Ok, I have to admit that I am not much of a blogger. It has never really interested me, or at least that’s what I like to say. So this will be my first attempt at, I’ll do my best, and we’ll see how it goes.

For the past few years, especially when at school and barring the occasional soccer match, I have lived without television. I had grown sick of the constant commercials and media b.s. that accompanies it, and as soon television became another bill to pay there really was no going back.

Now I am human, that is to say every once in a while I do feel the sudden urge to space out to one of the select shows I deem worthwhile (entourage, dexter, californication to name a few). Fortunately, up until a few months ago this was never a problem. I had always been able to go online (a resource clearly more necessary than cable) to one of my favorite sites watchtvsitcoms.com and stream a decent quality version of almost any show imaginable. There was no fee, very little hassle and ultimately I was able to satisfy my tele-urge.

This all changed one fateful summer evening, as I attempted to resume Season 3 of Dexter. I clicked my bookmark bar on safari, but all I arrived at was a page informing me that the site had been taken down. Though not surprised I was both dismayed and curious as to what had finally broken the camel’s back. WatchTVsitcoms had been a staple of my college career (spanning the better part of 3 years) and suddenly it was gone, for what I can only suppose were glaring copyright infringements.

I knew there would be other sites similar to watchtvsitcoms.com, but to this day I have been unable to find a website as efficient and well produced as it. Maybe I am just being sentimental, but damn it was good and always there in the clutch. Did it really have to go? I know it was “illegal” but it was not as if other websites won’t pop up and do the same damn thing; except they just do it worse. Shouldn’t we at least realize this and stand up for the quality of the work involved in the stealing?

Media companies need to open their eyes to this obvious trend throughout digital piracy and meet them head on by beating them at their own game. People will constantly steal television programs and post them for all to see. Once these episodes are out there, they are damned near impossible to fully erase. With this daunting proposition, media companies need to counter this by releasing free streaming television in extremely high quality on their own websites (particularly HBO, Showtime, etc). This will certainly reduce ad revenues, but at least it will steal all the revenues from sites like watchtvsitcoms. People will naturally choose the better quality, and as long as lower revenues are anticipated then they can build a business model around those streams. Look to Hulu and sites similar that offer high quality streaming. They are clearly stepping in the right direction, shouldn’t the rest follow? I mean, we are not exactly giving up our computers, hard drives or routers any time soon, are we?

I meant to write a blog post about last week’s article by Ginsburg. I thought she brought up a good point that we (or at least I) have overlooked so far. She writes “I have a theory about how copyright got a bad name for itself, and I can summarize it in one word: Greed.” Greed takes two forms: the corporation’s attempt to protect its economic monolopy through copyright and the consumers “increase rapacity in acquiring and ’sharing’ unauthorized copies of music, and more recently motion pictures.” She talkes about how the notion of sharing has changed over time.

Enter DRM to combat our greed. Encrypt our digital information to prevent file sharing. Save the publishers and the media industry because they can’t save themselves. Doctorow takes an extreme approach. He writes, “if your business model can’t survive the emergence of [new technology], it’s time to get another business-model or go broke.” 

I am all for the free market system and I tend to want to side with Doctorow (and for the most part I do), but what we are witnessing here (and by here I mean diminishing CD sales, a decline in TV ratings as more and more viewers switch to Hulu type services, and Hollywood films being converted to a bunch of bit torrents), I think, is something too important to allow be washed away by copyright infringement. I’ve had the opprotunity to witness the creative side first had, as I’m sure many of you have too. My uncle is a composer who is now contemplating signing over the rest of his copyrights to his publisher because he’s just not receiving the economic security of sales anymore. He’s actually very concerned about his artistic and economic future. I think there has to be a point where we draw the line and say, okay let’s set our greed aside, we need to start paying for these services again.

I guess I am just trying to play devil’s advocate a little. Afterall, as Doctorow notes, no matter what, there are too many Brad Pitt’s out there able to crack the code. Maybe reworking one’s business model is the best way to go afterall.

So, is it fair use to steal a music video, replacing the original artist with yourself as the star, while keeping most of the music video the same otherwise with the original song? A parody? (Click the top image/screencap; the video wouldn’t embed, sorry)

Like this music video to the left, for example. Warning: there are probably other legal issues, like how this 9 year old girl is sexualized, and it’s kind of disturbing.. It’s so wrong/ridiculous.

I have no info on it, but this was brought up in another one of my classes. I imagine her parents paid a lot to get this done professionally.  I’m thinking it’s not the same as singing karaoke, but I’m sure there are places where you can make your own music video… It’s just that this is really elaborate. The costumes are identical with wigs and all. So what do you think? I couldn’t quite watch it, but I skipped through and the video looks like it’s the same till the end. (Again, sorry, it’s so wrong and creepy, but it’s an example!) EDIT: it’s been removed, so I guess it wasn’t okay.

And I just want to add how unfortunate yet complicating it is that clothes don’t have a copyright. To the left is a photo of Trovata suing Forever 21 for copying their clothes, with no success (Forever 21 on top and Trovata on the bottom). Well, it’s not like Trovata invented stripes, right?

Hey everyone,

Just a heads up for our Take Home Assignment #1. Open Jurist is a great website to find published court opinions for any fair use cases you may want to look for. I would find the actual name of the case and then type it into Open Jurist to find the judges’ opinions. Hope this is useful!

The year 2031 would have been a simpler year to publish The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall,mentioned in Carroll and Ginsburg; it would be when Gone With the Wind would lose its copyright and enter the public domain.

Ultimately, Houghton Mifflin Co did publish the book in 2001–and has since sold 150,000 hardcover copies of the book and 60,000 copies in paper–after a second time when the Mitchell estate later settled. Copies of the book continue to have “The Unauthorized Parody” label since it was ruled to have been a legitimate use of political parody.

Now, my point isn’t just about the amount of parody/text a book can legally get away with, but rather the idea of making a new story out of an old. Plus, I’m sure there have been school assignments and essays about alternate perspectives that infringement on copyrights. And seriously, what about all those fanfics?  Everything is a newer version of an old story. Why don’t the copyright intentions of encouraging derivative works align with how much its laws are used as creating new infringement cases? Indeed, as Ginsburg says, this makes “copyright owners look not only power-hungry, but exceedingly humorless.”

I was only thinking about this because it reminds me of this year’s Pride and Prejudice and Zombies by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith. Try arguing the importance of cultural icons like O’Hara when Jane Austen’s work has been revamped with zombies, successfully. It’s safe since Jane Austen’s works have been in the public domain for decades now, but what if she had written it only recently?

Now books like Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters are in the works (with a movie for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) and I see that it is a positive way to make classic literature enjoyed by the young and an excellent starting board for new creative works like I just listed.

It’s like this all is just a waiting game for works to enter the public domain so someone can make a good full-blown parody without being accused of infringement. The Wind Done Gone seems like a good idea for everyone except for the Margaret Mitchell estate, understandably, but this just shows how difficult it is to make a fair use case apply to everything. Every piece of work needs individual attention, which we can see is nearly impossible. How much creativity is being suffocated? Is it all about the reputation of the original character?

Since, we’re going to be discussing net neturality in further depth, I thought I’d bring up a baffling anti-net neutrality advertisement released in2006. Check it out here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPIYxtjLFeI).

It was released by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and it still remains on their company website today. The narrator on this 30-second television ad boldly states that net neutrality is “clever mumbo jumbo” and “nothing more than a scheme by the multi-billionaire Silicon Valley tech companies to get you, the consumer, to pay more for their services.”

The ad is accompanied by an eerie Twilight Zone-esque soundtrack, and the words “Net neutrality means YOU pay” written in big intimidating bold letters are plastered across the screen. This video is so exaggerated, presumptuous, and reminiscent of a horror film that it at first seems like a joke.

It is so strange to me that this ad refers to net neutrality as a “nothing more than a scheme.” To my knowledge, net neutrality is simply a standard that broadband networks have adhered to. Essentially, it keeps the Internet “free.” It is virtually impossible that Silicon Valley technology companies concocted net neutrality in some type of monetary manipulative plan as the NCTA ad suggests. Although Silicon Valley technology companies might support net neutrality for their own economic interests, they certainly cannot be held responsible for creating net neutrality.

It may seem strange that such a large, distinguished company like the NCTA would make such a far-fetched claim in a nationally televised advertisement. The NCTA surely took credit for the video, as it is followed by a  “paid for by the National Cable & Telecommunications Association” message. Ironically, this may have been the ultimate purpose of the ad. Because such a well-known company released the ad, people may not have questioned its outlandish style and accepted the alarming statements it made as facts. This ad may have purposely exaggerated net neutrality in order to frighten the average person who is uneducated about this issue, but trusts the reliance of the NCTA name. I can’t think of any other reason why they would release this ad. Are there any other interpretations?