©opytalk

So, the last copyright post…we’ve talked about a lot this past semester.  Probably the biggest lesson I’ve learned from it all is that there is no right answer, nothing is clear, and everything will continue to change and adjust. In the future the digital world will only obscure things more.  At this moment current copyright law is clinging on for dear life and in my opinion will soon need to be drastically adjusted in order to be taken seriously.  DRM and other built in safety devices for new technologies will likely play a key role.

To end things on a satirical note…STICK FIGURE

Rated: from 0 votes

Since the release of the super sweet vampire movie, Twilight, the once sleepy and economically depressed logging town of Forks, Washington has not only seen a surge in tourism and Twilight-themed stores selling everything from Twilight action figures to fanged pacifiers, but also copyright infringement lawsuits.

Summit Entertainment, the studio behind the movies, which were based on a series of books by Stephenie Meyer, has been engaged in several lawsuits already to protect their intellectual property. In an effort to cut back on court time, Summit has trademarked the popular tee-shirt phrases “Team Edward” (main vampire heart throb) and “Team Jacob” (the wolf boy rival who is also smoking hot) and has also partnered up with the screen- printing company, CafePress, to create a Twilight fan website where people can go to design their own tee shirts.

Forks, Washington

The townfolk of Forks, Washington (which interestingly enough wasn’t even the town where the majority of footage for the film was shot, it was actually taken near Portland, Oregon) have claimed that a lawyer visited on behalf of Summit to ensure that the stores were in compliance, however Summit itself has no record of such a visit.

Considering that Forks was town that was so unknown before the movies and the books that town people actually refer to time as “B.T.” and “A.T.” (before and after Twilight), my feeling is that Summit should just throw them a bone and lay off.  After all, they took the name of their town so why shouldn’t the town people have the right to take the name of their movie?

I think Summit has enough money as it is and while Twilight may be their property in a sense, it is by no means their intellectual property, which belongs to Stephanie Meyer.  How much of the lawsuit money is going to her?? Probably not much…..

With the sequel, New Moon, due to come out this coming Friday, it will be interesting to see what new issues will arise between Forks and Summit.  Considering that the first movie had enough of an impact that Bella Italia, a restaurant featured in Twilight, increased their business with the sale of 4,500 bowls of $17 mushroom ravioli this year (what the main girl non-vampire character, Bella ate on her date with Edward), the craze will undoubtedly only become stronger, and for the small and depressed towns in Washington this isn’t exactly a bad thing.

Rated: from 8 votes

In his film, Rip: A Remix Manifesto, director Brett Gaylor takes us to the  streets of Rio de Janeiro to show how mashups have developed in Brazilian culture.  He takes a look inside the clubs and classrooms to show how Brazilian mashup music is made, listened to, and grooved to on the dance floor to show the music’s place in an increasingly globalized culture. If it can thrive on the poverty-stricken streets of Rio de Janeiro without a problem, then why are artists such as Girl Talk such an issue for us in the states?

New York Post writer, Barry Hertz, an apparent critic of the film was not so impressed and in his critique wrote:

“After marvelling at the artistry occurring within the shantytowns, the director stupefyingly proposes that the future of art and commerce lies not with the over-branded environs of New York or L.A., but within the copyright-free slums of Rio, oblivious to the fact that he is standing hip-deep in abject poverty.”

In my opinion Barry Hertz misses Gaylor’s whole point in showing the Brazilian music scene. The people in the videos standing “hip-deep in abject poverty” seemed to be having the time of their life dancing and enjoying the music for      what it was. Money had nothing to do with the experience. Furthermore, even without copyright, performances (such as the one shown in the film at the Brazilian club) most likely generated money through cover prices to get in. For the most part musicians make their money from putting on concerts and from events, not from CD sales, of which the majority tends to go to the already loaded record label companies. Not only in Brazil, but across the globe, mashup artists are mixing music to make something new and different from what already exists.

News update:

After viewing the documentary in class I went back home and looked up some more information on Brazil and the mashup scene. Apparently Brazil is looking to draft a bill that would protect mashups and private copies (like copying your CD to be an MP3 for personal use). If passed, this would be the first of such laws made specifically with mashup music in mind.  It will be interesting to see what happens and, if passed, how it will play out in terms of mashup Brazilian DJ sales on the global market.

Rated: from 8 votes

Siva Vaidhyanathan

So, what does Google Books have to offer that libraries don’t? Answer: Eternal life.  I know that Siva Vaidhyanathan (the Googlization dude) is lovin’ the musty library thing (and lets be honest so does everyone else at Cornell), which is cool and all BUT what about fires which tend to like buildings with lots of paper in them and also tend to attract lonely and introverted people who may or may not be arsonists?  Also, what about people who live in northern Maine away from such places as Olin Library with its 24/7 “Ask a librarian” resources and search engines and floors with stacks and stacks of information? Should they not have the same rights as us?

While the internet is in many ways impermanent in its constant rearrangement of information, it is also the most eternal thing we little humans got.  A Google library transcends, as with most other forms of art and information we have discussed this semester, a tangible medium and a single holder.  Vaidhyanathan argues that the problem with Google Books is that unlike libraries, it is less likely to last.  However, considering that as Vaidhyanathan notes, Google has become so hot that it is now a verb, I highly doubt this will happen.  If anything, I think that the move to get books, and now magazines, digitally uploaded onto the internet for all the world to see has only further ensured Google’s place in our future.

In October of this year Google reached a settlement to shell out $125 million dollars to compensate authors and other rights holders of books so that they could go ahead with the project.  As a patron of the Google Library myself, I can say that I am glad that the project happened.  It is an immensely useful tool, which I believe will only continue to get better as more information becomes available.  Having it has not kept me from going to libraries and won’t even if all the books in the world become full access.  I think that for those people who are lucky enough to have access to libraries, a Google Library will never replace it.  Sadly, I think that books in the hard copy form will continue to fall out of favor as devices such as Kindle begin to gain in popularity.  Libraries are becoming increasingly digital.  Here at Cornell it seems like people only go to the library to sit in front of the computer leaving the stacks to be a place to go with your boyfriend or girlfriend, or to do laps around when you want to stretch your legs.  “Library” is romantic, but “Google Library” is practical (at least in today’s world).

So, in the death match between the two, who would I say should win? My vote is BOTH. You can go to Olin library and sip your skinny mochachinno while soaking in the stressful (and supposedly motivating atmoshpere us Cornellians love to create) WHILE also perusing through the digital library.  Books at libraries these days are just an aesthetical thing anyway….and so deliciously retro.

Rated: from 4 votes

According to a CNET article from October 9th of this year, the “smoking gun” has been found in the Viacom versus Youtube/Google case (Google bought Youtube for all those not in the know). Youtube’s planned defense in the $1 billion dollar lawsuit over its unauthorized media content from shows such as “The Daily Show”, owned by Viacom, was that it had no knowledge of the existence of the content. However, due to recently surfaced e-mail correspondences from within the YouTube company between managers, it appears that YouTube was in fact aware that copyrighted material was on the site. GOTCHA!

This really messes up Youtube’s plan of action to rely on the DMCA clause (as cited in the article):

“(A)(i) The services don’t have actual knowledge that the material, or an activity using the material on the system or network, is infringing.

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.”

OOPS! The other lame excuse Youtube is planning to use is that they claim they were not able to tell the difference between what Viacom uploaded to the site for promotional purposes and what users uploaded. Cmonnnnn Youtube. You know that the user OffTheChain223, or BunnyBabe45, or LuvMama567, is NOT VIACOM.

This is not to say that I am on Viacom’s side. Viacom is just looking to make the most money it can by going after the corporation rather than the top users who are actually uploading the big chunks of the copyrighted material. In the end the reporter, Greg Sandoval, concludes what will probably happen is that Youtube and Viacom will team up and agree on some sort of settlement to combat other movie sites such as Hulu and Netflix. It seems like unless these media content hosting site like Youtube can setup some kind of advanced filtering technology, copyrighted material will continue to get posted whether Viacom or anyone likes it or not. Once entertainment is released to the public through the books, TV and radio waves, etc., it in many ways becomes a sort of unauthorized public domain. The content is free for all those who care to put the effort in to make it theirs, and in some cases choose to share it with others.

Rated: from 10 votes

DRM is no longer just for music, video games, and movies. Publishers too have begun turning to DRM as e-book devices such as Kindle begin to increase in their popularity. In a recent BBC article, reporter Finlo Rohrer, writes about DRM in reference to preventing book piracy. In line with some of our past class discussion, Rohrer comments on the processes involved in pirating. He mentions how one thing that sets text apart from music in the pirating process is the labor involved in actually copying a book onto a computer. It is far easier to rip music or movies than it is to scan and upload every page of a 500-page novel.

Kindle is the product of Amazon, the single largest online bookstore in the world. This gives the Kindle device a tremendous advantage over other e-readers as Amazon only releases its digitized books in Kindle .azw format, not in pdf, jpeg, or gif format. Because of this Amazon ebook files cannot be transferred to other e-reader devices.

In the article, novelist Cory Doctorow compared the rigidity of the DRM for Kindle to the following scenario:

“It’s as if Borders were to do a deal with Ikea and say you can only read this book under an Ikea bulb and have it on Ikea shelves.”

He then goes onto say:

“DRM is not an effective way of preventing copying nor is it a good way of making sales. There isn’t a customer out there saying ‘what I need is an electronic book that does less.”

Doctorow makes a good point to say that devices such as Kindle are made to make reading and accessing books easier, not more difficult. Amazon will most likely need to reevaluate its .azw format to make digitized books available to all consumers. Rigidity has never been a selling point and if Amazon wants to increase sales it will need to devise a more flexible system.

Rated: from 4 votes

In response to the article by Nate Anderson, “Copyright Lawyer tells universities to resist “copyright bullies”, I tend to side with the attorney lawyer, Wendy Seltzer, on this one. In the article they make the point that kids are out illegally drinking and breaking the law every day of the week, but the school isn’t going around hiding video cameras to catch the culprits.  The difference between underage drinking and pirating music, however, is money.  While companies such as Anheuser-Busch profit from weekend binge drinking and underage beer pong, the RIAA loses money whenever a student connects to DC++ to download movies and music.  Whether or not pirated music actually benefits or works against the majority of artists is a whole other issue.

In my opinion Cornell’s main concern should be its students and their safety. By handing out student information to the RIAA, Cornell would be betraying student trust.  If students are unable to trust the Cornell administration it could lead to a slippery slope and cause much larger problems than pirated Miley Cyrus albums. Cornell needs the trust of its students to be a functional institution as the students are the ones that keep it afloat through tuition and alumni donations.

While downloading music for free may no be the most noble activity, the truth is that most people on-campus do it and will continue to do it regardless if a few kids get caught. The article also makes the point that universities by default are open networks.  We are all paying to be here, to benefit from hearing each other’s points o f views and knowledge on various subjects, why would this not also extend to sharing our diverse collections of music and movies as well?  Maybe you wouldn’t typically buy a reggae CD from a store, but if you find a fellow student on a P2P network with a Bob Marley CD wouldn’t it make sense to sample it, expand your horizons, and then wouldn’t you be more likely to spend money on that genre in the future?

Throwing student names and information out to the RIAA is not the way to go about penalizing music pirates.  If schools want to curtail their numbers of illegal downloads on-campus they should go for the source, not for the users.  Better yet, Cornell should cut back on construction and use the money to give students year long legal access passes to P2P networks such as Rhapody to condition them to use legal sites before they can be introduced to illegal ones. Just an ideaa…

Rated: from 5 votes

Oct. 7, 2009

Copyright Law has reared its retro face once again and this time it is about cellphone ringtones. A lawsuit filed recently by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers accused Verizon Wireless of Copyright Infringement claiming that Verizon and its customers are giving public performance every time ring tones are downloaded or incoming calls are received. Judge Denise Cote of the District of New York thankfully dismissed the ludicrousness of the situation by ruling that “Verizon does not recite, render, play, dance or act the ringtone either directly or by means of any device, and thus does not perform the music.”  Cote also made the distinction that when people play their cellphones in public they are not doing it with the expectation of profit and therefore are not involved in any sort of commercial performance.

Reading this article along with the Napster articles for this week made me think about the nature of performance.  The articles we have been reading this semester have all questioned the relationship between content and medium, but what about performance?

Say that you download “Don’t Phunk with My Heart” by the Black Eyed Peas from an illegal cellphone download Website and then set it as your ring tone.  The next day during your NS1150 lecture class your friend calls you.  You had forgotten to lower the volume on your phone before class, so the music plays at its loudest setting possible and everyone in the lecture hears.  Is this a performance?  Do performances need to be intentional? Was the person calling you the performer?

The internet, cellpohones, and now cellphones attached to the internet, will likely create more questions and more lawsuits like this in the future.  My solution is a big national massage day to make everyone stop thinking so much about money and Copyright law sot that they can just sit back and enjoy the music.

Rated: from 0 votes

In the reading “Battle of Networks”, John Zitrain discusses the evolution of network communication and how it led to what we know as the internet today.  He compares the chaotic information flow of our current information system to the legendary art/bartering/hallucinogenic drug festival that is Burning Man . And not only Burning Man, but Burning Man shoved into Manhattan, in other words: insane! Or, as Zitrain describes it: “people crashing on each others’ couches, routinely sharing rides and food, and loosely bartering things of value.”

How did the internet become such a terrifyingly chaotic place? It’s our fault. From the Hush-a-Phone, to the Bulletin Board System, to the anonymous vast network of our current internet system, the general public has been chomping at the bit to get involved and connected at every step. Zitrain’s discussion of how the internet evolved is not only relevant for understanding the medium that sparks the daily copyright lawsuits over MP3s, clipart, etc., but also for analyzing the internet itself as a massive copyright violation.

For the internet to exist it required people borrowing each others ideas and building upon what was already there, something which might never have happened, or maybe would have happened in the way Zitrain describes in his intro with checkbooks and attachment adding machines, if stronger copyright laws had been enacted and enforced.

Network can only be a network if other people are involved. And, as Zitrain observes with his discussion on the procrastination principle, they can only continue to grow if the next generation of people continue to build upon the previous one. Ideally, for a network to grow at its full potential it would need full trust (ie. open doors and unobstructed pathways to get to your flight on time, NO SECURITY CHECK POINTS! taking shoes off, or patdowns, etc.).

OBVIOUSLY this isn’t the case. The internet as it is now is about anonymity, virus scans, and the belief that the next email you get will destroy your computer and eat you alive! Because of this I wonder about the future of the internet. How can it grow without trust? Will it grow? or will we start some other network of communication entirely?

Rated: from 4 votes

In this week’s reading, “MP3 as a Cultural Artifact,” author John Sterne gives praise to the mp3 for being one of our generation’s most admirable  “container technologies”.  Among other things he honors the fact that the mp3 utilizes the same auditory masking mechanism as used by the  human ear.  He describes this process as the “elimination of similar frequencies, based on the principle that when two sounds of similar frequency are played together and one is significantly quieter, people will hear only the louder sound” (11).

Like any conversion process something is lost when we create mp3’s.  Yes, maybe this something is what we wouldn”t pick up anyway regardless of what medium the music was in, but the fact that an element is missing when I listen to my favorite Peter, Bjorn & John song on mp3 is still a bit upsetting.  I want the full experience of every song even if my senses can’t comprehend what that full experience is.

All of this got me curious about people, their perceptions, and their preferences when it comes to music format. Can people even notice a difference, and if so do they prefer one over the other?  According to professor of music at Stanford University, Jonathon Berger, the answer is yes, people do have a preference.  Specifically younger people have a preference.  For each incoming class Berger had his students listen to various music formats ranging from MP3s to higher quality recordings, what he found was that with each year his students’ preferences for the MP3 format seemed to increase.  His students claimed that they preferred the ’sizzle sounds’ of the MP3.

This notion further supports the concerpt of “container technologies”, the mp3 is in fact adding something to the music listening experience while at the same time it is detracting, ad apparently we love it!  Perhaps it could even be claimed that with every MP3 lawsuit, we love the sound a little bit more.  Just like old school records layer on an extra retro quality to classic rock music, so too does that  MP3 sizzle  Perhpaps what it adds is a layer of badass, a layer of oh-i-might-be-caught.  It gets the adrenline pumping in a way no legally purchased digital recording of Miley Cyrus ever could, and we are loving it more and more every day.

Rated: from 1 votes