Here’s an interesting story of an “infringing” parody.

The story seems familiar to online video users: fans create a parody video using pirated studio content and post it on YouTube, and the studio’s lawyers quickly have it removed for violating copyright law. But this time the studio’s marketing team relented —and even paid the fans to repost their video.

First, the story assumes that the material that went into the material is “pirated,” despite the fact that parody is a well-established fair use. Not having seen the video, I can’t comment on how infringing it might be, but the opening of the story seems to convey that any use of copyrighted material is “piracy.”

This is also another interesting case of how user created content is finding its way into the mainstream… at least in this case the creators were paid for their efforts (plus being able to use and display the materials, plus the exposure gained by this story).

Wired has a great article on how YouTube is shaping the future of video…both in moving video entertainment to a more user-created model (which the author calls “monkeyvision” but others have called “semiotic democracy” or “rip/mix culture”), and in terms of how the current media model might try to embrace this new phenomenon. I like this piece because it talks about many of the concepts I’ve been thinking of in a humorous way. The one aspect touched on only briefly is the role of copyright in this new form of creation. Tensions between the rights of both owners of original content and owners of (sometimes “mixed”) content uploaded to YouTube might not survive through deals and the safe harbor clause alone.

Judge rules for Craigslist in discriminatory housing ads case &
Craigslist ruling: Why the EFF is right to be pissed

On a largely unrelated note (except in the loss of control over law on the Internet), a Federal appellate court ruled that Craigslist need not police itself for violations of the Fair Housing Act. Discrimination in classified housing ads holds the esteemed position of being one of the few circumstances when the law leans towards telling a newspaper what it cannot print (Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations). More on this in the future.

What do I mean by the state of copyright law? Currently, service providers are granted immunity from copyright as long as they take down infringing material at an owner’s request (DMCA). YouTube could arguably fit in this category because they don’t monitor what individuals upload until they receive one of these letters (which they obviously follow through on). Yet, on the other hand, if one makes a ‘business model’ out of infringement (Grokster), there is liability for the infringement of users.

The legislation and case law in this case has created a situation which (as is common in copyright) is far from clear for owners, providers, or users. The result: if YouTube chooses to fight, may be a trip to court which would resolve the issue–but in what way? Will the courts create a threshold of how much infringement a business model could allow? This could create further complications for other providers in the future.

As copying becomes easier and managing control becomes more complicated, simpler rules will serve business and users the best because of a decrease in litigation. From what I can tell (at a very quick glance), the Copyright Modernization Act proposes to add greater complexity to this very issue.

I’ll try to post more about the Act and the pending WIPO treaty sometime soon.

Other Sources:
Copyright Axe To Fall On YouTube? (Slashdot), YouTube in Copyright Cross Hairs? (Reuters/Wired)

It also brings to mind the idea of “network effects,” where the more people gather around one technology the more popular it becomes. I think it’s reasonable to argue that people are more likely to think of particular sites for content, rather than an owners site. If this is the case, people might be more likely to go to YouTube for music videos rather than MTV, or to Google Videos for Government Archives content. Here, the network effect operates by people identifying a type of content with a service. The more popular that service becomes for that content type (regardless of ownership), the more individuals will gravitate there–even if that service has a lousy interface. Content owners may loose some of their control, but exposure may also be greatly increased.

Law

Patriot Act Bypasses Facebook Privacy

A student’s facebook profile was accessed under the Patriot Act when he applied for a government job. Privacy and legislative scope issues, all rolled into one story.

YouTube and the copyright cops: safe… for now?

One of my favorite sites, YouTube.com, is coming under increasing legal fire from copyright holders. For now they’re being a good corporate citizen by removing copyrighted material when asked under the rules of ISPs in the DMCA. One to watch.

Chat rooms could face expulsion

The House passed a law (DOPA) designed to limit access to social networking sites to protect minors. I need to go through this and the pending telecom bill to make a more informed comment.

Net Neutrality

Net neutrality debate highlights need for thoughtful action

I start with this post, because I think it’s vital to have an informed opinion on this debate. Click on the “Audio” link to listen to two of the biggest names in the formation of the Internet debate on the value of legislation in this area. Their one point of agreement: if we legislate, it needs to be informed, specific, and narrowly tailored to address the potential dangers (admitted by both) of a non-neutral network.

Microsoft asked to explain network neutrality stance, fights to avoid vote

Microsoft is feeling the heat from its shareholders to make a statement on net neutrality. This is surprising to me, since they’ve been much more vocal than Apple in favor of neutrality. Perhaps more specifics from stakeholders such as Microsoft could help sway the debate; or perhaps there is an effort to avoid treading too close to anti-trust waters.

Cell Phones Presage Future of Non-Neutral Internet and Verizon Wireless: Unlimited, Yet Limited, Access

One thing that I was struck by on my European trip was the advertisements for cell phones…not for service providers, but for the actual phones. Now that I’m back, I do see a few ads for phones, but they’re all attached to wording like “Available only through Cingular.” Essentially, the phones and their functions are tied to the whims of the network providers–the cell phone companies. Personally, I would be more likely to buy and use a smartphone if I were able to use the applications and Internet services that I want, which are closed out due to common polices among service providers. These articles are great examples of the drawbacks to non-neutral (closed) networks.

Google

I just read The Search by John Battelle, so Google issues are pretty hot in my mind.

AT&T Labs vs. Google Labs - R&D History

Links to two articles which are comparing the “new” and “old” ways of doing R&D within telecom companies, as well as how history (and banked capital) impact this process and innovation. I’ve blogged about R&D in America before, and this is a great look at some of the details on how this is (and is not) changing.

Search 2.0 vs. Traditional Search and Text Mining the New York Times

In the last chapter of The Search, Battelle looks at some of the directions of the future of searching. One of his more interesting points is the idea (actually from Tim Berners-Lee) of the “Semantic Web.” The idea is that the more data we gather about our preferences (search history), and the more our computers are able to segment digital data into more meaningful categories, the better our searches will become. These articles are right on point.

Personal

Why we have trouble concentrating

The C-Net Blog pointed me to this interesting article on getting better at concentrating. My “Search” reading has made me realize just how much Google has impacted my ability to concentrate. I’m serious. It’s a wonderful tool, but it makes it too easy to get off on a tangent by starting a search with an “I wonder about…” type of thought.

Finally, in the weather dept.: Thursday’s Downtown Storm Created A Violent Mini-climate

Thursday’s intense rains came down so hard and so fast that the storm created “its own little climate” in downtown Madison with new fronts streaming out from the central city, a meteorologist said today. …

The most serious call came early this morning when thick black smoke was reported pouring out of the front of a building at 1301 University Ave. in a row of five storefront buildings.

That’s my work