supreme courts at the highest level. Any opinion by any court may be cited as precedent, but decisions made by a higher court are binding on the courts below it. There are also divisions along geographic lines. For example, there are several federal district courts (trial courts) serving different portions of the state of New York. All of them fall under the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (appellate court). And both the district courts and the circuit court fall under the Supreme Court, which is nationwide. Many, if not all states, do something similar with county courts and circuits over them.
In many other countries there is a civil law system in which there's no precedents or common law. I don't know much about it, but it seems bizarre to me. I like what we've got.
Or did you mean that fair use is decided on a case by case basis? This is absolutely true for copyright fair use. But trademark fair use is a bit more limited. Trademark fair use, found at 15 USC 1115(b)(4), is this:
It's a bit more of a bright line in some respects than copyright fair use. There's still the vague word 'fairly' which could be stretched or compressed as a court saw fit, but you have to get to that point by not losing on any of the more simple tests, e.g. that you're not using the mark as a mark.
Still, the filmmaker is parodying Disney itself, which is infamous for its meddling with copyright and is taking strong steps to avoid confusion. I don't think that his position vis-a-vis the logo is as strong as it could be, but I don't think he's screwed.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No, I get why he was using the clips. I disagree as to the importance of this particular video. But what I was saying was that the clips are really annoying. The movie uses another clip for each word. I found this unpleasant. I think it would've worked better as a dialogue. Let there be a narrator who carries most of the weight, with the characters responding to him with clips that consist of whole sentences, rather than single words. Right now, it's just unwatchably bad. The premise is fine, it's the execution of it that I dislike. It's like the video equivalent of a ransom note.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
+Raider of the lost BBS
The author leaves his house to go pick up his four children from school and gets hit by a bus. Should that work go public domain as his body cools?
The entire point of granting a copyright (remember, it's a positive right) is to encourage the production of new works. Once you're dead, no amount of encouragement can wrest a new work out of you.
Sucks if you're the child of a bus-smitten author, but no less than if your're the child of a bus-smitten general contractor.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
But if you are a bus-smitten general contractor who say has just finshed a building but has an agreement with the buildings owner to be paid for the building over time then the children would still receive the income from the agreement.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
An author who had a similar contract would fare as well. The difference is that a general contractor's kids and grandkids don't get to collect rent from, or deny housing to, anyone in a similar building.
The point is that copyright is an incentive for production, not a welfare program.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
A good point, and doubly so because no one has ever taken the time to respond to my "-1; Wrong" snarks before and point out the downside of adding one. It just gets frustrating when the mod system hides the replies at 1 which correct the parent at 4 or 5. Not that I have a solution. :)
Thanks!
-snarkbot